|
2 registered members (Ayumi, 1 invisible),
584
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78190
07/24/06 17:22
07/24/06 17:22
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
So let me get this straight. Your only rebuttle to actual peer-reviewed work is to quote attacks based on non-peer-reviewed criticism?
So let me get this straight: Your only remaining argument against the debunking of the "helium" myth is the fact that the rebuttal was "non peer reviewed"?
How about then showing me a single peer reviewed creationist article?
Quote:
Which I'm sure is a fact four collaborating scientists with Ph.Ds in the various fields (including physics) just happened to overlook.
"Scientists" that are not able to see that a million times accelerated nuclear decay would also increase the fission heat a million times? Hmm, now I understand why those four found their refuge in creationism. 
You don't need to be a scientist to see that the "accelerated nuclear decay" is nonsense: It can't be caused by natural causes because the half-life of an element is determined by it's mass and charge. For altering the decay rate by a factor of a million, you need to alter its mass or charge accordingly. If God somehow manages to change those values by a miracle, the world of matter we know would cease to exists. Apart from the fact that, as I pointed out, his creation would have been roasted by the excess fission energy.
Apart from all the other contraditions of the young earth faith, like the 3 major problems listed in another thread on this forum.
Quote:
Humphreys responds, at length, about the absolute lack of any problem with using less pressure to test the results.
Yes, really at length, yet he managed not to answer at all to the arguments in Henke's rebuttal. In his only argument that was not ad hominem he apparently confused gas pressure with pressure on the crystal structure.
If you want to use his pamphlet as an argument, you should really read it and especially its utter destruction by Henke. It is a beautiful example of "creationist science".
Imagine a cluster of zircon crystals. They contain helium, which diffuses. Obviously the helium flow through a certain area is proportional to the helium pressure difference between both sides of that area. If a crystal contains the same helium density as its neighbor crystal or the material it's embedded in, no helium will diffuse. I think this is understandable?
Ok, when you now have a cluster of crystals, the helium will diffuse only from the outer crystals, and only if there's a helium density difference to the outer area. Even if this is the case, we'll then get a helium density gradient with the maxiumum helium amount in the center, and less helium at the border of the cluster. Which means that you can measure any helium amount you want in a crystal cluster. It just depends on at which place you were measuring it.
Which makes Humphreys helium article complete bunk. He takes the position of the crystals not into consideration, nor the helium concentration in the surrounding matter. Both however determine majorly the helium amount in the zircons.
While the mentioned helium gradient is caused by the gas pressure difference of the helium, Humphreys talks in his responses about the pressure on the zircon crystal from the surrounding rock. He didn't even understand this flaw in his article.
Henke pointed out numerous other flaws, for instance Humphreys diffusion formula was totally wrong. And the best part is that even if his measurements were correct, his announced 6000 years result is complete phantasy! Using his own data and formula, you'd get an age distribution of his zircons between 460.000 years and zero.
As a resume: It's ok to firmly believe in something, even in strange things, but then you better separate faith and science. It is really funny what bizarre theories people are forced to come up with in order to make their superstitions look "scientific"...
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: jcl]
#78191
07/27/06 10:43
07/27/06 10:43
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
I get the following impression of this discussion:
Irish_Farmer picks from science some facts that fit into his belief-system. All the other facts are called wrong or some kind of a com-plot / conspiracy between scientists and their students.
But that is not the way science works.
I really wonder why Irish_Farmer acts this way. He seems to be intelligent but there is some kind of blockade in his thinking that prevents him to learn from other intelligent people. How can this happen? It feels to me like some affective brain washing. Where do I have to apply to become such a brave and persistent believer?
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Machinery_Frank]
#78192
07/27/06 22:51
07/27/06 22:51
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
So what your arguments still come down to is that creationists aren't peer reviewed. They have two peer reviewed publications, but that isn't good enough because peer review by creationists isn't valid. You guys are pretty slick, the way you run things. Creationists can't quote creationists because you won't believe it. But if creationists base their claims on evolutionists, then they're taking them out of context (even if the context is crystal clear). I show you two peer reviewed publications for creationists, but it isn't good enough because they're just 'patting each other on the back.' There's absolutely no way for creationists to win. Even if we play by all of your rules, you'll find some other loophole to dismiss us with. This is getting rather redundent. Second, I've mentioned several times that you're talking nonsense when you say creationists don't understand the problems with accelerated decay. If you're just going to keep repeating yourself and not figure out that creationists understand the problems and that they're researching with the problems in mind. If your response to this is that creationists don't know about the problems, then there's no reason to continue on about that. Quote:
Yes, really at length, yet he managed not to answer at all to the arguments in Henke's rebuttal. In his only argument that was not ad hominem he apparently confused gas pressure with pressure on the crystal structure.
