Questions on biology

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
another question:

does he believe creationism is how we came about, or does he just see it as one of the many possible theories?

As he'll be a Christian, it seems highly improbable to me he doesn't believe in creationism.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
well use em if you like. print it out and keep em in your back pocket just in case. I have tons and tons more if you need em.

I'll keep it handy. Thanks.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It seems as if you only want to take questions that attack evolution - since you knocked down the questions by BoP and IR. So I have a feeling this is going to be another go around of evolution versus the belief of creationism.

oh .. my .. goodness!

Pardon me for having a sincere and quite good question about a dating method!

*sigh*

Honestly, you seem to be treating evolution like some sacred thing that can't be questioned!

Thank goodness that some people think like brownie, who said "i've heard plenty of attempts by creationists to debunk scientific theories... which is a good thing btw, theories are meant to be challenged". Now there's an attitude that I respect - a true scientific attitude, IMHO.

Personally, I think my question was an excellent one , and I really would like to hear some opinions on it from all sides.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
BHWA! BHWA! BHWA! Quote-Mine Alert! Quote-Mine Alert!

I don't get it, GM - the sentence was quoted in its entirety in the book - the phrase after "miracle" was NOT deleted. You're wrong.

And as far as the rest of the paragraph, what does it say? The next sentence is : "But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions." Um, ok - well, he has no idea how it might have happened, according to the rest of the paragraph, yet asks us to take on faith that "But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."? A nice opinion, but certainly not a scientific answer, or even a scientific theory. Personally, I put his "answer" on par with a "a miracle happened!" He gave NO answer; nor did he give ANY type of theory.

Any time you see a Creationist quoting an isolated sentence or two of a prominent modern biologist - especially without giving a reference- it should set off red flags.

And the quote was referenced in the book, too.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
More christians should think along these lines in my opinion.

Do you mean even if, like me, they've examined the evidence for both sides and thought things through and honestly think that creationism is better supported by evidence, they should mindlessly say that evolutionism is right? I hope you don't mean that.

Or maybe you're just talking about the Christians that mindlessly accept creationism. I would agree, and I would also add that people that mindlessly accept evolutionism should consider other possibilities, too, or at least not swallow things without thinking them through first. I hope you agree

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
And for the Mt.St. Helens sample:

....

AUSTIN FAILED TO PROPERLY USE THE K-Ar METHOD

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. (Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) clearly state at their website that their equipment cannot accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ('We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.'; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

Let's see, where shall I start ...

I guess I'll start with that it sincerely troubles me that the pre-dating of samples does not trouble you, GM. As the lab apparently said on their website, "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.". So if a geologist gets a rock sample and sincerely believes, by index fossils or other reasons, that it's older than 2 MY, and submits it to the lab in question, it apparently will come back confirmed with a very old age.

What if his original age estimate was wrong, GM?

What if it was wrong?

He'll never know. He'll never know.

And that's really sad.

And you see nothing wrong with this?



And as far as the question : "Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer???" Well, personally I don't think he expected a reliable answer, and he was darn right. I think he hoped to point out a serious flaw in the thinking behind some dating methods. And he did. And I would hope that true scientists would admit to this flaw, in the interests of true knowledge.

Pre-dating is seriously disturbing, IMO. And I hope scientists in this area have the guts to seriously look at the issue.

[Rían]

Lief - I just noticed you had said origin of life - my question isn't really on that - but I'd love to have it answered, anyway, if he has time.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Lief - I just noticed you had said origin of life - my question isn't really on that - but I'd love to have it answered, anyway, if he has time.

Yes, I noticed the difference too. I'm happy to ask it anyway.

[Janny]

What do people think of the idea that the seven days may be a metaphor? Who would relish the prospect of explaining to people 2000 years age about the forming of proteins from enzymes etc etc?

Also I read somewhere (I've forgoten where) of a doctor who suggested a metaphorical link between stem cell work and the creation of Eve from Adam's rib.

Surely if God is the supreme order and science is the search for order, there should not be this conflict.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
As he'll be a Christian, it seems highly improbable to me he doesn't believe in creationism.

