Friday, March 28, 2014

New IPCC Report Forced to Soften the Rhetoric

Science Prevails

Because when people like Matt Ridley question your theory, and when even the notorious United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change so much as softens the rhetoric, you know the hypothesis—in this case anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming—is in trouble. To wit, Ridley points out that in its next report the IPCC moves toward a more sober view of AGW. Gone are the various warnings which inevitably will turn out to be false. Instead the IPCC will issue sufficiently vague warnings, such as dangerous cyclones and changes in rainfall, that are resistant to falsification. And the cost of all this calamity will be scaled back from the 5-20% of the world’s gross domestic product that has been discussed, to less than 2%. The IPCC will be forced now to admit that the economic impact of global warming will be, err, “small relative to the impacts of other drivers.” The report will also admit that not only has climate change not brought any species to extinction, but that the IPCC has “very little confidence” that it will do so. Not surprisingly, as AGW wanes, the IPCC will begin to lay the groundwork for other environmental catastrophes to be alarmed about, showing that, as with evolution, while the various hypotheses are forfeitable (global cooling, global warming, acid rain, the ozone hole, etc.), it is the theoretical core (in this case, environmentalism) that must be protected. None of this is to say that protecting the environment is not important. In fact, it is crucial.

327 comments:

  1. Ch,

    .None of this is to say that protecting the environment is not important. In fact. it is crucial.

    Absolutely, God gave man stewardship over the planet, we are to care for it and not wantonly destroy it. By the same token we are not to worship it. What these people inevitably do is turn these things into a religion. Because they want to avoid true religion. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the No True Religion Fallacy.

      Delete
    2. Ah, the denial of reality fallacy. You're constant appearance here belies your certainty. I'm here to proselytize. If you believed your own fairy tales you wouldn't be here at all. A materialist who actually believes his fairy tales has no need to proselytize. But you don't, so you come here to beat your chest and reinforce your rebellion. You are both predicted and expected. Maybe God will grant you mercy. Or maybe this will be used in your just condemnation, only God knows. I can tell you this, Christ died to reconcile sinners if you repent and believe. If not every word you post here will be used in your just condemnation. I pray I will rejoice over you as a brother. The opposite is too unpleasant to contemplate. :)

      Delete
    3. Proselytize away. It doesn't bother me. Although I regard myself as agnostic and atheist, I'm not one of those who thinks that religion is going away any time soon. It'll probably be around in some form for as long as humans are what we currently thunk of as human and for the same reasons it's around now.

      That doesn't mean I can't enjoy myself pointing out all the problems with Christian theology although I don't flatter myself I've come up with anything new. These are issues which have disturbed theologians for centuries.

      I like the bit about fairy tales, though, given that my beliefs don't include talking snakes, sticks turning into snakes, people being turned into pillars of salt, the parting of seas and so on.

      Delete
    4. Now, it just involves rocks turning into living organisms, reptiles turning into birds, ect. As I said the evolutionist demands more faith than I'm willing to grant. Besides, you might read the account of the serpent again. I think you're missing a few things. You want your supernatural occurrences, you just deny they're supernatural. Which is a falsehood of course. You claim God can't violate natural laws, though He made them, but your idol can. So spare me the snide remarks, you will give account, as we all will.

      Your also right, you haven't come up with anything new, just the same tired old atheist trash and ignorance.

      Delete
  2. It's about time for overpopulation to surface again as the next catastrophe for the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's also droughts, crop failures, the sea level rise (whether caused by AGW or not), coronal mass ejections, supervolcanoes, San Andreas Fault, passing asteroids, you name it. There's plenty to be going on with. Just because it's been quiet for a while doesn't mean it always will be. Oh, and one little prediction of my own, praying to your God will not stop any of them.

      Delete
    2. Ian,

      Yes, the sky is falling chicken little

      Delete
    3. Not yet, maybe, but it doesn't hurt to keep your eyes open. Better than being taken by surprise.

      Delete
    4. Ian,

      Yes, we should all sit around worrying about what might happen, as if it's under our control. I'm unconcerned with death, because "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain". There is a great peace that comes with that. "And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." You don't seem to understand, There is nothing about man that is not covered. If you want to understand human behavior read the bible. You're in there too. "Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires." or " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?." The answer to the latter verse is of course God. I hope you'll meet him before you die. :)

      Delete
  3. Marcus,

    Ah, Malthusian catastrophism. You ever notice that most of these horrific ideas come from clergy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eklektos,
      Yes, the high priests of Liberal Academia. They're great at forecasting catastrophes materializing 10 to 20 years after they're already dead. Nobody around to say, oops, I was wrong. Their loyal disciples will continue the struggle though.

      Delete
    2. If the fire didn't burn the town down, it doesn't mean it was wrong to ring the alarm. As a rule, the reason to sound the fire alarm is to rally people to put out the fire — before it burns the town down.

      Delete
    3. Zachriel,

      whatever you say Chicken Little. Of course it's perfectly logical to worry about everything that might happen. We should wrap ourselves in bubble wrap because when we go out our door we might fall down. Oh, sorry I forgot, bio-degradable bubble wrap. We should accept bad science because it could be true. Hey, if we make this a barren rock it's only natural. There are lots of barren rocks in the universe, it's only natural.

      Delete
    4. eklektos: whatever you say Chicken Little.

      So we are in agreement. If there and only if there is a fire should one ring the fire alarm.

      eklektos: Hey, if we make this a barren rock it's only natural.

      It's also natural that humans want their children to thrive.

      Delete
    5. Zachriel,

      Well there's the rub isn't there. The question is not whether the planet has warmed slightly, but whether this warming is caused by human activity or cyclic variations. But until we actually know the answer to that question it's a little premature to run around crying wolf. But that is exactly what's happening, why? Because of man's inherent need for religion, and when he denies true religion he will make anything else convenient into one. Like AGW.

      Delete
    6. eklektos: The question is not whether the planet has warmed slightly, but whether this warming is caused by human activity or cyclic variations.

      There's no reasonable scientific doubt that anthropogenic warming is occurring. The scientific question is the amount of warming to expect (climate sensitivity), the dangers of such warming, and plausible policy responses to the warming.

      Delete
    7. Zachriel,

      Of course there's not, it's been proclaimed. We're all just stupid. There's quite a bit of doubt in the scientific community, but I'm sure they'll all be exorcised just like anyone who doubts Darwinism. When you can't convince your opponents use raw power. Then the rest will fall in line like good Dhimmi's. You are a joke.

      Delete
    8. eklektos

      Of course there's not, it's been proclaimed. We're all just stupid. There's quite a bit of doubt in the scientific community,

      That global warming is occurring or that human activity plays a part?

      The author Dr Hunter above accepts AGW , just says its won't be as bad as some say for certain people.

      What is your evidence that the present climate models are incorrect?


      Delete
    9. We don't know enough yet to know whether they are correct or not. Why, because of the huge number of unknown variables. We've been hearing this same doomsday prediction for 2 decades. Was it correct? Well, no. If someone comes up with a viable alternative to fossil fuel fine. They'll get rich. But that doesn't mean the government should be involved. Controlling emissions to some reasonable level is one thing. Wasting resources on pie in the sky ideas is another.

      What is your evidence that the present climate models are incorrect?

      The onus is not on me to disprove the models, the onus is on you to prove them. This is the kind of burden of proof shifting so common in most of the pseudo-science today. The models have failed miserably in their predictions so far, now we're told, "well gee, we've refined them". Given their abysmal track record so far I see no reason to believe that. Further if there is a man-made component it is likely so small as to be negligible, as the major factors that drive temperatures on the planet are not CO2. This is hardly news, which is why there are a great many scientist who actually work in the field who dispute it. But of course as this is really not a scientific issue no doubt they will be drummed out of their jobs and called deniers.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. eklektos

      Because of man's inherent need for religion, and when he denies true religion he will make anything else convenient into one. Like AGW.

      Except people who have " true religion" accept the scientific consensus , they have no need for religion.

      How do you know that man has an inherit need for religion as opposed to religion is one way to fulfill the inherit need for explanations , tribe cohesion?

