Unintelligent Design

[Balloon guy 158]

You have yet to show that Darwin used bad science. However, you have used bad science to make your claims about carbon dating.

When I made that claim, that was what I supposed to be true.therefore my claim is trueSee above

[Balloon guy 158]

Listen carefully. We are saying that his theory was correct despite his scientific limitations and have been repeatedly proven ever since. It wasn't "bad science".

And the Steelers will win the 2112 Superbowl because of Rothesberger's bionic arm

[vbnautilus 48]

So you are saying that you know all studies and can make this assertion with authority?

The studies that have tried to show this were plagued by contamination issues. You always have to compare samples to a background in order to account for contamination. Studies that have done this find no carbon. Here is a lit review from a Berkeley scientist: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htmDiamond Diamond is difficult to combust. The RATE samples apparently required modifications to the normal procedure [1], presumably higher combustion temperatures and longer combustion times, likely increasing the sample chemistry contamination. The samples were reportedly pitted and may have been subjected to previous analyses and to unknown contamination. Nevertheless, RATE’s five deep-mine diamond samples had radiocarbon levels only slightly above background (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the seven alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction. Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, “between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC,” apparently with no background subtraction [6]. This much lower value for unprocessed diamond provides strong evidence that their processed diamond samples had been contaminated, most likely by the modified sample chemistry. Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields” [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon. If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.” The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background. Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

Darwin, claimed cells were the smallest thing known to man and made up all life.Your turn

#1 where are you getting this from#2 why do you think this is the basis for his evolutionary theory#3 cells do make up all life... and may have the smallest thing known at the time. so what? why does the incomplete knowledge of the details of biology have anything to do with natural selection?

[Balloon guy 158]

And now I have things to do.And you guys will have to sit on your 'great' points all without 'getting me'Unless one of you wants to take over for me.

[speedz99 145]

I don't get you 'knowledge of the day' qualifier.Are you saying that since he couldn't know any better, that therefore his science wasn't bad, even though it was based on things we now know are bad science?

Forget that it's a qualifier. How did it affect his theory? How did Darwin's lack of knowledge of proteins, DNA, etc. keep him from formulating a viable theory?How much about math, physics, astronomy, etc. did Copernicus have wrong when he postulated that the earth revolves around the sun? Did that make him wrong? Have scientists been basing theories on that since his day that are probably also wrong because of it?

[speedz99 145]

Wait...I get it now. BG thinks that all science is "bad science" BECAUSE scientists admit they don't know everything. If there's ever anything else to learn, it invalidates what we know now, because we don't have the complete set of facts to base our knowledge on.You can't ever know anything because we don't know everything. Genius!You have to start with a full set of facts before going back and fitting everything into it. Hence: The Bible.

[vbnautilus 48]

It's like saying you can't know that the heart pumps blood if you don't know the sequence of every gene that codes for heart function.

[Randy Reed 0]

Wait...I get it now. BG thinks that all science is "bad science" BECAUSE scientists admit they don't know everything. If there's ever anything else to learn, it invalidates what we know now, because we don't have the complete set of facts to base our knowledge on.You can't ever know anything because we don't know everything. Genius!You have to start with a full set of facts before going back and fitting everything into it. Hence: The Bible.

Well that was fun today. A few more days like this and there won't be any christians left.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Wait...I get it now. BG thinks that all science is "bad science" BECAUSE scientists admit they don't know everything. If there's ever anything else to learn, it invalidates what we know now, because we don't have the complete set of facts to base our knowledge on.You have to start with a full set of facts before going back and fitting everything into it. Hence: The Bible.

I think what BG is saying is that Darwin formulated his theory based on facts that have since been proven to be false, but that since the scientific community has so much equity in his theory being true, that they are also working backwards to try to make the current truth fit into this theory, which is the same thing the Creationist side does.Edit: Please note that I don't believe this, but I think that's BG's argument.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think what BG is saying is that Darwin formulated his theory based on facts that have since been proven to be false, but that since the scientific community has so much equity in his theory being true, that they are also working backwards to try to make the current truth fit into this theory, which is the same thing the Creationist side does.