I'll keep it handy. Thanks.

gotcha... obviously he believes creationism to be the correct theory... however, is he willing to admit that it is a theory and as such, may be wrong

this is the essential difference between science and religion... in science all theories are just that... and a good scientist must admit that theories are not facts (and yes, there are bad scientists who don't like to admit this)

many, though not all, religious people claim that their beliefs are fact

if he wants to claim that creationism is a science, he must be willing to accept the possibility, no matter how small he may perceive it, that his theory is wrong

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Let's see, where shall I start ...

I guess I'll start with that it sincerely troubles me that the pre-dating of samples does not trouble you, GM. As the lab apparently said on their website, "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.". So if a geologist gets a rock sample and sincerely believes, by index fossils or other reasons, that it's older than 2 MY, and submits it to the lab in question, it apparently will come back confirmed with a very old age.

What if his original age estimate was wrong, GM?

What if it was wrong?

He'll never know. He'll never know.

And that's really sad.

And you see nothing wrong with this?



And as far as the question : "Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer???" Well, personally I don't think he expected a reliable answer, and he was darn right. I think he hoped to point out a serious flaw in the thinking behind some dating methods. And he did. And I would hope that true scientists would admit to this flaw, in the interests of true knowledge.

Pre-dating is seriously disturbing, IMO. And I hope scientists in this area have the guts to seriously look at the issue.

If he was trying to challenge the dating method, then why didn't he send it to a lab that claimed to be able to date it more accurately, rather than one that had already informed him that they couldn't?

A few weeks ago I helped a friend take a truckload of scrap metal to a junkyard- after we had weighed the load, I happened to be standing on the truck scale, which showed me to be weighing 400 lbs. ( not true, I hasten to add), because the scale was not geared for such light weights.

Should I have sent them an air-mail to weigh, and then claim their scales were worthless because they couldn't give me an accurate reading?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
As he'll be a Christian, it seems highly improbable to me he doesn't believe in creationism.

Actually, millions of Christians don't believe in Creationism.

[Janny]

I repeat my question from ^.

Also has anyone heard of St Anselm's 'proof' of the existence God. It goes thus:
2 axioms:
God is the best thing imaginable.
Good things which are real are better than good things imagined.

Therefore God must exist as if he didn't exist there would be something imaginable better than him.

It is claimed that the success of this 'proof' is that, supposedly, two people never agree on where it goes wrong. Which seems funny really. I personally feel it is flawed in that it only proves the existance of the concept of God... it seems a definition more than anything.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Actually, millions of Christians don't believe in Creationism.

Eh? Do you mean Creationism in any form, or only the evangelical belief in Creationism that takes the Creation account literally? Please define for me a little more clearly what you mean.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Janny
What do people think of the idea that the seven days may be a metaphor? Who would relish the prospect of explaining to people 2000 years age about the forming of proteins from enzymes etc etc?

Also I read somewhere (I've forgoten where) of a doctor who suggested a metaphorical link between stem cell work and the creation of Eve from Adam's rib.

Surely if God is the supreme order and science is the search for order, there should not be this conflict.

Could you explain that question to me again, a little more clearly? Forgive me, I'm not very skilled in biology, currently.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
if he wants to claim that creationism is a science, he must be willing to accept the possibility, no matter how small he may perceive it, that his theory is wrong

I'll certainly pose this to him.



By the way, our meeting with him did not work out. He had to cancel. However, I am seeking to procur his email address. On the bright side, through that means he may be able better to answer your questions.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
If he was trying to challenge the dating method, then why didn't he send it to a lab that claimed to be able to date it more accurately, rather than one that had already informed him that they couldn't?

A few weeks ago I helped a friend take a truckload of scrap metal to a junkyard- after we had weighed the load, I happened to be standing on the truck scale, which showed me to be weighing 400 lbs. ( not true, I hasten to add), because the scale was not geared for such light weights.

Should I have sent them an air-mail to weigh, and then claim their scales were worthless because they couldn't give me an accurate reading?

There is one (at least) difference here, GM - and it's a HUGE one - your weight CAN be measured accurately. The correct procedure would be to find a small enough scale range so that you will "top out", then go up one range until you find one that you are somewhere at the middle. That will be your weight. You can also cross-verify it several ways that are ALSO not dependant upon an INITIAL ESTIMATE being correct. There IS a scientific way to find out your weight - and the correct procedure is NOT to stand on a truck scale, and the correct answer, given the correct procedure, does NOT depend upon a correct estimate. I"m a terrible estimator - say that I look at you and say I think you're 250 pounds. Then if we follow the correct procedure, we will find out your real weight, and it doesn't matter if my initial estimate was right or not! All it means is that I would use a few more scales until I found one that you "topped out" with. It will have NO influence on the final answer.