      Delete
    12. Velikovsky,

      Well you see, there's this book, and it talks about these things. There was this Being called God who inspired it. I know, because I know Him, personally. It makes no sense to you, but that was also predicted. You may mock away, but I know what it is that I believe and why.

      Delete
    13. eklektos: There's quite a bit of doubt in the scientific community, but I'm sure they'll all be exorcised just like anyone who doubts Darwinism.

      Evolution is far more certain than anthropogenic climate change.

      eklektos: When you can't convince your opponents use raw power.

      The scientific question is normally resolved by scientists working through the scientific method.

      eklektos: We don't know enough yet to know whether they are correct or not.

      There's a high probability that humans are having a profound effect on the climate.

      eklektos: The onus is not on me to disprove the models, the onus is on you to prove them.

      The basic model of greenhouse warming is over century old. While how heat is distributed between the atmosphere and hydrosphere is still uncertain, the heat energy is still increasing.

      eklektos: This is hardly news, which is why there are a great many scientist who actually work in the field who dispute it.

      Well, a handful, none of whom have the scientific goods at this point.

      Delete
    14. There are no goods. That's the problem. We know at times in the past the earth was warmer than now, at times cooler. Your model has been wrong in it's predictions so far. There's no reason to believe that it's right, or that CO2's effect is anything but negligible. There's a reason the public is skeptical. Because they know that it's just more overreach. And that the people pushing this have been shown to be absolute hypocrites, decrying CO2 emissions while riding around in private cars, jets, living in lavish surroundings, ect. Sorry, we ain't buying. I'll leave that to the useful idiots. ;)

      Delete
    15. eklektos: We know at times in the past the earth was warmer than now, at times cooler.

      Yes. Those crazy climate scientists. What will they discover next!

      eklektos: There's no reason to believe that it's right, or that CO2's effect is anything but negligible.

      The evidence indicates a non-negligible climate sensitivity of about 2-4°C.

      Delete
  4. Great game, the game of telephone:

    From: "for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers,"

    To: economic impact of global warming will be, err, “small relative to the impacts of other drivers."

    Can you see the difference?

    Later: impact of global warming will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "... Not surprisingly, as AGW wanes, the IPCC will begin to lay the groundwork for other environmental catastrophes to be alarmed about, showing that, as with evolution, while the various hypotheses are forfeitable (global cooling, global warming, acid rain, the ozone hole, etc.), it is the theoretical core (in this case, environmentalism) that must be protected. None of this is to say that protecting the environment is not important. In fact, it is crucial."

    Just not crucial to environmentalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Question, who will protect the environment if environmentalists don't, private enterprise? Not if there's no money to be made from it, they won't.

      Delete
    2. Question: who will make you intellectually honest if not you?

      Environmentalism has nothing to do with "protecting the environment" ... and you know that as well as I do.

      Delete
    3. Ilíon: Environmentalism has nothing to do with "protecting the environment" ... and you know that as well as I do.

      Of course it does. Air and water pollution are real issues.

      Delete
    4. The question is not whether they are real issues. The question is whether all this alarmism actually has anything to do with actual science or environmentalism. I believe we are stewards of this world, so we should not wantonly destroy it. The problem is most of this nonsense has nothing to do with environmentalism, as it seems to be claiming that man is the problem in almost all cases. It's the culture of death. We should all kill ourselves for the good of the planet, because the planet is more important than the stewards. Of course it always some poor soul in a third world nation that gets to do all the dying for the good of the planet. Most of the problems involving famine in say Africa have to do with practices that we abandon after the 30's. Solve the political and farming technique problems and you'll solve the problems. But of course the culture of death claims the problems are too many people, so some have to die, be aborted, ect. There's a name for that, it's called evil.

      Delete
    5. eklektos: The question is whether all this alarmism actually has anything to do with actual science or environmentalism.

      In the U.S., rivers were so polluted they actually caught on fire. The environmental movement was instrumental in laws that limited air and water pollution in the U.S., as well as Europe. Meanwhile, China's growth is choking on its own emissions, but lacks the open society necessary for the type of environmental movement found in the West.

      eklektos: The problem is most of this nonsense has nothing to do with environmentalism, as it seems to be claiming that man is the problem in almost all cases.

      They are in many cases. Cities used to have open sewers.

      eklektos: We should all kill ourselves for the good of the planet, because the planet is more important than the stewards.

      The purpose of the environmental movement is to leave the world a better place for human children.

      eklektos: But of course the culture of death claims the problems are too many people, so some have to die, be aborted, ect.

      Overpopulation is certainly a problem, but the usual proposal is family planning.

      Delete
    6. Zachriel,

      Ad Hoc at it's finest. That seems to be your operating principle.

      Delete
    7. Zachriel,

      Overpopulation is certainly a problem, but the usual proposal is family planning.

      ie murdering the unborn

      Delete
    8. There is a difference between contraception and abortion.

      Delete
    9. Ian,

      Indeed there is. But the latter is being used as the former to the tune of 2+ million times a year. Mostly in minority neighborhoods. The racist eugenicist Margret Sanger would be proud. And who does most of these abortions, Planned Parenthood! Now if you don't support this practice good for you. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

      Delete
    10. eklektos: Ad Hoc at it's finest.

      Handwaving. We provided historical examples of the goals and successes of the environmental movement.

      ekteklos: But the latter {abortion} is being used as the former to the tune of 2+ million times a year.

      Yes, there are too many abortions. Most can be avoided with the use of birth control. Not sure how supports your contention that the environmental movement has nothing to do with the environment.

      Delete
    11. The environmental movement is a religion. The environment is just the idol. I'm not against environmentalism per se. I'm all for leaving as small a footprint as possible, but within limits. As to your phony handwaving claim you've made it before. Your argument is ad hoc, because open sewers ->environmental movement is correct. Open sewers were not solved by the modern environmental movement. The environmental movement is a religious movement for the most part, hence the abuse of science.

      Delete
    12. eklektos: Open sewers were not solved by the modern environmental movement.

      The problem of sanitation was solved by epidemiological research before the modern environmental movement. However, air and water pollution were addressed by the modern environmental movement.


      Delete
    13. The environmental movement of the 60's & 70's can hardly be compared to the environmental movement of today. And for the most part the acid rain and water pollution problems were solved because of the states interest, though the environmentalist assisted. The history of these issues isn't as straight forward as you make out. But the silliness that came afterwards was definitely an outgrowing of the more sane earlier movements. And I'm not going to list all the silliness and abuses of the last 3 decades. Your simplistic assertion is noted.

      Delete
    14. eklektos: The environmental movement of the 60's & 70's can hardly be compared to the environmental movement of today.

      The anti-environmentalist rhetoric is remarkably consistent.

      eklektos: And for the most part the acid rain and water pollution problems were solved because of the states interest, though the environmentalist assisted.

      The ability of people to freely organize in the West has been essential to limiting pollution.

      Delete
    15. Of course, calling for sanity is anti-environmentalism. Questioning the viability of AGW models is makes you a denier on par with holocaust deniers. But it's not operating like a religion. And elephants fly.

      Delete
    16. eklektos: Of course, calling for sanity is anti-environmentalism.

      Not at all. Denying well-established science is what is meant by denialism.

      eklektos: Questioning the viability of AGW models is makes you a denier on par with holocaust deniers.

      Questioning is not denying.

      Delete
    17. Tell that to your amigos. You pretend that those claims aren't being made, but they are all the time. In all kinds of media.

      Delete
    18. eklektos: You pretend that those claims aren't being made, but they are all the time.

      Of course they are. People deny climate science, just like they deny evolutionary science. They're not raising questions, they're denying.

      Delete
    19. Maybe they deny it because the evidence is insufficient. And it is. All I get from you is ad hoc, arguments from majority, arguments from authority, et al. And by the way in response to something you said in an earlier thread, ad hominem is always a logical fallacy.

      Delete
    20. eklektos: Maybe they deny it because the evidence is insufficient.

