Tristen

Once we see the light and turn from darkness, our lives will still spiral - but now in the right direction. Psalm 84:4-7 4 Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; They will still be praising You. Selah 5 Blessed is the man whose strength is in You, Whose heart is set on pilgrimage. 6 As they pass through the Valley of Baca, They make it a spring; The rain also covers it with pools. 7 They go from strength to strength; Each one appears before God in Zion.

Humans are corrupted. Part of that corruption entails the capacity to convince ourselves that truth is untruth (and visa-versa) - regardless of the strength of the available evidence. Further to that corruption, is the desire to be our own master (ergo, the desire that God, our true Lord - to which we are ultimately accountable, does not exist). This generates a confirmation bias against the existence of God (i.e. the tendency to attribute greater weight of evidence than objectively warranted to things that dispute God's existence, and conversely, attributing lower weight of evidence to claims that support God's existence). At some stage, people who find themselves on this self-perpetuating cycle of reasoning, made a decision that they don't like the concept of God, and therefore do not want to believe. They thus ride this cycle into ever increasing self-deception - all-the-while God gently encouraging them towards the truth - and they (hopefully, eventually) wake up enough to see through the lies and deception that they have wrapped around themselves.

I would be interested to see the primary source of this information (note - not a modern revisionist version - but an original, ancient source containing the claimed mythology). When I investigated the origins of the Christmas tree for myself, I could only trace it back to 15th century northern Europe (modern Estonia). Christians decorated evergreen trees with fruits and nuts and used them as the backdrop for performances of Biblical stories on the 24th of December (namely stories from Genesis - not Jesus' birth). So as far as I can tell, the origins of a decorated tree at this time have a Christian origin. There is a pagan tradition of bringing evergreen branches into the home and hanging them on the wall. But that is not the same as a Christmas tree. And I could find no evidence linking the two practices. I could find no evidence of Christians using decorated trees at Christmas before this time. I am therefore very skeptical that there is any primary evidence linking the Christian practice to ancient Babylonian mythology. Furthermore, having investigated various claims of ancient pagan deities being born or celebrated on December 25, I was again unable to find the evidence for any of these in the original mythologies (despite this date being the solstice in ancient calendars). Only the Roman 'Sol Invictus' was explicitly celebrated on December 25. But this is a post-Christ festival that was instituted over a hundred years after Christians were already recorded to be celebrating Jesus' birth on that date.

Every halfway-informed Christian knows that this date is not necessarily the date of Jesus' birth. The date of Jesus' birth is not given in scripture. However, the event of Jesus' birth is most certainly recorded and celebrated in scripture. "December 25th" is simply the day most Christians agree to celebrate the birth of Jesus. This is a myth. I know people who have travelled in Israel on Christmas day - and were surprised to see "flocks" grazing on the hillside. I can't speak to the weather on the day of Jesus' birth, nor "December 25th" that same year. But it is well within possibility that "flocks" were outside grazing - despite it being midwinter. Your argument does not logically support this conclusion. There is nothing counter-scriptural in celebrating Jesus' birth - regardless of the date we choose to do so. Then your encyclopedias are being highly presumptuous. (Though - to the main point - the Christian church has always known that this date is probably not the true date of Jesus' birth. Your "encyclopedia" is not bringing any new information to the table). The authority of a Christian is scripture, and not "Any encyclopedia". Yes. Even if all the specious associations with paganism were true, my heart is to use this event as an opportunity to worship and witness Jesus. Examining your reasoning - Are we only permitted to worship Jesus when we are given the exact date of the "reason" we are worshipping? Is there really a wrong day to thank God for sending His Son to earth? Why can't we do both? Firstly, He did not command us "to observe the Passover". We are admonished to share in communion with His broken body and shed blood. There is no date-limitation on this sacrament (as there is with the "Passover"). 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Secondly, the word Easter stems from the Germanic word Oster (or Osterfest) - which means Passover - as evidenced in early Germanic Bibles. Common claimed associations with paganism are mostly anti-Christian propaganda (even if your "encyclopedia" tells you otherwise). The majority of Christian traditions can be traced to Christian roots. Thirdly, why are we suddenly talking about Easter? We certainly do know the time of year Jesus was crucified. We can have a conversation about the role of the Law if that suits, but we should stick to one topic at a time. That conversation is of such a scope, that it warrants a thread of its own. NEXT POST Christians are recorded to have celebrated the birth of Jesus on the 25th of December as early as 202AD ("Commentary on Daniel" by Hippolytus of Rome). Your "encyclopedia" got this wrong. This is untrue. Christians were celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th well before the Romans instituted Sol Invictus (as demonstrated in my previous answer). Saturnalia was indeed a pre-Christian festival - but celebrated over the period leading to December 25, but not on December 25. The fact that evil is constantly trying to gain a foothold in the church, with varying degrees of success, does not logically entail that celebrating Jesus' birth is unChristian nor unscriptural.

No one is ever so far gone that our Father will reject them if they turn back to Him. His grace, and the blood of our Lord's cross, are more than sufficient for us. Nevertheless, there does come a time for each believer when we have to learn to exercise faith beyond what we can "sense" - to trust God whether we "sense" Him or not. If that is the season you are in, it's a good thing - though it may not feel that way at the time. I'd encourage you to treat it like a challenge, and determine within yourself, 'Father, I am going to stick with you whether I can "sense" you or not'.

Hi Starling, I think you are correct that the concept of "kinds" (a term borrowed from scripture) is "the key". The basic idea is that many creatures that we would classify as separate 'species' are related to each other via a shared ancestor pair. For example, there were no lions on "Noah's Ark", nor tigers, nor panthers, nor jaguars etc. There was only a representative pair of the cat form - which themselves descended from the original cats that God created on day 6 of creation. This significantly reduces the amount of animals required on the "Ark". I'd also note that the animals on the "Ark" were only those land-dwelling, breathing, blood-bearing creatures (Hb 'Nephesh Chayah'). This category seems to exclude insects - which make up the overwhelming majority of animal species (though there were probably many insects on the Ark amongst all those animals - And insects are generally small anyways). This leaves us with approximately 50,000 identified 'species' that would qualify for the Ark (i.e. before we reduced that number to accommodate for "kinds"). https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-species-are-there In 1996, A "Noah's Ark" feasibility study was published that conservatively estimated around 16.000 individual animals (8,000 pairs) would have been required on the Ark (https://austore.creation.com/product/1955-noahs-ark-a-feasibility-study-5th-printing). They assumed the average size of the animal was that of a small sheep, and that "kinds" was roughly equivalent to the Linnaean classification of Genus. Given these numbers, roughly a third of the Ark would have been free for other purposes (such as food storage). Hope this was helpful.

I would further interpret this as our flesh nature using pseudo-religious, legalistic thinking to place obstacles before our fellowship with God. Prayer is simply talking to God. We can talk to our Father about anything - big or small (He knows our heart regardless). Prayer is not some sombre religious chore. It's conversation with our beloved. If there's something you want to talk about, then God would love for you to talk to Him about it. But our flesh does not like it when we feed our spirit that way - and will fight to maintain a dominant influence in our thoughts and behaviors. Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

I think it is an inherent problem with having to use a translation. Some concepts don't translate easily from one language to another. But there is nothing to stop us investigating further. One might even suggest we are encouraged to do so.

Hi VA, I think the reasoning behind your argument is flawed. English translations of scripture use English words - which are not found in original language Bibles due to the Bible being penned originally in non-English-speaking cultures. "Hell" is indeed an English word with Germanic roots - defining the place of punishment in the afterlife. "Hell" is therefore an appropriate English translation of the Hebrew and Greek words appearing in the Biblical manuscripts.

My first thought on reading your opening post was to ask, 'Why can't you do both - why can't you pray for big international issues as well as smaller personal issues (and everything in-between)?'. Prayer is just talking to God. As His children, we have a tendency to be mostly asking for things from our Father - as is the way of children. We serve a Father of infinite love. He well able to look after both big and small issues. If you have a concern, big or small, feel free to discuss your concerns with your loving Father. God welcomes us to "boldly" discuss our needs with Him. Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need God values, and has concern for, every small detail of your life Luke 12:7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. When Jesus instructed us to pray, He included both the big issues; Matthew 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. And the small, personal issues; Matthew 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread

I thought it was just called "addition".