He seems to be saying that, but then does not provide any facts which Darwin supposedly based his theory on that have since been proven to be false. The best he has provided is language that seems to suggest that the state of biology was incomplete at that point in time compared to now, which to me seems largely irrelevant.

[speedz99 145]

I think what BG is saying is that Darwin formulated his theory based on facts that have since been proven to be false, but that since the scientific community has so much equity in his theory being true, that they are also working backwards to try to make the current truth fit into this theory, which is the same thing the Creationist side does.

I know what he's saying, but I'm trying to explain to him why he's wrong. Darwin didn't base his theory on the cell being the smallest building block of life. I mean...that's not even close to being what he based his theory on. It doesn't even make any sense to say that.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

You are misinterpreting my desire to remain humble and not try to speak for God as a dodge. I don't blame you, but I think it would be highly arrogant for me to say this is why God did X. I am merely trying to get you to see that having a criteria for how God must act for you to accept His actions as reasonable places the ball in your court to prove your criteria are better than Gods.

oh, ok, i see what you mean about the 'dodge' aspect. i wasn't so much saying you USE it as a dodge, as saying that a 'dodge' is a perfectly reasonable, and necessary, 'result' of your desire. it may not sound like i understand what you're saying but i think i do, and i don't think you'd deny that your reluctance to presuppose god's will/intention/etc does result in you sidestepping a major point of contention between yourself and those you are arguing with? the dodge is not the reason, but is a result. correct?as for the ball being in my court - i've done so to my satisfaction. my criteria make sense to me. again, if something presents itself tomorrow so that they no longer make sense, i will have to re-examine my criteria, but until then (and i freely accept this WILL eventually happen. not might but will, to at least some degree) they are acceptable to me.

Observation of what? A minute length of time that you then extrapolate to a factor of 200? Without any allowance for unknown occurrences of unknown conditions to occur? I understnad why you want to argue that Argon decays into lead at X rate. But to make the assumption that all argon has always decayed at these rates, and that all existing lead was previously argon makes assumptions quite unlike supposing that 2+2 might have equaled 5 at one point.

i'm not an expert on this subject at all, but as far as my understanding goes: no, it doesn't. i think there have been serious revisions in methodology of carbon dating and such, and the accuracy has certainly been debated. but to proceed based on the assumption that at some point in history argon decayed at a different rate, despite their being no evidence to support this, and understanding how and why argon decays, and there being no sensible reason why that should change, is useless. not impossible. but not useful. it doesn't make sense.

Then since you have arrived at the foundational belief that you have a better grasp of how things should be than God, you are now required to prove this in order to continue your assertions. What is the purpose for all life, and what things would you do to arrive at these results more efficiently? Oh, and explain why efficiency is the ideal outcome.

i don't see why i need to prove the purpose of life (or any of the other requirements you indicate) in order to prefer a sensible explanation for how evolution occurs.

Now you see why I am not allowing for the notion that 'errors' in life prove/disprove a Creator.

actually, i think i do agree with you that these 'errors' don't prove anything. but in looking for a sensible explanation, the evolutionary side of the argument has provided one. the creationist hasn't, beyond accepting that they are comfortable not understanding god's will. neither is proof.

Me thinketh though doth protesteth too much

me doesn'teth

[Randy Reed 0]

And the Steelers will win the 2112 Superbowl because of Rothesberger's bionic arm

Now that's just silly. The Steelers will move to LA and become the Calfornia Island Conch Shells.

[speedz99 145]

It's like saying you can't know that the heart pumps blood if you don't know the sequence of every gene that codes for heart function.

It's more like saying you can't know that the heart pumps blood if you think the trabecular septomarginalis is the only tissue carrying action potentials that cause the heart to pump. There's a lot more to the conduction system, smaller moving parts and such, but in the end that's not essential to knowing that the heart does indeed pump.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

It's more like saying you can't know that the heart pumps blood if you think the trabecular septomarginalis is the only tissue carrying action potentials that cause the heart to pump. There's a lot more to the conduction system, smaller moving parts and such, but in the end that's not essential to knowing that the heart does indeed pump.

yeah, obviously

[speedz99 145]

yeah, obviously

If he's going to call me 'college boy', I may as well live up to it once in a while.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

He seems to be saying that, but then does not provide any facts which Darwin supposedly based his theory on that have since been proven to be false.