      We keep trying to discuss the evidence, but you keep meandering off.

      eklektos: And by the way in response to something you said in an earlier thread, ad hominem is always a logical fallacy.

      They're usually fallacies of irrelevance, but not always. Ad hominem is the converse to an appeal to authority.

      Delete
    21. Ad hominem is a genetic fallacy, and always wrong. If Hitler says the sun will rise in the east he's not wrong because he's Hitler. An attack against the person and not the argument is a fallacy.

      Delete
  6. The report will also admit that not only has climate change not brought any species to extinction, but that the IPCC has “very little confidence” that it will do so.

    The much more immediate problem regarding extinctions is habitat destruction which generally results from human activity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This speaks for itself and the inherent wickedness of man. We are such noble creatures:

    http://creation.com/hospitals-heated-by-incinerated-babies

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just not crucial to environmentalism.

    No, just crucial to the diversity of life on Earth. I guess if you are only concerned about getting into some next life, that hardly matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alan,
      if I was you I'd worry about it too. :) Besides if we are just animals, whatever we do is natural. If other species have to die to accommodate us too bad. Survival of the fittest after all. We're more fit, so we survive, if we destroy ourselves it's just part of the natural process right? Remember there is no purpose. The internal inconsistency of the naturalist worldview is astounding.

      Delete
    2. Environmentalism has nothing to do with "protecting the environment" ... and you know that as well as I do.

      Delete
    3. Ilíon: Environmentalism has nothing to do with "protecting the environment" ... and you know that as well as I do.

      Of course it does. Air and water pollution are real issues.

      Delete
    4. Besides if we are just animals, whatever we do is natural

      So reason is natural, correct?After all we are just animals who can reason and whatever we do is natural. So acting in a reasonable way is natural.

      So what is the reasonable course of action?

      If other species have to die to accommodate us too bad.

      We are dependent on other species for survival,therefore it is in our self interest to be careful what we deem inconsequential . Bees is the US for instance

      Survival of the fittest after all. We're more fit, so we survive, if we destroy ourselves it's just part of the natural process right?

      And if we take a reasonable approach it is just as natural to try to ensure long term survival

      Remember there is no purpose.

      Man are animals so what're ever they do is natural(per eklektos)

      Man has purposes to his actions(demonstrated by this post)

      Therefore purpose is natural as far as man.

      Your claim is false

      Delete
    5. My claim is that your view is incoherent. And it is. It's the logical end of the view. Which is why it's illogical for environmentalist to claim that what humans do is unnatural. It's circular reasoning. Just like you displayed above. If it's survival of the fittest then it's man's survival that's important. Man can get along fine without darter snails, kangaroo rats, et al. So when you try to make the reason argument you fail. Man has no purpose beyond his biological imperative to survive and breed. That's it. That's reductionist biology. I'm sorry you don't like, but too bad.

      Delete
    6. eklektos: Which is why it's illogical for environmentalist to claim that what humans do is unnatural.

      You seem to be conflating different definitions of natural. Humans are certainly a part of and dependent on the environment, tough.

      Delete
    7. I'm not conflating anything. You want to severe the notion, like you want to sever biogenesis from evolution but I don't buy it and neither do a lot of people. You live for ad hoc and special pleading. It's your modus operandi.

      Delete
    8. eklektos: I'm not conflating anything.

      Perhaps not, but you might try to make clear your use of the term, rather than just waving your hands.

      Humans are certainly a part of and dependent on the environment.

      Delete
    9. I never argued they didn't. But my reasons are different for protecting the environment, as I plainly stated.

      Delete
    10. eklektos: I never argued they didn't.

      You did argue that environmentalism is a religion. One doesn't have to adopt environmentalism as a religion to understand that humans are a part of and dependent on the environment. An environmentalist is simply someone concerned about the environment.

      environmentalism, advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment.

      Delete
    11. Modern environmentalism is operating like a religion on many levels. It's simply another idol for a lot of people.

      Delete
    12. eklektos

      My claim is that your view is incoherent. And it is.

      First your claim is metaphysical naturalism is incoherent, that view you summarized as "Besides if we are just animals, whatever we do is natural."

      Second you have not proven my syllogism fails, the first premise is your characterization of naturalism,do wish to dispute that premise as faulty?

      Which is why it's illogical for environmentalist to claim that what humans do is unnatural.

      I know that they claim that humans action can destabilize the existing ecosystems, that destabilization can have detrimental effect on species, but all that requires man to be part of that ecosystem, part of nature.

      It's circular reasoning. Just like you displayed

      Your just so story Is duly noted.



      If it's survival of the fittest then it's man's survival that's important.

      I think you have that backwards, man decides what is important, our prospects for long term survival depends on what we decide is important.

      Man can get along fine without darter snails, kangaroo rats, et al.

      I don't believe kangaroo rats are endangered, but I agree man has survived without the existence of the passenger pigeon . But as a society we have decided that economics isn't the only thing that is important.

      So when you try to make the reason argument you fail.

      Reason has survival value, knowing how plants reproduce,when to plant them successfully requires reason.


      Man has no purpose beyond his biological imperative to survive and breed.

      Which are you doing now?

      That's it. That's reductionist biology.

      Perhaps but your claim is concerning a "naturalist worldview" the only purpose that seems to rule out is supernatural purpose.

      Delete
    13. eklektos

      you want to severe the notion, like you want to sever biogenesis from evolution but I don't buy it and neither do a lot of people.

      Feel the same about ID severing the designer from a theory of design?

      Delete
    14. eklektos: Modern environmentalism is operating like a religion on many levels. It's simply another idol for a lot of people.

      Only a small minority of environmentalists are extremists.

      Delete
    15. Velikovsky,

      I'm not ID, as you may have noticed. I don't believe in minimalist apologetics ala WLC ect. But Scientifically ID simply identifies something as designed, like we do everyday. Besides, the real objection on the part of the evolutionist is religious anyway. Heck, Zachriel proved that when confronted with the fact that Ediacaran was very likely a land based lichen and not a jellyfish. That's right at the base of the TOL. It would have fallen over. So what was the response? We'll just have to change the tree. Evolution is unfalsifiable because it's a religious belief. So spare me the science claims, no sane person is buying. This kind of nonsense is why the public observes science with a jaundiced eye. Engineers are great, because they actually do something useful. Medical researchers are great because they actually do something useful. Evolutionary biologist? They hinder science, just like they did with their phony junk DNA claims. So what's the response when the ENCODE project finds out it's not junk but functional. The evolutionist scream bloody murder. Why? Because they are for the most part atheistic children who don't know how to behave like adults. They call creationist organizations and leave incoherent foul mouthed rants. They spew ad hominem and filth in comboxes. Gee, can't understand why they're losing the public.

      Delete
    16. eklektos: Zachriel proved that when confronted with the fact that Ediacaran was very likely a land based lichen and not a jellyfish.

      1. It wasn't a fact, but a claim with minimal support.
      2. The paper doesn't say the tree doesn't exist, but that the particular leaves belong on different branches.
      3. It's your citation.

      It's interesting how you think that a single scientific paper is "fact", while an entire body of scientific work is "religion". Classic cherry-picking.

      Delete
    17. Velikovsky,

      Of course you could counter with Westboro, but they're more a heretical cult than Christian. They seemed to have missed that whole "ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you with patience and gentleness" thing.

      Delete
    18. Zachriel,

      It was your response that was telling, not whether it's a jellyfish or a lichen. Your claims are just a joke.

      Delete
    19. eklektos: It was your response that was telling

      Yes, we responded to the paper YOU cited then misrepresented, while you have simply decided to wave your hands.

      1. It wasn't a fact, but a claim with minimal support.
      2. The paper doesn't say the tree doesn't exist, but that the particular leaves belong on different branches.
      3. It's your citation.

      It's interesting how you think that a single scientific paper is "fact", while an entire body of scientific work is "religion". Classic cherry-picking.


      Delete
    20. "We" are impervious to any evidence, including the loss of the "proto-trilobite". Spin it however you wish. Your belief in your presupposition is so strong it's impervious to evidence.

