Theistic Evolution

[Sparks]

41 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So you made the claim that it lacks math.   Up to you to support it.   Here's your chance: the actual article, w links to the data:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.277.5330.1279

We all know why you won't.

 

So, you send me something paywalled, and claim the math is in there? 

Produce the math Barbarian!  Produce the other scientists, who also arrive at the same conclusion (not P-hacked), and the peer reviews for this white paper.

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Ah, another "It's a miracle!' invention. 

God revealed Himself though His miracles.  Christians know this.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Your new beliefs are not the Bible. 

If you ever READ the Bible you would see that what I posted is not new.  It was there in 1611.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Are you now claiming God miraculously created forests and deserts in the middle of the flood?

No, I'll leave the absolute nonsense for you.  You're good at it.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

How does math put deserts and forests in the middle of "flood deposits?"  

You may do better to ask why there are marine fossils in deserts.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But of course God didn't say it was a world-wide flood. 

What part of "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered," is beyond your comprehension?  Has your hostility to the Scriptures blinded you that much?

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's the nature of basins.   They don't have easy run-off to the sea.  

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand mathematics.  13,000 is a greater number than 950.   So, let's suppose you have a piece of land that is 950 feet above sea level.  Then it rains.  Water runs downhill.  Soon that land is entirely flooded so that any barriers between it and the sea have been overcome.  Now the rain falls on water that is connected to the sea.  For that water to rise another inch, the sea must rise.  It is NOT in a basin.  It has to rise 12,000 feet to cover a mountain.  There is this thing called gravity which tells us that for water to rise 12,000 feet above sea level, the sea has to rise 12,000 feet.  

It's very revealing that you have to misrepresent science and the Bible to defend your arguments.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The Hebrew version uses "erets" (land) instead of "tebel"

No kidding.  Of course the land was flooded.  The sea was already wet, wasn't it?  If all the LAND was covered, what was left uncovered?  I await your evasive refusal to answer.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2024 by RV_Wizard

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You may do better to ask why there are marine fossils in deserts.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

God revealed Himself though His miracles. 

But you don't get to invent new miracles.   Christians know this.

Your new beliefs are not in the Bible.   If you spent some time reading it, you'd realize this.

Do you have any explanation for the forets and deserts in the middle of what you think are "flood deposits?"

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

No

Neither does any other YE creationist.   It's absolute nonsense to imagine God would do that.

How does math put deserts and forests in the middle of "flood deposits?"

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You may do better to ask why there are marine fossils in deserts.

For the same reason that the Himalayas are composed largely of marine fossils.   Sea bottom often gets uplifted.    I notice you can't explain why deserts and forests are found in the middle of what you claim to be "flood deposits."

But of course, God never said it was a world-wide flood.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

What part of "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered," is beyond your comprehension?

Notice it says "land", not "entire world."   Is the difference beyond your comprehension?   Has your hostility to God's word blinded you that much?

(question as to how a basin could hold water)

That's the nature of basins.   They don't have easy run-off to the sea.  

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand mathematics. 

It doesn't take proficiency in mathematics to realize that a basin will hold water.   

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

13.000 is a greater number than 950.

I think we've located your problem.   13.000 is a more precise number than 950.   But it's a smaller number than 950.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

So, let's suppose you have a piece of land that is 950 feet above sea level. 

There are basins much higher than that on Earth.   They still hold water.   Why would you think elevation would make a difference?   

It's very revealing that you have to misrepresent common definitions to defend your arguments.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

If all the LAND was covered, what was left uncovered?

For example, "erets" means "this land" (as in erets Israel for the land of Israel).   "Tebel" is used for the entire world.  That's how we know the flood wasn't global.   Why do you continue to doubt God?

 

[The Barbarian]

11 hours ago, Sparks said:

So, you send me something paywalled, and claim the math is in there? 

I suppose you could look it up in a library.   But yes, it's there.   If not, no reputable journal would have accepted it for publication.

11 hours ago, Sparks said:

Produce the math Barbarian!  Produce the other scientists, who also arrive at the same conclusion (not P-hacked), and the peer reviews for this white paper.

You should probably know that peer-review is what goes on when a paper is submitted to a journal.   Science is one of the most reputable science journals, and does indeed peer-review every article submitted.

Regarding the use of Ar-Ar in volcanic eruptions...

Excess argon in K–Ar and Ar–Ar geochronology

A brief survey of the list of examples above shows that studies of excess argon have tended to be concentrated in metamorphic studies and this reflects the distribution of excess argon in natural samples. Excess argon is less common in volcanic systems where outgassing provides a release mechanism.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009254102000645

[RV_Wizard]

15 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Do you have any explanation for the forets

What are forets?

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I think we've located your problem.   13.000 is a more precise number than 950. 

Bad lighting.  It was supposed to be a comma, but then even YOU know that mountains are higher than 13 feet.

18 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Why would you think elevation would make a difference?   

Water seeks its own level.  It can’t be 13,000 feet above sea level in one location and not another without 100% containment.  When the land is only 950 feet above sea level, the water will never get higher until the sea does.  Your claim is nonsense.

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I suppose you could look it up in a library.   But yes, it's there.   If not, no reputable journal would have accepted it for publication.

That's not true.  Papers are retracted because of false studies, lies, and a good pay off, but worse, they are still cited though they have been retracted.  I am looking at one study cited 648 times before it was retracted, but went on to be cited 1052 times after being retracted.  Seems this Ar Ar study is a fine candidate for still being quoted, as you tend to quote without checking, which is why I asked about this study.  You cannot even put your hands on this study, so how well could you have looked into it?