I would suggest a possibility - that gentile Christianity culminated in the establishment of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. The very concept of human rights stems from the Biblical idea that all humans are created by God, in God's similitude. Therefore, humans are born with inherent dignity and rights that are not subject to the whims of the state, and that the state is obligated to protect. This has led to a period of safety, and freedom, and prosperity for the civilians of those sincere signatory nations. However, over time, corrupted humanity has used this freedom to stray further, and further away from the foundational source of the human rights concept (God's Word) and started turning again to tyrannical, paganistic thinking. 1 Timothy 4:1 The Great Apostasy Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, Also in 1948, Israel was declared a nation - a significant landmark in time - indicating that the Jewish dispersion into "all nations" (Luke 21:24) was approaching its final stages. Given that we still have a tenuous hold on human rights in western nations, and that parts of Jerusalem are still under the feet of gentiles (Luke 21:24), I'd say we are in a transition period leading to the "times of the Gentiles" being "fulfilled".

Because ... These are better points to raise with a Christian believer who tries to squeeze Genesis into their long-age belief.

Having debated many Christians who are long-age advocates, they have found a range of varied and imaginative ways to reconcile long-ages with scripture. The argument in your opening post assumes they have rejected the authority of scripture. Whilst I do not want to presume to speak for them, I think I can say with confidence that they would consider this a misrepresentation of their position. That means, by implication, that most of your argument does not apply to them. For example, your first question: "What would give a God who did NOT create us in His image; who just watched us evolve over billions of years, the right to judge us? " However, the Christian who believes in long-ages would claim that the Bible indeed teaches that we are created in God's "image". Therefore, this "question" does not apply to their position. "After all, if a lion kills a hyena and takes his prey without consequence, what stops me from killing you and taking your stereo? If we are merely evolved apes, then the predominant law is survival of the fittest." This is an argument about the existence and origins of morality. But a Bible believer considers morality to be a true, eternal, Bible-based standard. Therefore, this is a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the position of those Christians who subscribe to long-ages. Nevertheless, the existence and origin of morality is a perfectly valid point to raise with a non-believer. The appropriate question for the (long-age believing) Christian would be: "How do you reconcile the plain reading of Genesis with your long-age stance?". The answer to that question will take you down a different path of argument then the one you have presented here. In my experience, the argument will then become about appropriate methods of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) and their implications for sound doctrine. I won't go through the rest of your OP, but if you re-read it, the overall argument suggests an inherent disrespect and disregard for scripture - which the long-age believing Christian would contest.

Hey RV, I would suggest that the question needs to be refined to reflect the difference between, a) Christian believers who feel obligated to the secular narrative of history, and b) non-believers who accept the secular narrative of history. From my reading of your opening post, the questions and arguments you present blur the two positions - leaving you open to accusations of misrepresenting one group or the other. In this forum, you are more likely to encounter the Christian believers who feel obligated to the secular narrative of history. They will claim, with some validity, that many of the arguments you have provided do not accurately reflect (and therefore do not apply to) their position. There are valid questions for both groups, however, the aspect of your post directed at to non-believers might be better suited to the "Worthy Pavilion" section of the forum where the non-believers have more engagement.

Hey @farouk, "Carbon dating" is the 'runt of the litter' radiometric dating method. It has some benefits, and more drawbacks, when compared to other methods. Due to the ratio of carbon isotopes being in a constant state of flux, and locally varied, there is far more uncertainty in the original isotope ratio assumption for this method. But in favor of "carbon dating": for things of relatively young ages (a few thousand years old), we can sometimes find a local artifact of actual "known-age" that we can use as a true standard against which we can calibrate the "carbon dating" results. Such properly independent standards are not available for older samples, or to other methods at all.