      Delete
    21. eklektos: "We" are impervious to any evidence,

      Ignoring our comment just highlights the weakness of your argument.

      1. It wasn't a fact, but a claim with minimal support.
      2. The paper doesn't say the tree doesn't exist, but that the particular leaves belong on different branches.
      3. It's your citation.

      It's interesting how you think that a single scientific paper is "fact", while an entire body of scientific work is "religion". Classic cherry-picking.

      Chen et al., New Ediacara fossils preserved in marine limestone and their ecological implications, Nature 2014.

      Delete
    22. Nice try, not buying. Your reaction is typical. Spin away, your just fibbing. The question is not whether your phony tree exists, it exists on paper and in your mind. Leaving aside that it's not believable that a jellyfish turned into a trilobite in the wink of an eye in evolutionary time. Your first reaction was it's not true, and if it's true the tree is still true. Plus you'd have life going from the land to the sea, plus you can't even properly identify the organism, plus the just so story of the "jellyfish' being tossed up on a tidal plain. It's a just a joke. You are impervious to contra-evidence. And every time you post one of your lame responses you only make it worse. You are a classic demonstration of what's wrong with evolutionary claims.

      Delete
    23. eklektos: Your reaction is typical.

      In other words, you can't respond substantively.

      1. It wasn't a fact, but a claim with minimal support.
      2. The paper doesn't say the tree doesn't exist, but that the particular leaves belong on different branches.
      3. It's your citation.

      See Chen et al., New Ediacara fossils preserved in marine limestone and their ecological implications, Nature 2014.

      eklektos: Your first reaction was it's not true, and if it's true the tree is still true.

      The overall tree structure is well-established, even if the arrangement of particular branches remain uncertain.

      Delete
    24. More assertions." It's true, just believe me, it's well established!" Of course whenever we find dinosaur fossils we inevitably find clams that have been buried in the same rock layer. But that doesn't count as evidence, because see, the dinosaurs were caught in a raging flood that buried them together with the clams. Yea, I believe in a raging flood too.

      Delete
    25. Oh, you can keep repeating the same three points, just like you kept repeating your parsimony claim, but you're not dealing with your reaction, which as I said was telling. And you can't even properly identify the organism, period.

      Delete
    26. eklektos: More assertions.

      No, we're more than willing to grapple with the evidence. It's you who cite a paper as fact, then refuse to discuss it.

      Start with Chen et al., New Ediacara fossils preserved in marine limestone and their ecological implications, Nature 2014, which provides strong evidence directly contradicting Retallack.

      eklektos: Of course whenever we find dinosaur fossils we inevitably find clams that have been buried in the same rock layer.

      Not inevitably, but sometimes in remains of rivers, estuaries, and floodplains.

      eklektos: Oh, you can keep repeating the same three points ...

      It's nice to think that we are having a good faith discussion.

      eklektos: but you're not dealing with your reaction, which as I said was telling.

      In other words, you will continue to ignore the topic.

      Delete
    27. There's nothing to ignore. You seem to want to claim that if your proto-trilobite is actually a land animal, which it might very well be, it doesn't make any difference. Just like when the ENCODE data was brought up your reaction was "is not". You want to play semantic games and think your making an argument. All your really doing is denying what is obvious to everyone. I don't care who's right, it's not a "proto-anything", you can't get to a trilobite from a jellyfish or a lichen. But the distinction is obvious to a blind man.

      Delete
    28. eklektos: You seem to want to claim that if your proto-trilobite is actually a land animal, which it might very well be,

      No. See Chen et al., New Ediacara fossils preserved in marine limestone and their ecological implications, Nature 2014, which provides strong evidence directly contradicting Retallack.

      eklektos: it doesn't make any difference.

      Of course it makes a difference. It doesn't mean, however, that Darwin's tree has been toppled. Per you own citation, it just means some of the side branches are rearranged.

      Delete
    29. Darwins tree exists only on paper and in your head. The data is too slim to make any claims of lineage. Which of course why there are so many empty nodes in the charts, why they are being overturned all the time, and why you want to retreat in the past. It's also why you want to violate natural laws. You want miracles based on chance and in direct contradiction to what we observe. We never see genetic information increasing, we only see it degrading. You wish to assert that complex integrated systems can arise piecemeal. We don't observe that. So the claim is, "There just hasn't been enough time". When we use dating methods on rocks of known age we get returns of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The answer? "It only works on rocks where we can't be certain of the age" If it doesn't work on recent rocks the result should be zero and not millions of years. And on and on and on.

      Delete
    30. eklektos: Darwins tree exists only on paper and in your head.

      The tree is the hypothesis, the entailment is the nested hierarchy.

      eklektos: When we use dating methods on rocks of known age we get returns of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

      You really need to try and support your statements rather than making vague claims.

      Delete
    31. A. The "entailment is a circular argument.
      B. read the rate papers, they're available online for free. Of course whenever there's a reading they don't like, including their own, the cry is "contamination". Radiometric dating on both the Mt. St. Helens and Hawaiian lava flow material returned millions of years.

      http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

      Of course you'll just deny the science and make an Ad Hominem remark per the usual.

      Delete
    32. For Mount St. Helens

      http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

      Hawaiian lava flow:

      http://www.icr.org/article/excess-argon-achillies-heel-potassium-argon-dating/

      Delete
    33. eklektos: The "entailment is a circular argument.

      No, it's a deduction. You might call it a tautology, but that's true of all deductions.

      eklektos: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

      700 pages to justify young Earth creationism.

      "this book proposes that decay rates were temporary and dramatically accelerated at some time in the past."

      Heh. You do realize the rates required would melt the Earth, as well as reset the radiometric clock. In addition, a young Earth is not only contrary to multiple radiometric dating schemes, but with the science of planetary and stellar formation, even the Big Bang theory.

      Think about it. Physics can predict the existence of gravity waves in the primordial universe 14.3 billion years ago, set up an observatory at the South Pole, and capture the signal. Lucky guess?
      http://www.wired.com/2014/03/gravitational-waves-b-mode-inflation/

      Delete
    34. Sorry. 13.82 billion years.

      Delete
    35. eklektos: Hawaiian lava flow

      Lavas that have cooled quickly don't always outgas their native argon.

      More important, it's not just the one method that provides confidence, but multiple measures, radiometric, geological, along with evidence from astronomy, and so on.


      Delete
    36. eklektos

      Evolution is unfalsifiable because it's a religious belief

      But it is falsifiable,so therefore it is not a religious belief. Need non bunny examples?

      So spare me the science claims, no sane person is buying.

      Eklektos, if evolution is unreliable because of religious beliefs,so are you. It cuts both ways.

      This kind of nonsense is why the public observes science with a jaundiced eye

      Or we could play the religion card, some science conflicts with their religious beliefs. Man, that is easy

      Evolutionary biologist? They hinder science, just like they did with their phony junk DNA claims. So what's the response when the ENCODE project finds out it's not junk but functional.

      You have to discuss the technical details with Zach, but is it your claim that no biologist who accepts evolution worked on the encode project? If so aren't they not to be trusted as well? If they are to be trusted then that puts a hole in the old religion argument.

      The evolutionist scream bloody murder. Why? Because they are for the most part atheistic children who don't know how to behave like adults. They call creationist organizations and leave incoherent foul mouthed rants. They spew ad hominem and filth in comboxes.

      I would guess most biologists view creationists the same way as you view believers in Thor. It is the political side of creationism that is the worry. Now creationism that is the ultimate just so story, get this,they think they have a book that is the literal word of God. Talk about unfalsifiable.

