tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2701635162202652510..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New IPCC Report Forced to Soften the RhetoricUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger327125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57958933943827654332014-04-06T07:55:33.121-07:002014-04-06T07:55:33.121-07:00(Above, we meant to write synonymous and non-synon...(Above, we meant to write synonymous and non-synonymous. We apologize if there was confusion.)Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61002810408154300212014-04-04T08:18:30.805-07:002014-04-04T08:18:30.805-07:00It isn't hard to bind a small molecule. Bindin...It isn't hard to bind a small molecule. Binding a big molecule is a different story.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78272787719495630012014-04-04T05:43:34.943-07:002014-04-04T05:43:34.943-07:00Good idea. Be sure to copy enough for context.
Good idea. Be sure to copy enough for context. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89589193315388827252014-04-04T05:42:16.481-07:002014-04-04T05:42:16.481-07:00eklektos: You are attempting to use gaming theory ...<b>eklektos</b>: <i>You are attempting to use gaming theory to replace science. </i><br /><br />Gaming theory is mathematics. Like all models, its usefulness depends on the application. In this case, the model was introduced by creationists. We merely tested the model against their expectations. <br /><br /><b>eklektos</b>: <i>And biological mutagenation is far more brittle. </i><br /><br />No. You can mutate lots of genes, and they'll still function. But word mutagenation required perfect spelling. <br /><br /><b>eklektos</b>: <i>It was an analogy, nothing more. </i><br /><br />Creationists made explicit claims about the model itself; in particular, that you couldn't evolve words much longer than seven letters. That is something that can be tested and shown false. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51004151250279243172014-04-04T05:37:47.037-07:002014-04-04T05:37:47.037-07:00eklektos: They aren't being arrested for their...<b>eklektos</b>: <i>They aren't being arrested for their arguments</i><br /><br />The doctor never made an argument. The doctor stated an opinion. <br /><br />The science hasn't changed. The results of any tests haven't changed. At first, you accepted their judgment as authoritative. Then, after they were accused, you rejected their judgment. The only thing that has changed is your opinion of their expertise. <br /><br />Appeal to authority is often used in courtrooms. The opposing side may then try to impeach the authority. What are their qualifications? Are they biased? Have they accepted renumeration? <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31803554933332252382014-04-04T05:31:06.578-07:002014-04-04T05:31:06.578-07:00eklektos: Half a wave would be? .15 cm or so? And ...<b>eklektos</b>: <i>Half a wave would be? .15 cm or so? And a gnat is what size? </i><br /><br />About 0.2 cm or a couple of millimeters, as we said. <br /><br />Rayleigh Criterion: "This leads to the simplified statement that the limit of resolution of any imaging process is going to be on the order of the wavelength of the wave used to image it."<br />http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/raylei.htmlZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63488553668090568482014-04-04T05:28:18.443-07:002014-04-04T05:28:18.443-07:00eklektos: they may be important questions for some...<b>eklektos</b>: <i>they may be important questions for some astronomers, but they have no bearing on Radiometric dating. </i><br /><br />You incorrectly stated, "Astronomers don't deal with the age of the earth directly". <br /><br />We were discussing the age of the Earth. We pointed out that there are many independent lines of evidence supporting an old Earth, among them astronomical, geological, biological, and physics. Radiometric dating is supported by evidence from many fields, including, apparently, Pliny the Younger. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29269670069875316672014-04-04T05:23:56.886-07:002014-04-04T05:23:56.886-07:00Snell, Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: ...Snell, Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology? <br /><br />They dated amphibolite, a metamorphic rock, which is known to present problems for radiometric dating. <br />http://geology.com/rocks/amphibolite.shtml<br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46013922145989780032014-04-04T05:01:40.498-07:002014-04-04T05:01:40.498-07:00natschuster: Has Ar-Ar ever been tested on lava fl...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Has Ar-Ar ever been tested on lava flows of known dates, and shown to be accurate? </i><br /><br />See Renne et al., 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger, Science 1997. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>But what about all the times the go it wrong? The Ar/Ar woudl have been wrong also. </i><br /><br />Once you have a control of a known date, the process produces reliable measurements. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36839696026014443502014-04-04T04:57:38.941-07:002014-04-04T04:57:38.941-07:00natschuster: Small molecules bond all the time.