Fortunately, I found the paper without a paywall since it is a 1997 study, and I immediately notice, no math.  They describe a process, and supply a graph by which they make ratio comparisons (linear regression of an isotope), but they do not explicitly include the mathematical formulas or step-by-step calculations for generating the isochron or converting the isotopic ratios into an age.  That is, they don't show the explicit equation or data points used to create their regression line.  This is where their "and then a miracle happens" moment, is.  We cannot check their math.

Further, they are comparing their results to atmospheric argon, and this argon is a moving target that has to be adjusted for.  You can fudge the numbers here, too, but they don't show that math, either.  You might find it interesting to know that is why C-14 dating fails; it is this comparison to atmospheric C-14 which is a moving target because there was a whole lot less of it in the atmosphere the further back you go, and it is not equalized in the atmosphere, to this day.  

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

That's not true.  Papers are retracted because of false studies, lies, and a good pay off, but worse, they are still cited though they have been retracted. 

Although statistics were sketchy, retractions appeared to be relatively rare, involving only about two of every 10,000 papers. Sometimes the reason for the withdrawal was honest error, not deliberate fraud.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.362.6413.390

Compare that to stories peddled by YE creationists that turned out to be false.    Fact is, people tend to do wrong things.    Two out of 10,000 looks pretty good when you consider...

According to a new study sponsored by LifeWay Christian Resources, 10 percent of Protestant churchgoers under 35 have previously left a church because they felt sexual misconduct was not taken seriously.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2019/05/lifeway-protestant-abuse-survey-young-christians-leave-chur/

Should Protestants stop supporting their churches because sexual abuse happens rather frequently there?    I would think not.    It would make more sense to focus on the 90% of Protestants who didn't experience that problem, or the 99.98% of scientific papers that were not fraudulent and did not have errors.   I notice that Ar/Ar dating remains effective and accurate, based on other work, as well.

 It would be extremely dishonest to assert "Scientists are all lying!" or "All Protestants are sexual predators!"

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Fortunately, I found the paper without a paywall since it is a 1997 study, and I immediately notice, no math.  They describe a process, and supply a graph by which they make ratio comparisons (linear regression of an isotope), but they do not explicitly include the mathematical formulas or step-by-step calculations for generating the isochron or converting the isotopic ratios into an age.  That is, they don't show the explicit equation or data points used to create their regression line.  This is where their "and then a miracle happens" moment, is.  We cannot check their math.

If they had not provided the data, there could have been no peer review.   So that excuse won't work for you, either.   Again, you retreat to "they are lying, all of them!"

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Further, they are comparing their results to atmospheric argon, and this argon is a moving target that has to be adjusted for. 

Show us that.   I think you'll be disappointed.    Probably most variation would have been over a billion years ago, from volcanic sources, before the crust cooled. 

And we see that the method got the Pompeii eruption to within 17 years.  Next up:

"Pliny the younger is lying!!"

 

[Sparks]

46 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Although statistics were sketchy, retractions appeared to be relatively rare, involving only about two of every 10,000 papers. Sometimes the reason for the withdrawal was honest error, not deliberate fraud.

It has been deliberate scientific fraud.  When you peer review your own study, it's scientific fraud.

46 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

If they had not provided the data, there could have been no peer review. 

I have not seen any peer reviews on this paper, and the paper itself provided no math.  I also did not see where the study was reproduced by others.  Besides, you have not even read it.  Why don't you read, like I did, and tell me where the math is?

46 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Show us that.   I think you'll be disappointed.    Probably most variation would have been over a billion years ago, from volcanic sources, before the crust cooled. 

Atmospheric argon plays a key role in the Ar Ar dating method, and the comparison to atmospheric argon is an essential part of the process.  If you didn't know that, now you do.  This is probably why you think it works; you don't know a thing about it.

The fact that C-14 has not equalized in the atmosphere is another point showing the Earth is young.  It is a clever method, and Willard Libby would have been right about it working, had the Earth been equalized (the generation of C-14, and its decay equalized) which would have been true had the Earth been over about 30,000 years old.

[The Barbarian]

34 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It has been deliberate scientific fraud. 

The data so far indicates mostly errors in the roughly 2 out of 10,000 papers that turned out to be faulty.

35 minutes ago, Sparks said:

When you peer review your own study, it's scientific fraud.

The journal Science says otherwise.  And they actually know what they are talking about.

Show us that.   I think you'll be disappointed.    Probably most variation would have been over a billion years ago, from volcanic sources, before the crust cooled. 

36 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Atmospheric argon plays a key role in the Ar Ar dating method,

Why did you suddenly not want to talk about variation?    Did you just find the data?  This is probably why you thought it doesn't work; you didn't know a thing about it.

38 minutes ago, Sparks said:

The fact that C-14 has not equalized in the atmosphere is another point showing the Earth is young. 

You got that wrong, too.  It observably varies a small amount over time, depending on the cosmic radiation flux in the upper atmosphere.   This is why the varves in Lake Suigetsu are so important; they show precisely how that varied over time.   And because we can calibrate the method with that data, it's more accurate than before.

It goes up and down at various times.   You were fooled by short-term changes.

 

[Sparks]

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The data so far indicates mostly errors in the roughly 2 out of 10,000 papers that turned out to be faulty.

You had better not read Retraction Watch.  It shows I am right.  I linked to it.

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You got that wrong, too.  It observably varies a small amount over time, depending on the cosmic radiation flux in the upper atmosphere.   This is why the varves in Lake Suigetsu are so important; they show precisely how that varied over time.   And because we can calibrate the method with that data, it's more accurate than before.

It's why carbon 14 dating fails.   There is less C-14 in the atmosphere this year, than last year, and last year, than the year before.  It has not equalized which means, young Earth.

If diamonds are millions of years old, in the making, why do we find C-14 in them?  C-14 has a half life of 5730 years.  This also means, young Earth.