      Delete
    37. Velikovsky,

      Spare me. If a bunny was found in the Cambrian evolution would absorb it and just move on. It will never be falsified, because its basis is not science but presupposition. The fairy tale of convergent evolution is enough to show that. Whales and Bats have echo location which developed independently but uses the same genes. So it did the miraculous twice. Get real, It couldn't get there once, because these are tightly integrated systems which must appear in tot to work.Yes, it's just our religious belief that causes us to poke gaping holes in the claims. Who's in denial. The claim was made by Zach, so you'd have to ask him why he said it. The problems are real, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. I examine a lot of these claims in great detail. If you can't deal with the technical details you're just taking it on faith. And you're doing so because you don't want a "divine foot in the door". Besides, I've never known creationist to post profanity laced screeds in comboxes on evolutionary websites, though the law of averages would say there'd have to be some. It is not however the creationist modus operandi. And how I view Thor is irrelevant to how these people behave which is what you quoted. As to just so stories at least a designer makes sense, as opposed to jellyfish turning into trilobites, which is genetically impossible to do gradually, nor do they appear gradually. They appear suddenly and fully formed.. Or life coming from inanimate material, which violates a natural law. Or a host of utterly fantastic claims. And all in the name of "science". The evolutionist want miracles all the time. There's more miracles in the supposed evolutionary tree than the bible ten times over.

      Delete
    38. Zachriel,

      Yea, you read 700 pages in 10 hours, your amazing. You don't really read, or understand, anything, you scan for a blurb to attack. You are a joke.

      Delete
    39. Zachriel,

      I'm sorry but your ill-informed. The CMB is still a problem for the expansion. Including the horizon problem, isotropy, ect. Plus the gravity wave data is still not confirmed, it's preliminary, despite what you read in the popular press, which is of course all you seem to read.

      Delete
    40. eklektos: If a bunny was found in the Cambrian evolution would absorb it and just move on.

      Let us know when you have data.

      eklektos: Whales and Bats have echo location which developed independently but uses the same genes.

      And whales and fish have similar hydrodynamic shapes. It's called convergence. See Darwin 1859.

      eklektos: Besides, I've never known creationist to post profanity laced screeds ...

      Perhaps not, but you have resorted to ad hominem on occasion, including in your latest comments.

      eklektos: Yea, you read 700 pages in 10 hours, your amazing.

      We quoted the main proposition of the book, on pdf-page 59. Notably, you can't respond substantively.

      "this book proposes that decay rates were temporary and dramatically accelerated at some time in the past."

      You do realize the rates required would melt the Earth, as well as reset the radiometric clock. In addition, a young Earth is not only contrary to multiple radiometric dating schemes, but with the science of planetary and stellar formation, even the Big Bang theory.

      eklektos: The CMB is still a problem for the expansion.

      And yet they make accurate predictions of phenomena not dreamt of in your philosophy.

      eklektos: The CMB is still a problem for the expansion. Including the horizon problem, isotropy, ect.

      Regardless, there's no reasonable scientific doubt that the universe is billions of years old, as is the Earth.

      Delete
    41. Zachriel, none of that addresses 700+ pages, plus another 1000+ pages in two published technical books, which you haven't read, again. Nor does it address the fact that the various dating methods give varying dates, often the dates vary using the same methods. that the methods are not actually calibrated against a known standard, the often we find inclusions in basalt layers of organic material which are orders of magnitude younger than the basalt layer, that we find older rocks on top of younger rocks with no evidence of subduction or inversion(unless you want to claim the state of Montana was inverted). Polystrate fossils going through layers of rocks with different dates, etc. As to the expansion, like the steady state theory it's still very tentative, you are once again overselling the science.

      Delete
    42. eklektos: none of that addresses 700+ pages, plus another 1000+ pages in two published technical books, which you haven't read, again.

      Perhaps we missed it. You might point to the page that answers our objections.

      eklektos: Nor does it address the fact that the various dating methods give varying dates, often the dates vary using the same methods.

      There are a lot of reasons for disparate results. For instance, with K-Ar dating, xenoliths can result in anomalous readings.

      You keep making vague claims, but provide no specifics.

      Delete
    43. What? There's nothing vague about it. I made specific claims. For example the two basalt layers in the grand canyon that were dated by secular labs and had the older on top of the younger. you're the one who's vague, "we'll you know you get anomalous reading" i.e. readings which evolutionist don't like so they throw them out.

      Delete
    44. eklektos: For example the two basalt layers in the grand canyon that were dated by secular labs and had the older on top of the younger.

      What basalt layers? Where? Have you looked at your own sources skeptically?

      Delete
    45. eklektos

      For example the two basalt layers in the grand canyon that were dated by secular labs and had the older on top of the younger.

      "An intrusion is liquid rock that forms under Earth's surface. Magma from under the surface is slowly pushed up from deep within the earth into any cracks or spaces it can find, sometimes pushing existing country rock out of the way, a process that can take millions of years. As the rock slowly cools into a solid, the different parts of the magma crystallize into minerals. Many mountain ranges, such as the Sierra Nevada in California, are formed mostly by intrusive rock, large granite (or related rock) formations."

      Understand?

      Delete
    46. I see, so your argument is the magma didn't fill the lower crack first, but filled the upper crack first? Yea, I understand.

      Delete
    47. Velikovsky,

      btw, they are lava flows, not intrusions. With sedimentary layers between.

      Delete
    48. eklektos: There's nothing vague about it. I made specific claims.

      The Grand Canyon is a big place. How hard is it to be specific?

      eklektos: the two basalt layers in the grand canyon that were dated by secular labs and had the older on top of the younger.

      Great, then you should have the lab results somewhere.

      Delete
  9. We're more fit, so we survive, if we destroy ourselves it's just part of the natural process right? Remember there is no purpose.

    I do think human beings have enough intelligence, ability and sheer weight of numbers to control their own environment. Unfortunately the short-termism that pervades the thinking of those in political and economic power means that warnings aren't heeded to till it's too late. You only have to look at cod fishing in the north west Atlantic to see a prime example.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have any recent lava flows been tested radiometrically and have given the correct age?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With regards to K-Ar dating, lava from the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1986 was at the expected floor.

      Delete
    2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

      There is some data and explanations on why it's not easy to date lava flows.

      Delete
    3. Yea, give me a peer reviewed paper, not something from a evolutionist website. The rate papers are technical published literature. Give me something similar.

      Delete
    4. eklektos: give me a peer reviewed paper

      Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press 1994.

      Or you could even try the creationist literature. See Austin, Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 1996. While he doesn't say so, the results were at the floor for for the K-Ar technique used.

      eklektos: The rate papers are technical published literature.

      Thought they were published by ICR who have adopted "the Bible as an inerrant and literal documentary of scientific and historical fact".

      Delete
    5. Ad hominem, period. Always a logical fallacy, period. I'll be happy to read any paper you post. Your dishonest period.

      Delete
    6. eklektos: Ad hominem, period... Your dishonest period.

      Listen to yourself.

      Delete
    7. eklektos: Ad hominem, period.

      You had claimed they were "technical published literature", implying more authority than they merit, while simultaneously rejecting a well-researched article from an "evolutionist website".

      Delete
    8. I'm aware of Dalrymple's book and claims. In fact they're all addressed in the books you didn't read, I suspect because you can't understand the data. They were published as they were because fascist control the scientific Journals and will ostracize anyone with a contrary view, even when they are actually published and don't make specific claims. As in the case of the Mark Armitage, who was fired simply because he published a paper in a respected scientific journal which his colleagues didn't like. They, like you, are censors. So spare me your foolishness, I'm not buying nor is the public at large.

      Delete
    9. eklektos: In fact they're all addressed in the books you didn't read

      We're more than happy to respond to the substance of your citation, but you can't point to the page that addresses our objections.

      eklektos: Ad hominem, period... fascist... foolishness

      Listen to yourself.

      Delete
    10. Listen to your denial. The fact is these things actually happen, and no amount of see no evil on your part can eliminate the record. When one groups exercises raw power to eliminate discussion on important matter and censors differing opinions that can be described as fascism. Or totalitarian if you prefer. but the public is becoming weary of it. And maybe we'll get a change. A small group of like minded people control the media, higher education, ect. And this same group actively works to ostracize, censor, and disenfranchise anyone with a different view. That's a fact and every survey ever taken bears this out. Bury your head in the sand if you wish. So, listen to yourself denier.

      Delete
    11. eklektos: Ad hominem, period...no evil on your part ... totalitarian

      Perhaps you can point to the page that addresses our objections.