However, the standard procedure for dating rocks DOES utterly and completely depend upon an initially correct estimate, which may very well be WRONG. This was clearly shown in the Mt. St. Helens rock case.

Do you still have no problem with this? Not in the least? GM, you've always seemed intellectually honest. Can you honestly say that you still have no intellectual problem with this dependence upon an initial estimate being correct?

[Janny]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Could you explain that question to me again, a little more clearly? Forgive me, I'm not very skilled in biology, currently.

Neither am I Maybe I'll get my GCSE soon...

All I was asking really was if you were God how would you set about telling people who had no knowledge of how the world would be need to be created, complex biology etc? Would you explain in terms of biology, or would you use a metaphor?

Also, can someone explain to me what biology believs happened at creation? To my understanding no-one knows what the difference is between a group of chemicals which could function and one which actually does. I would really like to know, I'm prepared to try and put my head around anything ludicrously complex in an explanation!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Janny
All I was asking really was if you were God how would you set about telling people who had no knowledge of how the world would be need to be created, complex biology etc? Would you explain in terms of biology, or would you use a metaphor?

Or perhaps more accurately: if you were a man in the ancient past writing a religious tome about creation and you had no knowledge of biology what so ever, how would you put creation into words? seems to me you would write it in a way that leaves a lot of doors open to interpretation. If you were forward thinking. and yes with tons of symbolgy and metaphors.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Janny
All I was asking really was if you were God how would you set about telling people who had no knowledge of how the world would be need to be created, complex biology etc? Would you explain in terms of biology, or would you use a metaphor?

Okay, I grasp your question now.

Originally posted by Janny
Or perhaps more accurately: if you were a man in the ancient past writing a religious tome about creation and you had no knowledge of biology what so ever, how would you put creation into words?

She's asking about what we'd believe from the Christian perspective. She's taking for granted beforehand in her assumption of the question that the Bible is the Word of God. Thus, her question has little to do with your statement.

Originally posted by Janny
seems to me you would write it in a way that leaves a lot of doors open to interpretation. If you were forward thinking. and yes with tons of symbolgy and metaphors.

I look upon the symbolism as not all that strong. For example, in Revelation it describes the sun turning to blood. This I don't believe will literally happen. However, it would be easy for this event to occur in a nuclear holocaust. I have seen the sun turn red already, when we had those enormous fires raging through California. It seems likely to me that something like that is the correct interpretation. Those are the kinds of realistic interpretations that I'm looking for when I look at Genesis.

[Janny]

Ok touchee both of you. Yeah, the question didn't really help, both sides still answer based on their starting view. What I was getting at was that, IF it were the word of God, it wouldn't be explaned perfectly. But that point has just be proved void.
I also re-pose my question:

Also, can someone explain to me what biology believes happened at creation? To my understanding no-one knows what the difference is between a group of chemicals which could function and one which actually does. I would really like to know, I'm prepared to try and put my head around anything ludicrously complex in an explanation!

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Eh? Do you mean Creationism in any form, or only the evangelical belief in Creationism that takes the Creation account literally? Please define for me a little more clearly what you mean.

The Fundamentalist account, whether Old Earth or Young Earth.

I assume all Christians are creationists in the sense that they believe God created the universe, and would further hazard a guess that they would have to believe that evolution is guided enough to produce Humanity in its Fallen state and Christ the Redeemer in human form.

Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum (see figure), and most creationist and evolutionist positions may be fit along this continuum (Scott 1999). The successive steps labelled in the figure are described below.

CREATION
Flat Earthers
Geocentrists
Young Earth Creationists
(Omphalos)
Old Earth Creationists
(Gap Creationism)
(Day-Age Creationism)
(Progressive Creationism)
(Intelligent Design Creationism)
Evolutionary Creationists
Theistic Evolutionists
Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
EVOLUTION

Followed by brief descriptions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html#continuum