“So for a short amount of time (hours or days) magma is at a temperature where Lead could enter a Zircon. Wonderful. And where is your proposed source of *radiogenic* Lead isotopes close to all Zircons during that short time of formation, that just so happens to inject enough radiogenic lead to date the rock as very old, but also in agreement with other forms of radiometric dating?” Firstly, broad sweeping statements about the method being “in agreement with other forms of radiometric dating” have to be at-least evidenced before being presented as truisms. I would, however, start to take note of how often you use this argument – i.e. that we should trust the methods because they agree with each other. You don’t like the idea that they a calibrated against each other – but that is the logic behind this argument. In an experimental sense, one would be required to test the experimental conditions against an independent “standard” designed to give a “known-accurate” result. However, your argument here proposes using unknowns as pseudo-standards to compare against each other. I will also provide evidence that the supposed “agreement” is artificially generated by only accepting results that are in “agreement” (and rejecting/dismissing those results that disagree) – that is, another pathway of self-calibration. Secondly, how do you know how much time it took the “magma” to both cool and form? - And even if the “time of formation” was “short”, it still means, as a matter of logic, that I have every right to distrust the assumption that all lead in the “zircon” is derived from Uranium trapped in the “zircon” at “formation” – which is the whole point of bringing this up. Thirdly, does uranium only decay into “*radiogenic* Lead isotopes” after being trapped inside “zircons”? Why wouldn’t there be also be “*radiogenic* Lead isotopes” outside of the “zircons” (along with other isotopes in the U-Pb decay chain - that readily move into, and out of, “zircons” independently of temperature)? “And we haven’t even mentioned the potential of Uranium gain (or loss). No, because Uranium loss once the rock is formed is almost impossible, save for a metamorphic event” And by “almost impossible”, you mean, at-least logically possible; and therefore, something that cannot be automatically, objectively ruled out; due to our inability to go back in time and make the requisite observations – a.k.a. an unverifiable assumption that directly impacts the veracity of the proposed conclusion. “Uranium is extremely heavy and immotile (all isotopes) - and therefore cannot move unless the rock melts” You of course must mean, Uranium has not been observed to be very motile in zircons. What happened to the properly hedged language you were using in the first response? Furthermore, are all the isotopes in the decay chain between uranium and lead equally “immotile” – such that they also can (supposedly) never be exchanged with the external environment of the zircon? “That's why not even the most ardent creationist suggests Uranium leaching as a probable explanation for old age dates in rocks” I am not proposing a “probable explanation”. I am proposing a possible “explanation” contributing to the supposed “old age dates in rocks” More accurately, I am proposing that the method makes several unverifiable assumptions that directly impact the ability of the method to produce valid ‘ages’. Some assumptions may have different probabilities of being true than others. That doesn’t affect my argument at all – which is that the method, and the veracity of its results, stands wholly, and entirely, on the truth of its associated assumptions – which we cannot verify. And since the truth of these assumptions is not established in observation, no one is rationally obligated to accept the conclusions based on the method. “If you wish to posit a hypothesis however about how and why this may happen, you may do so here” Is that really the game you want to play? Your statement here is empty posturing, and not how science (scientific reasoning) works. Or - does your definition of science prohibit me from scrutinizing claims - pointing out legitimate logical weaknesses - until I have an alternate solution to propose? The requirement for an alternate explanation is not a tenet of critical reasoning. I have every scientific right to point out logical weaknesses of any proposed method – regardless of whether or not I have a valid solution to the problem. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: It’s a bad sign that you would resort to dishonest rhetoricisms so early in our discussion. I can only presume in absence of any actual hypothesis from you. All I have is insinuation, not explanation or prediction.” This is dishonest posturing. You have taken my response to a particular comment, and are pretending it applies to something else. This ironically reinforces my original concern that you have already decided to play games (to ‘win’ whatever it is you think is at stake), rather than engage in sincere conversation. “None of which logically addresses the potential movement of lead out of (or in to) the zircon Radiogenic lead cannot move into a Zircon, even during a metamorphic event, unless it exists in higher concentration outside the Zircon than within.” It doesn’t occur to you that, even in this statement, you are conceding that there are known circumstances that would facilitate the movement of “Radiogenic lead” into zircons. Remembering that my argument is that we cannot trust these dating methods to generate valid ‘ages’ because they are too fundamentally, logically reliant upon too many assumptions. Therefore, when you provide a possible circumstance where the assumption could be wrong, it logically supports my argument - that unverifiable assumptions are required to trust the method. It doesn’t matter to my argument how unlikely you presume the proposed circumstance to be. “I have never heard of this being the case (although I challenge you to present a case study of this)” Your confirmation bias is fascinating. In the one statement, I am “challenged” to provide a “case study” for suggesting something remains a mere logical possibility. But you are happy to present absolutist scientific claims without any hint of a “case study”. “Lead moving out of a zircon will (a) give a younger date than the true date (hardly a boon for biblical literalists)” This is another example of confirmation bias. Your claim here presupposes that the method is otherwise credulous – i.e. that the other assumptions associated with the method are true. You have also misunderstood the young earth creationist (YEC) position. Firstly, “biblical literalist” is a mischaracterization. YEC simply read the scriptures for what they say – interpreted within their own context. Since Genesis is written as historical narrative (and would be understood as such by any objective reader), that is how YEC choose to interpret it. Second, YEC do not consider the proposed dating methods to be trustworthy at all, and therefore do not consider the results of the method to be “dates” at all. Older or “younger” than expected; it makes no difference to the YEC position. “(b) be a metamorphic event that can and will be detected using other methods of radiometric dating” These “other methods” also have the logical weakness of utilizing interpretation based on unverifiable assumptions. The conclusions you propose here are not observations of what you are claiming. “(c) will put U-Pb dating at variance with other methods, with younger ages reported” Once again, your claim here exemplifies bias – that is, your claim is only correct when one presupposes that the method is otherwise perfectly credible. The following quotes are taken from a paper that used potassium-argon and argon-argon dating to determine an age of diamonds to be ~6 billion years old. This age was arbitrarily rejected as being “unreasonable” based purely on the fact that “U-Pb dating” methods had previously determined the age of the earth to be ~4.6 billion years old. “A group of 10 cubic diamonds from Zaire has been foundI to contain correlated concentrations of 40Ar and K which, interpreted as a whole-rock K-Ar isochron with the usual assumptions, yield the unreasonable age of 6.0 Gyr. The same age has also been determined2 by 40Ar_39Ar analysis of four additional diamonds from the same group.” … “If the 40Ar was produced in situ, that is, the diamonds really are 6.0 Gyr old, it is difficult to advance an unspectacular hypothesis. Discounting overturn of the overwhelming evidence for a 4.6 Gyr age for the Solar System, these diamonds, or at least parts of them, would have to be presolar grains that were never mixed with the bulk of Earth materials.” (https://www.nature.com/articles/334607a0.pdf) This one paper has several implications for our conversation: - It demonstrates that “isochron” dating can be just as easily questioned and rejected, as any other dating method – i.e. when the generated “age” disagrees with what the author presupposes to be “reasonable” – and even when the results from differing methods are in agreement. - It demonstrates that in a real scientific context, we are permitted to question the “assumptions” of dating methods. - It demonstrates an example of “U-Pb dating at variance with other methods” – thereby dispelling the rhetorical myth that dating methods produce broad, consistent agreement with each other. - It demonstrates how dating methods are calibrated against each other – with discrepant “ages” simply being rejected and discarded if they disagree with supposedly “known ages” (generated by “other methods”); keeping in-mind that the only reason given for rejecting the “ages” as “unreasonable”, is that the generated “ages” disagreed with pre-existing “evidence for a 4.6 Gyr age for the Solar System”. - This paper also considers the possibility of “excess” or “inherited argon” as an explanation for the unexpected results. “I'm not sure about your understand of geology” It would be nice if we could just stick to rational arguments. “but heavy metals don't tend to leak our of solid rocks” It may, or may not, currently be an observed tendency of “heavy metals” to “leak out of solid rocks”, but the dating method relies fundamentally on this being an absolute truth over unimaginable magnitudes of unobserved time. It is one of several major assumptions that the method needs to be true in order to justify acceptance of the generated ‘dates’. That is, this a necessary assumption of stupendous magnitude – and a logical requirement for trusting in the method. “Nor do I understand where you think all the high-concentration rare heavy metal isotopes that are moving into these rocks to give artifically high dates are coming from?” And I don’t “understand” why you think these can only magically appear inside a formed zircon – i.e. if they didn’t already exist in the preformed environment. And, you haven’t yet evidenced that such an exchange can only happen in some supposedly pseudo-osmotic process. And, they are only “dates” at all if the method (and all its foundational assumptions) are otherwise true. My side of the argument doesn’t claim the “dates” to be “artificially high”, but fundamentally untrustworthy (not “dates” at all). Characterizing them as “artificially high dates” is a biased misrepresentation of my position. And, we have thus far ignored the known propensities for other isotopes in the U-Pb decay chain to freely move about zircons. [AND – we have yet to discuss the known propensity for lead to redistribute and concentrate in areas of crystals; AS WELL AS the known tendency of older crystals to release lead through wear over time] “They are very, very rare in nature, and by their very definition are all radiogenic!” Did the uranium not exist before it appeared inside the newly formed zircon? Or if uranium did exist before being trapped inside a zircon, was it not decaying into “radiogenic” materials until it entered the zircon? “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: You haven’t presented evidence for this supposed agreement. I would happily do so if you asked. There are literally thousands of cases where multiple independent dating methods have been in agreement. Would you like some links?” Apart from the posturing, your response here demonstrates the purely rhetorical nature of your claim. That is, you are trying to bluster your way through the conversation by making broad, sweeping statements about the supposed copious evidence supporting your position. I am not claiming that the methods rarely agree. However, you are claiming that the methods generate “overwhelming” agreement. And that is what needs to be evidenced. Trudging through the papers individually would not only NOT support your claim, but would expose your argument to falsification by any single example of disagreement for each method. To address the general nature of your claim, (i.e. of “overwhelming” agreement), you would have to provide a meta-analysis demonstrating this pooled data of ubiquitous “agreement”. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: ultimately, you are assuming a naturalistic origin of these zircons. Who but God knows how much lead would be present in a newly created zircon?”. Agreed, God could just have seeded a bunch of rocks with exactly the right amount of radiogenic lead, argon, strontium and other elements to look really old.” Suggesting that the “rocks” were individually “seeded” to make them “look really old” is another Strawman. Furthermore, it is only your bias towards the long-age narrative that causes you to think the “rocks” “look really old”. You only think they “look really old” because you feel an obligation to accept the ‘dating’ methods as reliable. When I examine a rock, all I see is a rock. Each rock can be examined further to reveal certain ratios of isotopes within. OK – those are the facts. But then you feed that data into a highly-presumptive algorithm that proports to be able to generate ‘ages’ for the “rocks” in the absence of direct observations, standards or objective controls (i.e. experimentation). Well – that’s where I start to question the process (as would traditionally be my scientific right). And then you try to imply that I am somehow intellectually obligated to accept these methods over the straight-forward reading of Genesis. And you’ve lost me. The “rocks” only “look really old” to you, because that is the paradigm governing your interpretation of the data. “But again, this comes down the "God dunnit" argument. Impossible to disprove, but as I said I have theological reasons for disagreeing.” Assuming you are Christian, and respect scripture, this actually “comes down to” how and when “God dunnit”. Because if one is Christian, and respects scripture, “God dunnit” is incorporated into the paradigm; regardless of the long-age/young-age conclusion. The Christian paradigm explicitly permits consideration of supernatural causes. The Scientific Method is only designed to test claims about the current, natural universe (since that is all we can experiment upon). Therefore, all supernatural claims, and all claims about the unobserved past (including rock ‘ages’), are logically “impossible” to falsify – being beyond the scope of the Scientific Method. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: You are therefore conceding that the movement of lead between the inside and outside of the zircon can undermine the accuracy of the supposed age assigned to the rock by this method. I such sources of radiogenic lead existed (they don't)” Therefore, you are now making the absolutist claim that it is impossible for “radiogenic lead” to have ever existed outside of a zircon? That doesn’t seem like a sensible claim. But, at the same time, you are “conceding” (without any provocation from me) that under certain circumstances, this is actually a possibility. But then you tell me that you are certain it has never happened. It is not my argument to tell you what happened to any particular rock, but to point out that the method you think is infallible actually relies fundamentally on a range of assumptions – i.e. conditions that cannot be verified – any one of which completely invalidates the method if untrue. And yet you are asking me to roll-over on the plain reading of scripture because of some perceived obligation to this method. “and such metamorphic events occured and were undetectable (they're not)” Another absolutist claim without any evidence. You were the one who raised the hypothetical circumstance that permitted lead exchange with zircons. That mere possibility demonstrates my point – that the method necessarily assumes no such lead exchange occurred over stupendous amount of time. You therefore trapped yourself into making absolutist (and therefore unscientific) claims about non-observations. “I think if you want any assumption in somewhere as big as nature to be "universal", outside of fundamental constants, you'll have a hard time. That is why it's so useful to have multiple methods that check assumptions, detect metamorphic events, etc. Demanding that assumptions are always correct everywhere, even when we can test if they are wrong, is entirely unreasonable.” Statements like this demonstrate a lack of objectivity. You are in a conversation with someone who disagrees with you. It is therefore not good enough for you to simply state, “Everything agrees with me, and if you don’t agree with me, you are being unreasonable”. Do you think I should concede the debate, just because you say so? Should I ignore the conventional requirement for pesky arguments and evidence – since you have made broad, sweeping, unevidenced claims about the correctness of your position? “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: Remembering, scientifically speaking, I only have to show limited data that the method is untrustworthy – i.e. examples where the supposed ‘ages’ derived from these methods were rejected in the absence of testable explanations. Depends on the type of evidence. It is always possible to find an exception that proves the rule.” This feels like you are trying to pre-invalidate any evidence I might provide as an “exception”. However, in a scientific context, anomalous, repeated results require testable explanations. Otherwise, how can we differentiate between the “exception” and the “rule” – i.e. how can we differentiate false positives from true positives? And if we can’t make that determination experimentally, then all we are doing is choosing to accept what we already agree with (which is both biased and unscientific). Which is to say - if you claim I should accept the method as accurate based on the standard of “agreement”, then I only need one example of disagreement to falsify your argument (i.e. to breach your proposed standard). Any attempt on your part to wave my example away as an “exception” contributes nothing of rational substance to the debate. Such an argument would simply be another rhetorical attempt to dodge the implication of such evidence. “For example, if we do enough radiometric dating of enough rocks, we will find a rock one day where two methods both happen to yield the same incorrect date. This is not a theory, it is a statistical fact. But it wouldn't call into question the wider method.” Ummm – examples of the method not working as expected would 100% justify questioning “the wider method” – especially if there are multiple examples of the method producing unexpected results. In no other discipline of science would we get to wave away unexpected results as a ‘whoopsy’ – and then carry on as if the results had no implication for the “wider method”. “So I will await your evidence I suppose!” My next “evidence” is one of the landmark papers determining the age of the earth to be ~4.5 billion years old (https://www.nature.com/articles/321766a0.pdf ). In this paper, 140 zircons from the same conglomerate were tested using U-Pb and Th-Pb dating methods. Initially, only 17 were considered to give old enough ‘ages’ to be worthy of further consideration. 