      Delete
    12. Borg, really? "It's from a book published by creationist"? Do you not remember posting that. And it's actually a collection of technical papers, in fact two books of them, which you didn't see fit to read because they were by creationist. That's the very definition of ad hominem. It's a genetic fallacy, and always, not only sometimes as you claimed, a fallacy.

      Delete
    13. eklektos: "It's from a book published by creationist"? Do you not remember posting that.

      Learn the proper use of quote marks. We said "700 pages to justify young Earth creationism", which concerns the content, not the author. We also said we would address the content, which we did.

      eklektos: That's the very definition of ad hominem... Your dishonest period... fascist... foolishness... evil on your part ... totalitarian


      Seriously. Have you listened to yourself?

      Delete
    14. You addressed the statement in the preface not the content. I seriously don't think you could understand the content. Anymore than you've demonstrated any understanding of genetics, microbiology, laws of probability, or any other technical matter. I have demonstrated your use of ad hom repeatedly, your dishonesty repeatedly. I have shown that the evolutionist behave like fascists repeatedly. I have demonstrated the foolishness of your assertions repeatedly. And you just demonstrated more dishonesty on your part, the quote was "see no evil on your part".

      Delete
    15. eklektos: I have demonstrated your use of ad hom repeatedly, your dishonesty repeatedly. I have shown that the evolutionist behave like fascists repeatedly.

      Godwin! You're it!

      Delete
  11. eklektos,

    I have to say I have been watching your exchanges with the 'composite' Zachriel, and am in awe of your ability to kick some serious arse. I think you are the first and only poster whom has had the ability to literally crush the Zach.

    Kudos, and hope to keep seeing your rapid fire whack-a-moles take-downs. It is much needed.

    Hope all lurking are taking serious notes. I know I am.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have procrastinated long enough. I seriously have other things to do besides cover the same ground over and over again. Evolution is not supported, the deep time required for it is not supported, nor is even enough deep time to accomplish it. It would require more time than the alleged age of the universe. It's a religious and not a scientific belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eklektos: Evolution is not supported, the deep time required for it is not supported, nor is even enough deep time to accomplish it. It would require more time than the alleged age of the universe.

      Yes, we understand your position. You just fail to marshal a coherent argument consistent with the evidence.

      Delete
    2. Apparently others feel differently, and you're deluding yourself.

      Delete
    3. eklektos: Apparently others feel differently, and you're deluding yourself.

      Didn't think the thread was about how "others feel", but scientific evidence.

      Delete
    4. Didn't think the thread was about you claiming victory after constant defeat, borg.

      Delete
    5. eklektos: Didn't think the thread was about you claiming victory after constant defeat

      We're only concerned with having an open discussion of the science.

      Delete
  13. No, your trying to convert people to your way of thinking, and failing miserably. And nothing shows this as clearly as your constantly morphing claims regarding functional protein folds. Your behavior is right out of the evolutionist handbook. Never admit your wrong even when you are. So no, I don't accept your claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've apparently given up on trying to defend your position. Let us know when you want to discuss the science.

      Delete
    2. Yea, claim victory. You're a legend in your own mind. Don't address the demonstrable fact that you constantly keep shifting the goalposts, claim you're all about science.

      Delete
    3. eklektos: Don't address the demonstrable fact that you constantly keep shifting the goalposts

      Please note that your citation clearly states "In this effort the RATE group is committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible which honors God as Creator and Sustainer of this world." While that may be understandable, even admirable, in some contexts, in science, it means they have already reached their unalterable conclusion, and only then do they seek evidence.

      Delete
    4. Please note you didn't read the papers. Please note you just used ad hominem to claim the papers were false. Please note assigned ages and lineages are arrived at using evolutionary and uniformitarian presuppositions thereby falsifying your assertion. Please note you're dodging the issue of constantly moving the goalposts.

      Delete
    5. eklektos: Please note you just used ad hominem to claim the papers were false.

      They said they reached their conclusion first, then gathered evidence. That's not ad hominem, but a direct quote from the very paper you cited.

      Delete
    6. Again, you equivocated. Evolutionary scientist do this all the time. They use assumed dates, assumed lineages, assumed everything pretty much. Nice try pot.

      Delete
    7. eklektos: They use assumed dates, assumed lineages, assumed everything pretty much.

      Not assumed, but supported by a variety of evidence. You're confusing the hypothesis, which is an assumption, with well-established facts.

      Delete
    8. Equivocation, again. You're established facts are yet to be established, they are asserted. Which I just demonstrated and you just again ignored.

      Delete
    9. eklektos: You're established facts are yet to be established, they are asserted.

      There is a wide variety of evidence to support an old Earth. Geological evidence was developed even before Darwin. There's also radiometric dating, knowledge of star and planet formation, heat dynamics of the planet, not to mention the theory of evolution itself.

      When a paleontologists wants to find fossils they expect to be of a certain age, they will often consult with geologists to find the proper formation for their search.

      Delete
    10. Yea, except we're constantly revising all these things. Just like the idea of planets forming around white dwarfs. The formations are often ambiguous, and often one is the same as others with different assigned ages. Radiometric dating we've already covered, you obviously don't understand it beyond the Wikipedia level.

      Delete
  14. Am missing something? Unless I am mistaken the article on the Mt. St Hellens lave gave minimum age of 50,000 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster,

      You're not missing anything. Radiometric dating only works for rocks we don't actually know the age of, not rocks we do. Again, recession into the past.

      Delete
    2. That's the floor for the technique used.

      Delete
    3. Yes, the argon disappeared, like the 26mb and the transitional bats, ect. ect.

      Delete
    4. See Simmons, Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation, Nature 2008.

      Note the relatively short wings, retention of claws, long hindlimbs, and limited echolocation; just the sort of features expected of a transitional bat.

      Delete
    5. It's an extinct bat. And within the variability of bats. the rest is a just so story. And as the article in scientific American states Bat ancestors must have existed prior to the Eocene, but we have no fossil record of them. Likewise, the identity of the closest relatives of bats is still unknown.

      Delete
    6. eklektos: It's an extinct bat.

      Of course. That's rather the point. It's an extinct bat with the features expected for a transitional. Why don't creationists ever come up with neat stuff like this?

      eklektos: Bat ancestors must have existed prior to the Eocene, but we have no fossil record of them.

      Amazing! How did they know? Lucky guess?

      Gunnell, Simmons & Seiffert, New Myzopodidae (Chiroptera) from the Late Paleogene of Egypt: Emended Family Diagnosis and Biogeographic Origins of Noctilionoidea, PLOS ONE 2014: "these specimens extend the temporal range of Myzopodidae by 36+ million years"

      Delete
    7. It's rather the poimt that an existent bat can't be a transition to bats, it's already a bat. How did they know? You must have missed the must have existed part, not "we can show they existed". Really, this is what you think is science? Must have, could be? Just so stories? No genetic information, no tissue, no actual evidence, just a lot of assumptions? Of course it is, because evolutionist don't do science according to presuppositions, and pigs fly.

      Delete
    8. eklektos: You must have missed the must have existed part, not "we can show they existed".

      Hypothesis from theory of common descent: bats descended from primitive non-flying mammals.

      Prediction: bats once had shorter forelimbs, claws, longer hindlimbs, longer tail.

      Confirmation: Onychonycteris finneyi.

      Bonus: Flight probably came before highly developed echolocation.

      http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

      Delete
    9. Besides, you cannot determine the common descent of an animal from morphology. If I took all the different varieties of dog skeletons, buried them in the ground, and an evolutionist dug them up they would swear they were different species. And of course we see this. Such as what are obviously fossilized skeletons of Nautili that are the same as the modern species which are classified as not only a different species, but a different genus. We see it with crayfish (Eryma leptodactylina vs. Procambrus clarkia), lobsters (Eryma leptodactylina vs. Homarus americanus), Dragonflies (Urogomphus giganteus vs. Pachydiplax longipennis), and a dozen more example I could cite off hand.