Wasn't there something about finches and how much/some/all of his theory was based on these birds, but it turned out he was actually wrong about the birds? I thought I remembered hearing something about that.I should probably look this up before posting.But I never claimed to be some sort of science...talking...guy.So I'll just risk looking dumb...er.

[speedz99 145]

Well, this isn't from a peer-reviewed journal, but it's a pretty good read. And written by an extremely qualified professor (coincidentally who's from my undergrad school)...so I think it's fairly trustworthy.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Wasn't there something about finches and how much/some/all of his theory was based on these birds, but it turned out he was actually wrong about the birds? I thought I remembered hearing something about that.I should probably look this up before posting.But I never claimed to be some sort of science...talking...guy.So I'll just risk looking dumb...er.

anddown a ways...http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent-signs...ion-is-real.phpNot arguing the point of the finches, just throwing up some links.

[Randy Reed 0]

Well, this isn't from a peer-reviewed journal, but it's a pretty good read. And written by an extremely qualified professor (coincidentally who's from my undergrad school)...so I think it's fairly trustworthy.

I was going to mention this but the article points it out. He was right and not only did they come from South America they have evolved since. Originally they were all insect eaters but some of them are now vegans.

[Balloon guy 158]

Wait...I get it now. BG thinks that all science is "bad science" BECAUSE scientists admit they don't know everything. If there's ever anything else to learn, it invalidates what we know now, because we don't have the complete set of facts to base our knowledge on.You can't ever know anything because we don't know everything. Genius!You have to start with a full set of facts before going back and fitting everything into it. Hence: The Bible.

Well this shows how poorly thought out your method of arriving at a conclusions, therefore I can now equate all your beliefs as being completely ignorant.Wow, it is fun to use the harshest outlook on another person's worldview to arrive at faulty conclusions.I feel liberated, maybe now I can vote democrat also

[Balloon guy 158]

Well that was fun today. A few more days like this and there won't be any christians left.

Really..you guys think you won?It is amazing how little thinking is done on your side of the debate

[Balloon guy 158]

He seems to be saying that, but then does not provide any facts which Darwin supposedly based his theory on that have since been proven to be false. The best he has provided is language that seems to suggest that the state of biology was incomplete at that point in time compared to now, which to me seems largely irrelevant.

Hardly irrelevant.We're not talking about a small issue that Darwin was wrong about. His entire understanding of how living tissue was based on the belief that the cell was the smallest thing in the world.Just because you guys have completely invested every area of your worldview on this guys misguided theory doesn't free you from having to admit that what Darwin used to 'guide' him to evolution was nothing more than a forced hypothesis from a man looking for a reason to deny God's existence.And science since then has bought hook line and sinker into his delusional wonderland of anti-religious fervor. There is no discipline of science that allows for any other view, because to do so would result in being ostracized. Ben Stein made a really good movie about this that you guys should check out called ExpelledAs the Bible says: "Only a fool says in his heart that there is no God"

[Mills 0]

Really..you guys think you won?It is amazing how little thinking is done on your side of the debate

This is only a "debate" on messageboards like theseAlso, it's not about winning and losing... but for what it's worth... yes, we won.

[Mills 0]

Hardly irrelevant.We're not talking about a small issue that Darwin was wrong about. His entire understanding of how living tissue was based on the belief that the cell was the smallest thing in the world.Just because you guys have completely invested every area of your worldview on this guys misguided theory doesn't free you from having to admit that what Darwin used to 'guide' him to evolution was nothing more than a forced hypothesis from a man looking for a reason to deny God's existence.And science since then has bought hook line and sinker into his delusional wonderland of anti-religious fervor. There is no discipline of science that allows for any other view, because to do so would result in being ostracized. Ben Stein made a really good movie about this that you guys should check out called ExpelledAs the Bible says: "Only a fool says in his heart that there is no God"

Ben Stein thinks that the theory of evolution says that life began when "lightning struck a mud puddle...." I wouldn't be happy he was on my side of the fence if I were you