16 of these were considered to not be reliable (i.e. either too young, or had undergone lead-loss). The remaining single grain was tested 7 times. Only one of those 7 measurements was considered significant – the single measurement that generated an ‘age’ for the zircon of ~4.3billion years old. That is, using the same method, different parts of the same zircon generated different ‘ages’ for that zircon. Therefore, 139 of 140 zircons from the same conglomerate were disregarded as meaningless. And of the seven measurements on the single remaining zircon, 6 were disregarded as meaningless. And what was the explanation for considering all this data unreliable?: “The 207Pb2o6Pb ages that exceed 3,900 Myr belong to a much older population which may have had a single original age close to 4,300 Myr and have undergone early as well as recent Pb loss, or it may be a mixed-age population that formed during discrete events over an extended time period from 4,100 to 4,300 Myr ago.” “The five analysed areas within grain 86, which shows the highest minimum ages, exhibit small but real differences in radiogenic 207Pb206Pb that can only have been generated by internal redistribution or loss of radiogenic Pb relative to U at some early time” “another conceivable explanation involves an early gain of Pb (or loss of U) followed by recent Pb loss, which would have the effect of increasing the 207 Pb 206 Pb age of the zircons” These are the most obvious implications for our conversation: - Of at-least 162 measurements, only 1 was reported as a true ‘age’ minimum. That means 161 measurements were rejected from consideration as either irrelevant, or compromised, because they did not fulfill expectations (including 6 measurements using the same method on the very same zircon). Therefore, 1) Based on these results alone, any assertions about widespread agreement between methods is absurd. The method doesn’t even agree with itself much of the time – even when the identical method is used multiple times of the very same sample (producing non-overlapping ‘ages’ for the same zircon), and 2) The narrowing of so much data to a single supposedly-true result further demonstrates how the methods are calibrated against each other – given how the results were explicitly narrowed to be in the ballpark of previously reported data. - The primary explanation considered for the overwhelmingly anomalous results is movement of uranium and lead isotopes within and out of the zircon. When I make such a suggestion, it warrants an insinuation about how much I “understand geology”. But these are the guys who literally invented the machine that takes the measurements. Did they also not “understand” that “heavy metals don't tend to leak our of solid rocks” or that “Uranium loss once the rock is formed is almost impossible” or that “Uranium is extremely heavy and immotile (all isotopes)”. Again, your rhetorical bluster is reduced to naught. It is, self-evidently, perfectly acceptable speculate about the possibility of “internal redistribution or loss” of uranium and lead in zircons. - Another potential explanation offered for the anomalous results is that the samples were from “mixed-age” rocks. But if we accept the possibility that the samples were from a “mixed-age” population – producing a result approaching concordance, then we must accept that any supposed isochron can also result from “mixed-age” samples – which the paper inadvertently demonstrates. “but we should believe the explanation that is plain, obvious, well evidenced, and staring us in the face” You are still trying to bluster your way through the conversation with broad sweeping statements, but without having to present anything by way of argument or evidence. Firstly, scientific reasoning (or critical reasoning) does not make allowances for simply believing anything. Scientific confidence can only be applied to the degree that something has been observed. Secondly, these are all completely subjective criteria. Who exactly determines what is “plain, obvious, well evidenced, and staring us in the face”? Or is that simply your bias speaking out again – telling you that the “explanation” you have deemed to be correct is also the one that is “plain, obvious, well evidenced, and staring us in the face”? “When you come up with a testable alternative, I'll happily review your hypothesis and its testable predictions.” And still more empty posturing. Scientific reasoning does not prohibit me from questioning your methods until I have an “alternative”. That is simply an attempt to dodge the implication of my arguments. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: If, as I propose, the methods are untrustworthy, then the data has no “natural” implication for the ‘age’ of the rocks. Actually, even in this case, you would *still* have something to explain. That is, why so often faulty methods of dating which could yield any date at all happen to agree within a margin of error.” My evidence has demonstrated that the methods can disagree with each other – and even themselves. My evidence has demonstrated internal, indirect calibration between the methods – with only results that agree with conventionally accepted ‘ages’ being accepted as “reasonable”, and anomalous results being rejected and discarded from consideration. Claims about agreement don’t mean much when only agreeable data is accepted, and disagreeable data is ignored. By contrast, you have not evidenced your general claim that agreement between the methods occurs uncannily, or statistically significantly, “often”. You just keep writing it – like if you write it enough times, I’ll start to believe it - like some kind of Jedi mind-trick. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: I’ve seen many studies showing newly formed rocks to be ‘dated’ as much older than their observed age - due to the presence of daughter isotopes. I can’t remember if any specifically addressed the lead content of zircons. I am therefore happy to look at this data if you have it. Please do. I would start at U-Pb if I were you - since Ar-40 doesn't exist in the atmosphere, and existing Sr-87 is actually a testable assumption of Rb-Sr dating (any the same holds for other isochron methods).” You missed the “if you have it” condition of my response. On the topic of “isochrons”, I recently found a paper showing that supposed “isochrons” can generate artificially high ‘ages’ due to diffusion from the rock of the stable isotope in the equation (published here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.13182/NT16-98 , full text here: https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1438205 ). So there is yet another avenue of logic showing the potential of the “isochron” method to violate the closed system assumption (one which I hadn’t previously considered). “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: I have definitely seen papers addressing excess argon in newly formed rocks. I look forward to reading them!” Sure – here are a few starters. - http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM43/AM43_433.pdf - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ichiro-Kaneoka/publication/248410634_Investigation_of_excess_argon_in_ultramafic_rocks_from_the_Kola_Peninsula_by_the_40Ar39Ar_method/links/5a0a91500f7e9bb949f98a29/Investigation-of-excess-argon-in-ultramafic-rocks-from-the-Kola-Peninsula-by-the-40Ar-39Ar-method.pdf - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JZ069i022p04895 “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: Furthermore, putative agreement doesn’t matter (has no logical implication) when the methods are internally calibrated against each other according to the expectations of the pre-existing paradigm. They aren't calibrated against each other.” Firstly, disagreeable results are much easier to find in the literature than your position implies. Secondly, I’ve shown several examples of where the ‘ages’ are either accepted, or reject, depending on whether they agree with the expectations derived from other dating methods. This is routine practice. Otherwise, how would one presume to distinguish a true ‘age’ from a false ‘age’? Your position here is logically self-defeating; since you yourself have argued that trust in the method is based on agreement between the methods – but then somehow deny the same rationale is being utilized to generate trust between the methods. Thirdly, there is no independent standard to test any of the methods against – i.e. nothing of known age. And fourthly, if disagreeable data is excluded from consideration (as I have demonstrated to be routine practice), that also renders claims of agreement meaningless. Finally, in my response to the next comment (below) I have started to provide evidence that decay rates are directly calibrated against other methods. “They are wholly independent, and only require known decay rates of each radioactive element to function.” How are those “decay rates” ascertained? And how accurate are they? - In this 1956 paper (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956PhRv..103.1045A/abstract ), rubidium decay rates are directly calibrated to U-Pb decay rates – to give a rubidium half-life of 50 billion years. - This same logic was applied in 1982 to calibrate the decay rate of rubidium to the U-Pb method – giving a radium half-life of 49.4 billion years (https://www.nature.com/articles/300414a0 ). - In 2011, the decay rate of rubidium was again calibrated to the U-Pb method, and the half-life of rubidium again adjusted to 49.76 billion years (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X10006990 ). The Implications of this evidence: - “Decay rates” have, over time, been routinely, directly calibrated against the results from other methods. This is not even controversial in the literature. This practice directly undermines the logical impact of claims about method-independence and broad agreement between the methods. - Whilst the supposed half-lives (“decay rates”) are generally agreed upon, they are by-no-means as settled as your argument suggests. They are ever subject to update and revision – regardless of whether or not the decay rates have moved over time. All this extra information adds to the inherent uncertainty of the method. Your impression of settled, wholly, independently-calibrated, consistent methods in overwhelming agreement, is a myth that is not reflected in the literature. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: And again, agreement doesn’t mean anything when disagreeing data is not considered (or even reported in many cases). Furthermore, there are many cases in the scientific literature where different methods used on the same sample disagree with each other These are two competing statements” They are not “competing statements”. I’ll rephrase. Even though the routine practice of ignoring (and often not reporting) disagreeable data biases the overall impression towards “agreement” between the methods, it is still very easy to find examples in the literature of disagreement. “different methods can disagree with each other, especially where a rock has a complex thermal history” This is a story (interpretation), not an observation. It is perfectly fine to try and explain disagreeable data. But here you are stating the proposed explanation as though it was fact – despite you knowing full-well that the proposed explanation was not observed. “and for example radiogenic lead has been leached and U-Pb gives an artificially low date” What??? Seriously??? When I mention the possibility of lead loss, you get to insinuate my lack of knowledge regarding “geology”. But when you need a way to explain away anomalous data, you are happy to jump right in on that same explanation. You are being neither fair-minded, nor consistent in your reasoning. “However, this is the exception and not the norm, and is readily detectable using other methods which can detect metamorphic events” This is a rhetorical exaggeration of how the method is applied. No method can directly “detect metamorphic events”. What happens in reality, is that data, which is anomalous in a certain direction from expectation, can be (and often is) interpreted as “metamorphic events”. There is no observation (or detection) of these putative “events”. You are again touting one possible explanation as a truism. “If you think you, I welcome your systematic review of the literature on radiometric dates using multiple methods.” And yet more empty posturing. I don’t need a “systematic review of the literature” to refute your argument of overwhelming agreement. I really just need one example of disagreement between the methods (though there are many, many such examples). Remembering that, for all your rhetoric and posturing, you have provided absolutely nothing by way of “evidence” supporting your extraordinary claims. Yet you have the audacity to suggest that I need a “systematic review of the literature on radiometric dates using multiple methods” to support my position. Again – if you are being sincere, this is confirmation bias on steroids. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: Given that they have been historically calibrated against each other, they are not “independent methods”. They haven't. If you have evidence otherwise, pray tell.” Perhaps next time you ask for “evidence”, I could be given an opportunity to provide such – before you start posturing. That would seem considerate. Anyways, I have provided three examples for rubidium being directly “calibrated” to the U-Pb method (above). I have about 5 more for rubidium in-pocket, but figured three should be enough for now - to demonstrate the point. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: And given that they all use the same set of general assumptions, They don't.” All radiometric dating methods make the assumption that, 1) measured decay rates are accurate and have remained constant since the formation of the rock, 2) that the rock element being measured has been a closed system such that all of the isotopes represent what was present in the rock at formation, and 3) that we know the quantities of isotopes when the rock was formed. Isochron dating complicates this last assumption somewhat – but the assumption is still in the process. “That's why it's so powerful to use several in conjuction - because they make different and independent assumptions that are uncorrelated to each other. You can always present evidence that they do though. Again, a table comparing the assumptions of U-Pb, K-Ar / Ar-Ar and Rb-Sr would be helpful. In other words, evidence.” Lol. “evidence”. You mean that thing that you have provided exactly none of – despite the extraordinary nature of your claims – but which you expect me to generate and provide “tables” and “systematic reviews” and “case studies” supporting my modest claims. “The question is, if the assumptions are false, why do dating methods so often agree?” My first response to this “question” would be for you to define more precisely how much you think these methods “agree”. You have stated in a previous post that you consider the agreement to be “overwhelming”. I disagree with that impression. And you certainly have not “evidenced” such. Whereas I have shown it is easy to find “evidence” of disagreeable data. But let’s assume (in the absence of “evidence”) some form of broad, general agreement. I would propose an equally valid counter “question”: ‘If the assumptions are correct, “why do dating methods so often” disagree?’ Some of the agreement can be explained by demonstrable self-calibration (both indirect and direct) between the methods; skewing the data towards agreement. Some of the disagreeable data can be explained by assumed compromised samples and/or process errors. The existence of all this uncertainty further demonstrates why no-one is intellectually obligated to trust the methods. “I dealt with false isochrons in my answer originally. They are possible. But half of all of them are negative, and their results is completely random. I addressed this already.” You have not “addressed” “false isochrons” whatsoever yet – at-least not in any logically meaningful manner. You have thus far agreed that sometimes the isochron method doesn’t work to expectations – and you therefore concluded that I should dismiss these disagreeable examples from further consideration. Ummm – No? (respectfully). The fact that the isochron method can produce “negative” ‘ages’, or otherwise non-compliant (or unreasonable) ‘ages’ is my point. It is strange to me that you could fail to recognize such an overt and obvious bias – as accepting the arbitrary dismissal of disagreeable evidence from consideration. But then to turn around and cry, ‘But look, they all agree’. What??? How can you not see the compromise in your own reasoning? “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: The fact that you think “certainty” is available to science exposes your confirmation bias Certainty has levels and limits, a nuance you seem to have missed my dear friend!” Actually, “certainty” is absolutist. The scientific word is ‘confidence’. “I can very easily test this, both hypothetically and actually. Do you wish to know why?” If you have an argument, I “wish” you could simply make your argument without having to posture first. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: When God created two mature humans, was He tricking us about their childhood and adolescent history? Or were they simply created to purpose? If God created humans with BCG scars on their arms when they never had a childhood injection, or broken little toes when they'd never been stubbed, then I would call Him a liar.” Rather than answer the perfectly apt analogy, you choose to muddy the conversation with extra, unnecessary detail. The fundamental question is: ‘If God creates something in a matured form, then tells you when He created it, is God then a liar – given that the mature form might otherwise indicate a history of maturing?’. That is the nature of what you originally suggested.