      Delete
    10. Borg,
      Of course it does, they claimed it on the basis of their hypothesis because it can't actually be demonstrated with real evidence. There is no bat ancestor, it's already a bat. So in the absence of a bat ancestor claim a bat became a bat. Get real. Hypothesize this, there's no bat ancestor and you don't get to assume common descent and then use that to assume a bat ancestor which then proves common descent. More circular reasoning.

      Delete
    11. eklektos: Besides, you cannot determine the common descent of an animal from morphology.

      Common descent implies the nested hierarchy.

      eklektos: If I took all the different varieties of dog skeletons, buried them in the ground, and an evolutionist dug them up they would swear they were different species.

      There may be a tendency to place them in separate species because in nature, they would not keep their distinguishing characteristics unless there was some limitation on interbreeding. Regardless, dogs would be classed together, just one branch on the nested hierarchy. By the way, dogs and wolves are normally considered a single species.

      eklektos: Eryma leptodactylina vs. Procambrus clarkia

      Heh. Because all Decapodes look alike.

      Delete
    12. Hey, you're the one big on morphology. When the fossil looks identical to a modern animal the most parsimonious explanation is it's the same animal or at least the same genus. Do you believe in alchemy too?

      Delete
    13. canis familiaris vs canis lupus.

      Delete
    14. eklektos: Of course it does, they claimed it on the basis of their hypothesis because it can't actually be demonstrated with real evidence.

      A fossil is real evidence. The fossil has the predicted transitional features.

      eklektos: there's no bat ancestor and you don't get to assume common descent and then use that to assume a bat ancestor which then proves common descent. More circular reasoning.

      It's not circular, but hypothetico-deduction. The hypothesis is a tentative assumption. From that assumption, deductions are made, called entailments. These entailments are then tested through observation.

      In this case, we assume common descent of bats with primitive, non-flying mammals. The prediction is that there were intermediates with shorter forelimbs, claws, and longer hindlimbs than modern bats. The confirmation is Onychonycteris finneyi.

      Delete
    15. The just story is..based on our presuppositions is...At least creationist are honest and up front about our presuppositions, you think by hiding yours behind jargon you're fooling somebody.

      Delete
    16. it's not circular because I have a supposedly logical way of explaining away our fallacy, even though it actually doesn't. Bah, you're wasting my time. these entailments are asserted based on our circular reasoning.

      Delete
    17. eklektos: When the fossil looks identical to a modern animal the most parsimonious explanation is it's the same animal or at least the same genus.

      They don't look identical. They look superficially similar. There's whole books on classifying Decapods. Try Grave,et al., A classification of living and fossil genera of decapod crustaceans, Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 2009. Please note that taxonomists can distinguish thousands of extant species.

      eklektos: canis familiaris vs canis lupus.

      Not a big deal, but nowadays, they are usually placed in the same species, domestic dogs being the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris.

      Delete
    18. eklektos: these entailments are asserted based on our circular reasoning.

      Not at all. Given bifurcating descent with gradual modification, then we would expect that the closer we are to the point of bifurcation, the closer the organisms in the two lineages would resemble one another. This is a straightforward deduction from the assumption. Then we might test this assumption by looking for fossil evidence. If our predictions are confirmed, it lends support to the assumption.

      In the case of the bat, they predicted transitional features, and found a fossil that matched that prediction. That lends support to the hypothesis. Meanwhile, there was another hypothesis, whether it was flight first, or echolocation first. The fossil tends to support flight first, but additional confirmation is being sought.


      Delete
    19. There are bats without echolocation, there are bats with. They use the virtually the same genes as whales, which are not related at all. So evolution did the statistically impossible twice. It's a miracle!

      Delete
    20. eklektos: So evolution did the statistically impossible twice.

      It's not impossible. They started with similar genes, and were under the same selective pressure for high frequency hearing. The homologous substitutions on the gene support the orthodox phylogeny.

      Delete
    21. Zachriel,

      Really, think of how silly that argument is. There's bound to be an animal that's morphologically closer to another animal. That really has no explanatory power at all.

      Delete
    22. Here's a good point by oleg from a couple of years ago:

      oleg: One might be less surprised by these findings if one realizes that what counts in location is not the frequency but rather the wavelength. An object smaller than the wavelength will not be seen by the locator because waves will pass through it without much scattering.

      For bats in air, the emitted wavelengths are between (330 m/s)/(200 kHz) = 1.7 mm and (330 m/s)/(15 kHz) = 2.2 cm. That's the typical size of pray for bats. For whales in water, the range of wavelengths is between (1500 m/s)/(200 kHz) = 7.5 mm and (1500 m/s)/(15 kHz) = 10 cm. They hunt larger prey, of course!

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/bats-and-whales-share-same-bio-sonar.html

      Delete
    23. Zachriel, to the best of my knowledge they did not start with similar genes for echo-location, nor do evolutionist claim they did. They claim the genes were not similar to a distant ancestor, but that both "arrived" at the same solution. That's guidance. So it refutes itself. There was no arriving, which again implies intention. It's once again a bumper sticker, stuff happened, i.e. random chance.

      Delete
    24. eklektos: There's bound to be an animal that's morphologically closer to another animal.

      So silly that Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection as a mechanism of adaptation has convinced generations of biologists.

      eklektos: That really has no explanatory power at all.

      If two organisms adapt to similar conditions, they will confront similar selective pressures. For example, trout and dolphins have similar hydrodynamic shapes, yet we can easily tell the difference.


      Delete
    25. Zachriel,

      Yes, that's the same theory we use in radar. Maximum radar effective distance is a relationship between transmission time and receiver time/sensitivity. The frequency determines it's transmission through the medium and effective range. But none of that addresses origin, simply how it works.

      Delete
    26. "So silly that Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection as a mechanism of adaptation has convinced generations of biologists."

      Seriously?

      "If two organisms adapt to similar conditions, they will confront similar selective pressures. For example, trout and dolphins have similar hydrodynamic shapes, yet we can easily tell the difference."

      You need a mechanism. Design can just as easily explain the similarity of shapes. And with a lot less just so stories. Genetics won't get you there. And you have no genetic information contained in fossils for the most part, and what we do have shouldn't be there from an evolutionary standpoint. Tissue lasting 100+ million years is not plausible.

      Delete
    27. eklektos: to the best of my knowledge they did not start with similar genes for echo-location, nor do evolutionist claim they did.

      Prestin is generally conserved in mammals. See Molecular Evolution: Jones, Gene Convergence in Echolocating Mammals, Current Biology 2009.

      eklektos: They claim the genes were not similar to a distant ancestor, but that both "arrived" at the same solution.

      A better example of that would be the hydrodynamics of fish and dolphins.

      With echolocation, though, they started at roughly the same place, were under similar selective pressure, and ended up in the same place. But like with the hydrodynamics of fish and dolphins, we can still detect their independent origins.

      Delete
    28. eklektos: But none of that addresses origin, simply how it works.

      Not in isolation, however, it is consistent with natural selection.

      eklektos: Seriously?

      Yup. Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection as a mechanism of adaptation has convinced generations of biologists.

      eklektos: You need a mechanism.

      Natural selection.

      eklektos: Design can just as easily explain the similarity of shapes.

      Sure, but it doesn't explain the nested hierarchy or the fossil succession.

      Delete
    29. Zachriel,

      The proteins that supposedly gave rise to echolocation weren't conserved, they're unique. Convergence is another just so story.

      I believe they had independent origins too, as in they were designed that way. None of these arguments work against design. You must at some point claim common ancestry, and make a lot of assumptions to get there.

      Delete
    30. eklektos: The proteins that supposedly gave rise to echolocation weren't conserved, they're unique.

      No, prestins are largely conserved across mammals, with the exception of cetacea and chiroptera. See Molecular Evolution: Jones, Gene Convergence in Echolocating Mammals, Current Biology 2009.

      eklektos: You must at some point claim common ancestr

      Of course. The evidence includes the nested hierarchy, the fossil succession, the great age of the Earth, as well as the direct observation of evolution, including the process of speciation.