...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Small molecules bond all the time. </i><br /><br />Protein binding is non-covalent bonding which occurs due the match of stereoscopic shape and charges within that shape, a lock-and-key. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40723655653662328532014-04-03T23:24:28.933-07:002014-04-03T23:24:28.933-07:00Take all future response to the brain thread pleas...Take all future response to the brain thread please, I'm tired of digging through this one.eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87167175286092016042014-04-03T23:22:53.808-07:002014-04-03T23:22:53.808-07:00zachriel,
You are attempting to use gaming theory...zachriel,<br /><br />You are attempting to use gaming theory to replace science. It doesn't work that way. And biological mutagenation is far more brittle. In word mutagenation the penalty isn't death or loss of biologic function. Or starting from scratch every time. In changing the sense of words, sentences, and the outcome may incoherence, but it doesn't kill you. All Dembski was pointing out was that random substitution will make information incoherent. You may think you've found some killer proof, but you actually haven't. It was an analogy, nothing more. eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48742067090695095712014-04-03T18:19:28.798-07:002014-04-03T18:19:28.798-07:00Zachriel,
I reject your hypothetical. If they arr...Zachriel,<br /><br />I reject your hypothetical. If they arrest my doctors it has nothing to do with ad hominem, it has to do with misrepresentation. They were claiming expertise they did not have. But that doesn't mean everything they said was wrong. They aren't being arrested for their arguments, they being arrested for their misrepresentation. Another category error.eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10219510144366812532014-04-03T18:03:39.279-07:002014-04-03T18:03:39.279-07:00at 110 kHz the wavelength is about half the 50khz ...at 110 kHz the wavelength is about half the 50khz wavelength which was what?? .68 cm, so halve that and you get .34 centimeters, or more closely .3 cm which is how many mm? And realize, that's in cross section. Not head or tail on. Half a wave would be? .15 cm or so? And a gnat is what size? Oops.eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72746583702251852932014-04-03T17:51:28.308-07:002014-04-03T17:51:28.308-07:00Zachriel,
they may be important questions for so...Zachriel, <br /><br />they may be important questions for some astronomers, but they have no bearing on Radiometric dating. Which is what we we're discussing. And you're wrong, they use geological dates to specify the age of the fossils, and radiometric dating. Which is the issue under discussion. Focus.eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40352422771137584452014-04-03T17:47:00.844-07:002014-04-03T17:47:00.844-07:00Velikovsky,
But I am correct,the issue is the val...Velikovsky,<br /><br /><i>But I am correct,the issue is the validity of radiometric dating</i><br /><br />You have a positive affininity for stating the obvious.<br /><br />Enjoy the drive.eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36124793755396256412014-04-03T16:04:08.142-07:002014-04-03T16:04:08.142-07:00Yes,I assume it is the Snell paper,kinda leaky ves...Yes,I assume it is the Snell paper,kinda leaky vessel.<br /><br /><b>eklektos</b><br /><br /><i> Note the labs which did the work</i><br /><br />Seem reliable, it is the work collecting the samples that is interesting as well as the choice of where to take those samples. <br /><br />But I am correct,the issue is the validity of radiometric dating? <br /><br />But thanks for making me read about the geology of the Canyon from other sources,I need to make the drive.Maybe September.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70286839766180547392014-04-03T15:38:16.576-07:002014-04-03T15:38:16.576-07:00Not yetNot yetvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41958099281143545362014-04-03T15:31:13.023-07:002014-04-03T15:31:13.023-07:00But what about all the times the go it wrong? The ...But what about all the times the go it wrong? The Ar/Ar woudl have been wrong also.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05312526400131321079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39344567886396249622014-04-03T15:29:42.409-07:002014-04-03T15:29:42.409-07:00Small molecules bond all the time.Small molecules bond all the time.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05312526400131321079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43355741591628667862014-04-03T14:06:33.029-07:002014-04-03T14:06:33.029-07:00You have to know the neutron flux density. This is...You have to know the neutron flux density. This is normally done by using a control sample of known age. <br /><br />Now think about it. Say the control sample is thought to be 0.767 million years old. If that age were wrong, then it would mean that Renne et al. would have had an incorrect age for the Vesuvius sample. Without knowing from some other source the age of the samples, we would only know their relative ages, but we do know the age of the Vesuvius sample, which confirms the age of the control, which was already dated by other techniques. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3825471404893924572014-04-03T13:38:00.139-07:002014-04-03T13:38:00.139-07:00natschuster: But isn't binding to a small mole...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>But isn't binding to a small molecule easy? </i><br /><br />Presumably easier than a more complex molecule, but it still has to preferentially bind to the one molecule, but not others. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>And does it really have to have a fold in the specific shape of the substrate? </i><br /><br />Yes, that is what is meant by protein binding. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40684169073704850332014-04-03T12:47:14.860-07:002014-04-03T12:47:14.860-07:00Accordinjg tot he Wikipedia article, 40Ar/39Ar dat...Accordinjg tot he Wikipedia article, 40Ar/39Ar dating only gives relative ages. It can only compare one sample with another. How does that work here? natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32123522649008152362014-04-03T12:36:12.378-07:002014-04-03T12:36:12.378-07:00But isn't binding to a small molecule easy? An...But isn't binding to a small molecule easy? And does it really have to have a fold in the specific shape of the substrate? Don't small molecules bond. And what about the active sites?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75767438199664762432014-04-03T12:25:11.798-07:002014-04-03T12:25:11.798-07:00eklektos: A gnat is smaller than the wavelength, e...<b>eklektos</b>: <i>A gnat is smaller than the wavelength, even a 110khz. </i><br /><br />A gnat is about two millimeters in size, which is more than half a wave at 110kHz. <br /><br /><b>eklektos</b>: <i>So it's not transparent to the frequency as you asserted. </i><br /><br />There's no escaping this basic fact of wave theory: You cannot sense something much smaller than the wavelength used for detection. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.com