Yes - Lol. The Bible tends to frown upon the other kind of "relative dating" (at least since Moses).

It can happen to any DNA, genes or not. Thought you knew. Are you posturing already? As a rule, I tend not to know things that are wrong. You have decided to feign superiority - even though you clearly misunderstand the concepts you are opining. Functional genes are protected from deleterious mutations by selective pressures. However, once a gene becomes inactivated, it is no longer protected by selective pressures - and therefore tends to acquire mutations at a higher rate than functional genes. Telomeres are not genes, and therefore not protected by selective pressures. With telomeres, it is the internal sequence structures that make them more robust against corruption. Therefore, the position of the sequence within a chromosome does not impact the mechanism that protects telomeres from mutations. Therefore, in a telomere fusion, one would expect to find thousands of tandem telomeric repeats, interspersed with relative few mutations distributed randomly throughout the fusion site. Instead, what we find is essentially random sequences, with a handful of putative telomeric monomers dispersed throughout the site - i.e. at the same rate they are found throughout the rest of the chromosome. It is dishonest to insinuate I suggested otherwise. Lol. Not "apparently". I directly told you - off the top of my head, I "can't" think of a characteristic found in birds that is missing in dinosaurs. I then explained why I'm not motivated to spend even a second looking for that information. You, posturing like you won a prize, is simply another dishonest misrepresentation of the conversation. This is yet more dishonesty. Anyone reading my previous post would see that I directly addressed this. You, however, have failed to address my comments, and simply repeated the rebutted claim. So you're thinking of YE creationism? So you did see my response - you just decided to dishonestly revert to a Tu Quoque fallacy. Essentially, the intellectual equivalent of, 'I know you are, but what am I'. So it's a layered Tu Quoque fallacy. This is yet another lie. Here you repeat a claim that I have already directly, and clearly, addressed in my previous post. Since you have demonstrated more interest in silly games, rather than any pretense of sincere debate, I have decided to not waste any more time here. Cheers, and God bless you.