      Delete
    31. Zachriel,

      You'll have to forgive me for not paying attention earlier, but your frequency comparison is flat out wrong. Dead wrong. The size of the object is a function of the amplitude of the returned signal, not the frequency. And both whales and bats emit a range of frequencies getting higher as they get closer to their prey. This is because the longer the wavelength the longer the time between the transmission and reception must be. Too long a wavelength and the returned signal will be lost during transmission time. But the higher the wavelength the higher the power required to propagate it. Also both bats and whales can sense doppler shifts to tell whether their prey is coming towards or going away from them. These are intricately designed systems, they do not arise by chance.

      Delete
    32. Zachriel,

      Or generations of Darwinist have deluded themselves into believing because two animals have some morphological similarities it implies common descent, and for religious reasons like Darwin.

      Delete
    33. oops. should have said "the higher the frequency the higher the power required to propagate it".

      Delete
    34. eklektos: your frequency comparison is flat out wrong

      The frequencies are similar regardless of the reason.

      eklektos: The size of the object is a function of the amplitude of the returned signal, not the frequency.

      The size of an object that can be discerned is determined by the wavelength. If the wave is much longer than the object, then the object will tend to disappear.

      eklektos: And both whales and bats emit a range of frequencies getting higher as they get closer to their prey.

      You're probably referring to the rapidity of the pulses. A dolphin has to wait for the return signal from a pulse, so the farther away, the longer required between pulses. When closer, the pulses can be emitted more rapidly, an advantage as the relative movement is larger.

      Bats use both AM and FM, with AM better at distance in uncluttered environments, and FM the contrary.

      eklektos: This is because the longer the wavelength the longer the time between the transmission and reception must be.

      That is incorrect. The speed of sound is largely independent of frequency.

      eklektos: Too long a wavelength and the returned signal will be lost during transmission time.

      Long waves have lower attenuation.

      There's a number of specific adaptations peculiar to each organism, but the frequencies are the same, and happen to correspond to the primary object of interest to the organism. For instance, the lower impedance of organisms in water means that dolphins can actually sense the interiors of organisms, which helps distinguish prey from clutter.

      Delete
    35. eklektos: Or generations of Darwinist have deluded themselves into believing because two animals have some morphological similarities it implies common descent

      Not necessarily. For instance, trout and dolphins have similar hydrodynamic shapes, but are only distantly related.

      Think nested hierarchy.

      Delete
  15. Na it gave a maximum age of 360,000 years. thats way off, either way. Not what I would expect. Hey, nmaybe in every lava flow that s ever been. the argon has not been completely outgassed. That will though the date off every time. I'm looking for an example of one case wehere we no for sure it was right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. natschuster: it gave a maximum age of 360,000 years.

    That's still below the floor of 2 million years. The half-life of K-40 is 1.248×10^9 years. In other words, it was as close to zero as the technique could provide.

    ReplyDelete
  17. natschuster,

    like I said..it only works on things we don't actually know the age of, and then when we don't like the age it gives it's anomalous, contaminated, ect. When two highly integrated systems arise separately it's convergent, because doing it is so easy. This is science. Trust them. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eklektos: it only works on things we don't actually know the age of

      Like most tools, radiometric dating only works when used correctly. Nonetheless, the creationist proved the point.

      Delete
    2. Zachriel,

      Hallelujah, maybe we'll get somewhere. But I really must do some study, both scientific and theological. I hope to pick up our discussion at a later date. Thank you for your gracious admission evolutionist. ;)

      Delete
    3. eklektos: Hallelujah, maybe we'll get somewhere.

      Yes, the creationist showed that the radiometric test of the fresh lava showed a recent origin within the limitations of that test.

      Delete
    4. The left hand giveth, the right taketh away..

      Delete
  18. Has radiometric sating ever been demonstrated to actually work accurately on a known lava flow? Or is it all hypothetical. Maybe it never works since all the argon isn't outgassed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. natschuster: Has radiometric sating ever been demonstrated to actually work accurately on a known lava flow?

      If you mean K-Ar dating, then McDougall et al. (1969) dated new basalt at about 100,000 years due to a very slight excess of argon. That showeds that K-Ar dating is not accurate for young basalts, but also showed that excess argon is not always a problem for older basalts. It's typical to measure new basalt to determine the amount of excess argon due to how the basalt formed.

      Ar-Ar dating has largely superseded K-Ar dating, but they can be used as cross-checks, or against other measures.

      Delete
    2. How do you know it isn't a problem for older basalts?

      Delete
    3. natschuster,

      i.e. their compared to other dating methods which aren't properly calibrated. And if the results conflict they cherry pick the one they want. Then claim the other was contaminated. You don't calibrate something by averaging two readings. A bad method will simply give two bad results.

      Delete
    4. natschuster: How do you know it isn't a problem for older basalts?

      Measuring the argon in fresh basalt determines the level of excess argon. It varies considerably, and tends to be higher, for instance, in chilled glassy basalt.

      natschuster: A bad method will simply give two bad results.

      Sure. Radiometrics is an entire field of study, and should be consistent with evidence from related fields, such as geology.

      Delete
    5. The last should be attributed to eklektos.

      eklektos: A bad method will simply give two bad results.

      Delete
    6. Sure. Radiometrics is an entire field of study, and should be consistent with evidence from related fields, such as geology

      In other words it entails circular reasoning.

      The last should be attributed to eklektos

      And ignorance of the science of calibration should be attributed to the Borg. actually ignorance of actual science can be attributed to the Borg also.

      Delete
  19. you think by hiding yours behind jargon you're fooling somebody.

    Zachriel is not unusual. Discourse with evolutionists always breaks down at some point. Even in public debates I have been in, you can utterly defeat their point, and they just waive it off and continue on as if nothing happened. The rule of thumb is they never admit they are wrong about anything, at least anything of importance. Zachriel is defending a flawed claim, often with silly misrepresentations of the science, such as when he claimed AARSs phylogenetic trees are well-supported, and ATP binding constitutes protein function. These weren't merely random mistakes. They are driven by evolutionary dogma. You point out his misrepresentations and he just continues on, claiming victory all the while. This is typical and it reveals evolution for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CH,

      yea, I noticed that. They definitely don't understand the propagation of sound and microwave transmissions. Nor do I believe they could begin to understand the technical data contained in the RATE papers. They seem to always come back to taxonomy, because I think that's where they are comfortable.

      Delete
    2. DrHunter

      Discourse with evolutionists always breaks down at some point. Even in public debates I have been in, you can utterly defeat their point, and they just waive it off and continue on as if nothing happened. The rule of thumb is they never admit they are wrong about anything, at least anything of importance.

      Maybe you should try using some of that devastating logic around here sometime:)

      Delete
    3. Velikovsky,

      Yes, because the evolutionary claims here so far have been devastating. ROFL Sorry, couldn't say it and not crack up.

      Delete
    4. Cornelius Hunter: Zachriel is defending a flawed claim, often with silly misrepresentations of the science, such as when he claimed AARSs phylogenetic trees are well-supported, and ATP binding constitutes protein function.

      Woese et al., Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases, the Genetic Code, and the Evolutionary Process, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 2000: "Examination of the phylogenetic trees for each of the AARSs reveals the following. (i) Their evolutionary relationships mostly conform to established organismal phylogeny "

      Keefe & Szostak, Functional proteins from a random-sequence library, Nature 2001.

      Delete
    5. And once again Zachriel proves he doesn't understand the science and posts the same link to the same refuted article. He's really kickin' tail.

      Delete
    6. eklektos: And once again Zachriel proves he doesn't understand the science and posts the same link to the same refuted article.

      There has been no refutation. Woese is stating basic findings, while Szostak is reporting direct research results.

      Delete
    7. Yes, and Axe and others refuted it. It doesn't support your claim as has been clearly demonstrated. But you are impervious to actual science. "But it was published in a paper, it must be true." You are making it really difficult not to be overtly insulting.

      Delete
  20. C.Hunter: "Discourse with evolutionists always breaks down at some point."

    And generally sooner, rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing more satisfying than a good stereotype,too.

      Delete
  21. Here's the laugh for the morning:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/nih_announces_n083811.html

    Read the computer generated paper, it's hysterical.

    ReplyDelete