Hello IgnatioDeLoyola. You said, “Zircons tested for U-Pb dating formed in igneous rocks. That is, rocks formed from Magma. These rocks are typically formed at between 900 - 1200 degrees celsius.” You have missed the point – which is, the experimental data demonstrates that there are temperatures at which lead is known to have the capacity to move in and out of zircons (~600-800oC). If, as you say, zircons “typically formed at between 900 - 1200 degrees celsius”, and we find them in rocks that are less than 100 “degrees celsius”, then the zircons have definitely transversed that range – and we can therefore not automatically trust that the present lead found inside the zircon is a direct reflection of the Uranium that was present when the rock formed. Even if the other assumptions of the dating methods hold true, any gain of lead would make the rocks appear older, and any loss of lead would make the rocks appear younger. And we haven’t even mentioned the potential of Uranium gain (or loss). And you appear to have skipped over my other points about how the scientific literature reveals several ways in which the lead measurements of samples can be skewed. “While it is technically possible that God grew all zircons in a lab at 600 degrees celsius in a bath of radiogenic lead, and I wasn't around back then to see it, I submit that that's quite unlikely.” This is a Strawman argument – whereby you are trying to misrepresent my position to make it sound ridiculous. Logic fallacies such as this are technically irrational – and therefore have no bearing on truth. It’s a bad sign that you would resort to dishonest rhetoricisms so early in our discussion. “Moreover, there are four isotopes of lead found in nature - 204, 206, 207 and 208. 204 is primordial lead - the other three are formed from specific radioactive decay processes (from U238, U235 and Th232). Therefore scientists are not simply measuring the amount of lead in a sample, but specifically the amount of radiogenic lead” None of which logically addresses the potential movement of lead out of (or in to) the zircon. In fact, if any isotope in the decay chain between uranium and lead can move in or out of zircons, then the ratios can not, with objective confidence, be trusted to reflect the age of the rocks. “Again, it is possible that God just so happened to artificially inject 600 degree Zircons with just the right amount of Pb206 to correspond to U238 and give a very old age” And another Strawman argument. “and this apparent age should just so happen to coincide with apparent isochron and Ar/Ar ages for said rock” You haven’t presented evidence for this supposed agreement. But if you like, I will happily discuss the broad history of scientific literature openly questioning the assumptions of the “Ar/Ar” dating method. “But there is no known natural process to explain this other than the rock being really old” This is a philosophical, rather than scientific, argument. Firstly, I want to give credit for your use of properly hedged language. Most people arguing your position fail to recognize the logical limits of what they are proposing. Secondly, I would point out that the Christian paradigm is not restricted to “natural” explanations. To quote my original post: “ultimately, you are assuming a naturalistic origin of these zircons. Who but God knows how much lead would be present in a newly created zircon?”. Finally, the lack of another “known natural process” does not address the inherent logical weaknesses of the dating method being discussed. “On 10/12/2022 at 9:01 AM, Tristen said: Zircons can also undergo recrystallization – allowing for the removal and/or acquisition of lead. They can indeed. And, given the paucity of Pb-206, 207 and 208 in nature and surrounding zircons in rocks, such a metamorphic event would leach more radiogenic lead than it would add, giving a lower age.” You are therefore conceding that the movement of lead between the inside and outside of the zircon can undermine the accuracy of the supposed age assigned to the rock by this method. I’m not arguing that the ‘ages’ are too high. I’m arguing that the dating methods are inherently, wholly untrustworthy – namely because that are founded on assumptions that are known (by observation) to be, at-least, non-universal. “Moreover, using Ar-Ar plateaus and isochron methods we could likely detect metamorphic events in a rock, or part of a rock. An Ar-Ar partial plateau would indicate such a metamorphic event for example, and a partial isochron / disturbed isochron also” Once again, I am happy to go through the scientific literature questioning the veracity of these methods. Remembering, scientifically speaking, I only have to show limited data that the method is untrustworthy – i.e. examples where the supposed ‘ages’ derived from these methods were rejected in the absence of testable explanations. “Again, there are not other natural explanations for these results other than an old rock undergoing a partial metamorphosis, or God directly interfering in nature and making it look this way.” You mean “not other [known] natural explanations”? How quickly you drifted from properly hedged language into rhetorical absolutes. On a matter of logic, the fact that there are no better “explanations” currently available does not entail that the currently preferred “explanation” is true. Furthermore, there are plenty of “natural” reasons to distrust the popular interpretation of this data. If, as I propose, the methods are untrustworthy, then the data has no “natural” implication for the ‘age’ of the rocks. “In radiometric dating, there most certainly are ways of testing our assumptions. For example: - Directly observing the formation of igneous rocks in nature, and what "new" zircons and other grains look like / their chemical composition. Do many of them contain significant amounts of lead? Do they date as old when they are in fact young?” I’ve seen many studies showing newly formed rocks to be ‘dated’ as much older than their observed age - due to the presence of daughter isotopes. I can’t remember if any specifically addressed the lead content of zircons. I am therefore happy to look at this data if you have it. One would still have to assume that this result could be generalized from a few results to all rock formation over all of the length of history supposed by the interpreter – a massive magnitude of assumption. Furthermore, this does not address the assumption that no lead has moved into, or out of, the tested zircon. “- Using self-checking methods like Ar-Ar or Rb-Sr -where the results obviously don't work / show signs if the assumptions are wrong.” I have definitely seen papers addressing excess argon in newly formed rocks. “- Dating using multiple methods on the same rock, and ensuring that the results are within a margin of error of each other (because it would be damned odd if all the different assumptions where wrong in exactly the same proportion in the same rock with totally different chemicals).” I’ve encountered papers where the same “methods” have been used on the “same rock” (even the “same” zircon) – giving statistically meaningless data. The authors simply choose the one data point that agrees with the presupposition (i.e. what they expected/wanted to find), and arbitrarily disregard the rest of the data that didn’t make sense to them. Therefore, any bluster about them all being in agreement is spurious – since they are self-calibrated within the same philosophical framework. That is, of course they all agree, if the disagreeing data is routinely excluded from the data set. “None of this raises our conclusions to the same epistemic level as literally travelling back billions of years and seeing all rocks actually form. But, when done over and over again (and such checking of assumptions has been done tens of thousands of times) it leads to a very high level of certainty.” This, again, is empty, rhetorical bluster. Or else, where can I find this overwhelming agreement reported in the scientific literature? Furthermore, putative agreement doesn’t matter (has no logical implication) when the methods are internally calibrated against each other according to the expectations of the pre-existing paradigm. And again, agreement doesn’t mean anything when disagreeing data is not considered (or even reported in many cases). Furthermore, there are many cases in the scientific literature where different methods used on the same sample disagree with each other. As well as several instances where even the same method used on the same sample provides inconsistent results (and we apparently get to just pick the one we like). Even within the same measurements of some methods, the alpha decay element commonly disagrees with the beta decay element. Broad, sweeping, unsupported statements about how they all agree with each other are meaningless to someone who has examined the literature and considered the logic behind the methods. “On 10/12/2022 at 9:01 AM, Tristen said: There is no independent way to verify that “they work”. But there is. Using several independent methods of radiometric dating does indeed check that they work.” Given that they have been historically calibrated against each other, they are not “independent methods”. And given that they all use the same set of general assumptions, there is no truly “independent” way of checking that they “work”. This would still be true even if they all always produced consistent results – which they don’t. “The probability that all could be wrong, in exactly the same direction and magnitude, completely independently, is extremely low” Your reasoning here is circular. Your conclusion only holds true if the initial assumptions are correct (and if the results all actually agreed all the time). “Again, the epistemic point holds - using 3 or 4 methods doesn't raise radiometric dating to the level of "observation" of age. But it does hugely increase our level of confidence in it as fact.” Since they are calibrated against each other, and since disagreeable data is routinely disregarded (and sometimes not even reported), and since we can still find many instances of disagreement commonly reported in scientific literature despite this bias (usually in older papers), and since these methods are all founded on the same set of unverifiable assumptions (all of which have been demonstrated to be non-universal) – any reported agreement between them only has meaning to those with a pre-existing confirmation bias. “The very existence of the isochron shows that the assumptions were correct” No it doesn’t. To reach your conclusion, one first has to assume the graphed line is an “isochron” to begin with (when the users know full-well that mixing lines, and who knows what else, mimic putative isochrons – which is the most typical explanation for an “isochron” that doesn’t make sense to them). “Isochron” dating therefore entails that an additional set of assumptions be incorporated into the methodology. The additional complexity required to generate a supposed “isochron” therefore adds to the assumption set of dating methods. Several assumptions are utilized to justify the supposed accuracy of one primary assumption. “If they were not, the chances of an isochron existing at random (with 4 or more points) would be essentially zero” Except, even according to those using the isochron method, there is no way to differentiate a true isochron from a mixing line – which looks exactly like an isochron – and is only proposed when the putative isochron doesn’t make sense. “BTW, before you say it, yes, false isochrons can exist (in very specific circumstances). But they are of entirely random slope - 50% give negative ages for example. Therefore (a) we know the number of false isochrons is exceedingly low from observation, and (b) they will essentially never line up in age with other methods of dating since they are effectively fully random” So what you are telling me is that I should simply ignore all the times that a constructed isochron doesn’t agree with the expected values – because they are not “isochrons” (obviously), but rather “false isochrons”? This flawed, internally-biased reasoning seems common to the proponents of these dating methods. That is, ‘If one would be kind enough to ignore all the data that disagrees with the expected results, then what we are left with clearly shows that the results all agree’. Ummm. OK. It is indeed quite difficult to argue against tautological reasoning. Ultimately, you don’t get to tell me that the existence of a “random” isochron is “essentially zero”, but then expect me to simply ignore the times when the method gives an evidently “false isochron”. “I am fully aware that your epistemic point still holds. It would be still be better, in any particular case, to go back a few billion years to actually see it happen. But that doesn't mean we can't be very, very certain that the earth is very, very old. We can be, and are” I am not “certain” about any scientific claim - let alone "very, very certain". The fact that you think “certainty” is available to science exposes your confirmation bias – i.e. facilitating your exaggerated confidence in claims - beyond what is logically possible by any method of science. “BTW - there are two final assumption: 1. That the rate of radiometric decay hasn't, at one point, sped up exponentially to make new samples appear old. But even this is testable, to an extent. Or at least, enough to thoroughly disprove the young-earth narrative.” And how exactly does one “test” what happened in the past without travelling to the past to perform the experiments and make the requisite observations? Whay are the experimental controls? Or are you simply testing the decay rates in the present, and preemptively applying the uniformitarian assumption that the past was the same? “2. That God hasn't deliberately made the earth "look" old, to test our faith. I have biblical and personal reasons for not believing this (and I could also philosophically invoke Occam's Razor) - but there is no scientific way to check whether we are all being tricked” This is another Strawman argument. When God created two mature humans, was He tricking us about their childhood and adolescent history? Or were they simply created to purpose? When God directly informs us how things happened, it’s not trickery on God’s part if you decide to interpret the data in a manner that disagrees with His provided information.

Agreed. That is why I would carefully characterize this example as a corruption (or loss) of information - regardless of any situational advantage. Yes - Natural Selection (environmental pressures) selected in favor of the fish (and their offspring) that lacked functioning eye genes. The very existence of molecular information/communication is astonishingly, monstrously incredulous in an undirected paradigm. The problem in threads like this is that we are mainly dealing with those who wholeheartedly accept the narrative generated using exclusively secular assumptions (namely, the assumption that no god played any role in the progress of natural history), but then, in a post hoc manner, they simply tag God onto the process as the Director of their preferred narrative. It complicates matters when we have to reconcile those who have a sincere allegiance to scripture, but also feel obligated to the secular narrative.

The paradigm being contested is Common Ancestry - which proposes that all life is related via a single shared ancestor, which itself stemmed from a putative, simple, first life form. This therefore entails that every gene that has ever existed, that wasn't in the first life, had to be generated and added to the gene pool of life over time. This is overly simplistic. These mechanisms do not generate new types of "cells" or genes. Certain genes in certain types of white blood cells generate gene recombinations (including directed mutations) to generate a massive variety of antigen binding sites that appear on the surface of the cells. These are very tightly regulated (including limiting the scope of mutation), and only occur within the confines of a narrow subset of genes. Furthermore, since they only occur in blood cells, they are never heritable. There is nothing in this system that can make new genes and pass them on to offspring.

“It means birds should be classified as dinosaurs” I’d firstly ask the question, ‘What do I care how you choose to classify things?’ Where in our conversation did I question the classification of "birds" or "dinosaurs"? If you’d like to broaden the definition of “dinosaurs” to include “birds” – ok then??? I think that’s ultimately counterproductive – since we’d now need to come up with other terms to classify the self-evident differences between the two groups. But I otherwise don’t see any consequence of this claim to anything I’ve said. That is, I don’t know why we are discussing this. Secondly, define for me what you mean by “birds” and define what you mean by “dinosaurs”. If those definitions are the same, then they can be “classified” the same. If the definitions are different, then they can be “classified” into different categories based on the differences. A few shared features between the groups are entirely irrelevant. I demonstrated this to be the case for all classifications. Classifications are based on shared sets of features within groups, not shared singular features between groups. I’d suggest there might be a broader classification that could incorporate both all “birds” and all “dinosaurs” – maybe a couple of steps up the Linnaean ladder towards ‘Kingdom’. Furthermore, maybe some “dinosaurs” can be legitimate classified as “birds”. But I don’t think a brontosaurus would fit any reasonable, sensible definition of a “bird”. But again, did I ever claim that some “dinosaurs” can’t be classified under the general classification of “birds”? I see no relevance of this topic to the conversation of this thread. “But do you think that there are several "kinds" of herons?” I answered this already. “Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information. Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?” I have clearly defined how I am using the term “information”. If a mutation corrupts a gene so that it no longer performs its function, then the “information” blueprint, describing how to make that functional gene, has been lost. If you are so eager to posture, based on a different (and therefore irrelevant) definition of “information”, then no, I have no interest in hearing (or seeing) that. It has no logical bearing on anything I’ve claimed. “So you're surprised that there were mutations that messed up those sequences.” No. I am, however, “surprised” that one can conclude the site to be telomeres; given the sequences that were generated and reported. “You do realize that once a sequence isn't functional, it will inevitably become changed by mutations, right? Why is that a surprise?” This is an oversimplistic view of what can happen to genes. But telomeres are not genes. The function of telomeres is based on the sequence itself – and not the products of transcription/translation. The sequence is designed to form protective structures at the ends of chromosomes. That is, the sequence is specifically purposed to be resistant to corruption. Telomeres should therefore be less mutated than other sequences (even if they are in the wrong location on the chromosome). “The key is that these inactivated telomeres and centromere are still precisely where they would be if there was a fusion. I don't think that's hard to understand.” The “key” is to “understand” that these sequences do not come close to resembling “telomeres”. It may have once been fair to hypothesize that these might be telomere fusion sights based on the chromosome staining data, but now that we have had a look at the actual sequence, that hypothesis should have been put to bed long ago. The “centromere” data is even weaker – and based on evidence that is common in portions of chromosomes that are unrelated to centromeres (which is why the focus is usually on telomeres). “You've assumed that a gene changes if it has been moved by a fusion or crossover. It hasn't. Still the same gene” In a chromosomal crossover, the resulting "gene" performs the "same" general function, but in a different way – because the combination of information used to build the "gene" is different to that used by either parent. “But the only way to get new alleles is by mutation” This is not true – it’s not even controversial. Chromosomal crossovers recombine information from both parents to generate a gene that is different to the one provided by either parent. If one was to assign that gene to an “allele”, there would now be three “alleles”; the paternal and maternal “alleles”, and the new “allele” which is a combination of both. “As you learned … ” You are posturing again, even though you are wrong. Anyone, including yourself, can readily check that chromosomal crossovers recombine the information from the parental genes to make a new variant of that gene. “On 9/23/2023 at 10:45 AM, Tristen said: I’d also note that not all translations insinuate multiple “kinds” of “herons”. The NKJV rather says, “the heron after its kind” (Leviticus 11:19). So "kinds" are just sort of a general thing, which changes from place to place in scripture. Sounds like building a house on quicksand, doesn't it?” It sounds to me like you have decided to be intentionally obtuse – given that your conclusions are unrelated to the comment you are quoting. Is the concept that God created groups of creatures separately really so difficult for you to understand? “geneticists hypothesized that the remains of those structures would be in specific spots on the chromosome and went to look there to see if the prediction was true. And it was.” Firstly, where was the exact site of the putative telomere fusion predicted before it was supposedly found. Secondly, It’s not “there”. The sequences at the supposed fusion site do not resemble telomeres. “You're apparently unhappy with the scientific method” I would be unhappy with any version of the “Scientific Method” that prohibited me from thinking for myself, and/or prohibits me from disagreeing with how one party interprets the facts. If that’s what you think constitutes the “Scientific Method”, then definitely count me out. Whereas the actual “Scientific Method” is skeptical; admonishing critical reasoning – which is the opposite of what you are proposing. “And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain. For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles” “Certain” about what? What does “T-rex heme” have to do with a proposed telomere fusion in humans? You are loosing track of the conversation. And ‘so what’ if a T-rex molecule is more similar to that found in birds, than reptiles? Did I ever argue that “modern reptiles” are more closely related to T-rex than to birds? Because, if you think about for just a second - that really doesn’t sound like something I would argue. This point therefore amounts to an argument with yourself – or some voice in your head. “On 9/23/2023 at 10:45 AM, Tristen said: I mean – just wow!!! One whole molecule that is similar. It’s like they’re twins. Just another prediction of evolutionary theory that was validated by evidence. They just keep on coming” Lol – Where exactly did anyone “predict” to that “T-rex heme” would be more similar to the heme of Birds than the heme found in “modern reptiles”? “Not too long ago, it was discovered that scutes (found only on archosaurs like birds, dinosaurs and crocodiles) could be induced to form feathers on birds.” All they figured out was the molecular pathway by which some scale-like structures (“scutes”) were already differentiating into feathers on some birds. There is nothing in this research that is of any logical significance or relevance to our discussion. “Obviously, one can't test it on dinosaurs, but someone wondered if you could get feather structures on crocodiles. Turns out, you can. And another prediction of evolutionary theory is confirmed. Would you like to see that?” I would like to “see” the research giving feathers to “crocodiles”. But I still don’t know who you are arguing with? “I get that you don't agree with Dr. Wise on paleontology” That is not an honest implication of what I’ve said. It seems that I might disagree with the good doctor regarding how to interpret Darwin’s lamentation over a lack of what he called “finely graded organic chains” of fossils. The real “Scientific Method” admonishes me to question scientific claims and to assess their arguments – regardless of the expertise of those making the claim. “But he is a paleontologist and I'm sure you can see why his call on this is more persuasive than yours” And I only respect the opinions of those who can see through the technically irrational Expertise fallacy, and prefer to consider arguments. It’s also Special Pleading (fallacy) since you only demand wholesale acceptance of a creationist’s Expertise when they agree with you. NEXT POST “Except that when you look at the phylogenies and cladograms, they are, self-evidently, not, in any sense, “finely graduated”. Nor are they similar enough to be linked together (in the sense that one might think of, say, a “chain”). Maybe “chain” links held together by long lengths of string where the other expected “chain” links should be (but are not). But as Dr. Wise shows, they are” But when we look at the facts for ourselves, we can see that "they are" not. “And the point is that we don't see these series of transitionals were there shouldn't be any” Wait – what??? When did that become “the point”? Who determined where they “shouldn’t be” – and by what criteria was this determined? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant, meaningless, exaggerated bluster. “We only see transitionals where they were predicted.” This is yet more empty bluster. When examined, the examples we discussed in another thread were actually outside of the "predicted" range – even though the “predictions” were absurdly generous. You then have to apply some mental gymnastics to argue a case for 'close enough'. But that is not how predictions work. “They are, as Dr. Wise points out, very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory” “Very good evidence” is a subjective analysis – and therefore more useless bluster. NEXT POST “Let's see what they say.... ABSTRACT We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG),,-(CCCTAA),,3'. Sequences fln g this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2. (my emphasis) Doesn't sound very incredulous to me.” Yes – Lol. That is what they concluded. That is to say – what you quoted is indeed how they ultimately interpreted their data. So tell me - in your version of the Scientific Method, am I now obligated to agree with them, because they said it - or am I permitted to scrutinize their provided methods, data and rationale? Perhaps I’m being too harsh – viewing their work through the lens of modern methods. But (as previously discussed), I found their methods to be heavily biased, presumptive and unreliable; their data to be ambiguous (at-best); and their rationale to be absurdly generous towards the desired (presupposed) conclusion. Simply parroting their conclusion fails to address my criticisms in any relevant sense. No one is questioning that they concluded the site to be a “telomere-telomere fusion”. I’m contesting whether confidence in that particular conclusion is logically justified, given the quality of the provided methods and data.

It is difficult to avoid using subjective language in these conversations. Your use of "improved" is interesting. If, for example, the gene for eyes was inactivated (by mutation) in a lineage of fish - those fish unable to make eyes would be at a strident disadvantage to the fish with eyes (generally speaking). However, if that mutation happened in a group of fish that lived in caves, where there is no light, and where eye infections are rampant (due to contact with the cave walls), those fish (who lost the information required to make eyes) would have a competitive advantage over fish with eyes - i.e. only in that specific environment. It could be argued that the cave fish loosing the capacity to make eyes represents a situational improvement. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the information to make eyes has been lost. No new information has been generated - as would be required many, many, many etc. times over to 'evolve' a complex multicellular creature from a 'simple', single-celled, primitive organism. Agreed - no mechanism has ever been observed that could make the types of genetic changes needed to give credibility to the Common Ancestry paradigm. I wasn't sure what you meant by this.

Sorry, I was just clarifying something that seemed to confuse a few people. I don't think "wasting sperm" is a serious issue to God. Both sperm and eggs are wasted routinely via normal, God-designed biological processes. The issue with Onan was that he intentionally failed his duty to his brother.