Seriously, if you read the 'zircons' page on talk origins, the first 2/3 of his article are an ad hominem attack filled with religious bigotry. Then in that same article he says he won't submit anything for peer review because he doesn't want to give humphreys any time to defend himself. What a BS excuse. Maybe he knows that if he actually has to submit for peer review his article will be reduced to its bare bones (no attacks on religion or humphreys), and when this happens humphreys will be able to destroy his 'criticism.' If this isn't the case, then why not embarrass Humphreys? It would be a crushing blow to YECs. If creationists are really in such a down-and-out position as you guys (have been lead to believe) claim, then why not finish us off?
As for the rest of your points. Gas pressure and whatnot.
Henke doesn't dwell on gas pressure from what I can see. You'll have to point out what you're talking about. In fact, that section where Henke talks about vacuum problems shows how disengenous he really is. Quoting irrelevant papers to make his point discredits just about everything else he says. Then he goes on to dwell on points like the soviet data that Humphreys already responded to. I haven't poured over the paper, but even if Henke was right and Humphreys did manipulate the Soviet data, it doesn't affect the outcome.
Quote:
Ok, when you now have a cluster of crystals, the helium will diffuse only from the outer crystals, and only if there's a helium density difference to the outer area. Even if this is the case, we'll then get a helium density gradient with the maxiumum helium amount in the center, and less helium at the border of the cluster. Which means that you can measure any helium amount you want in a crystal cluster. It just depends on at which place you were measuring it.
Where does Henke even approach this?
Quote:
While the mentioned helium gradient is caused by the gas pressure difference of the helium, Humphreys talks in his responses about the pressure on the zircon crystal from the surrounding rock.
Again, I read the trueorigin.org response and traced that back to Henke's accusations and what you're saying sounds like it has nothing to do with what Henke said.
Anyway, what I see is Humphreys respond to pretty much every point Henke makes, then Henke makes the point again, except this time he's said it a little bit more than before. Then he comes up with one new irrelevant point and suddenly Henke wins (according to you) after Humphreys destroys that point. You apparently were reading a different paper than me, unless you can point out what I missed.
Quote:
Henke pointed out numerous other flaws, for instance Humphreys diffusion formula was totally wrong.
Specifically? I mean something like quote what Henke says about this.
Quote:
And the best part is that even if his measurements were correct, his announced 6000 years result is complete phantasy! Using his own data and formula, you'd get an age distribution of his zircons between 460.000 years and zero.
Humphreys only reponse to this was about 'garbage' data giving 'garbage' results, so I guess I'm screwed because I don't have time to run through the equations and results myself.
Unless Humphreys elaborates on this, then its possible Henke is right and that the dates fit into the hundreds of thousands.
But unless Henke was being purposefully misleading, then it would be logical to conclude that these results are actually a problem. He quotes his irrelevant pressure argument as providing some extra leverage towards the uniformitarian model. I would imagine he wouldn't have to make that claim unless the results were actually a problem.
Henke has made several dubious claims in his original essay, and second essay, which Humphreys was polite enough to point out. Most of which relied, apparently, on the reader being ignorant of Humphreys paper.
Then to sum up why I don't make an idol of peer-review, here's Henke's own words.
"In contrast to peer-reviewed technical journals that have relatively few readers and little space for adequately detailed discussions and calculations, Talkorigins provides a peer-reviewed science forum that has a potential audience of millions and no page limits."
Peer-review is as good as the talk.origins internet forum. I'm not saying it isn't peer-reviewed, or that the forums are bad. But you can accurately call a internet forum 'peer-reviewed'. There's nothing magical about it.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
#78193
07/28/06 02:23
07/28/06 02:23
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
So what your arguments still come down to is that creationists aren't peer reviewed. They have two peer reviewed publications, but that isn't good enough because peer review by creationists isn't valid.
I you misundersatand what peer review is supposed to accomplish- it is to ensure that supposedly disinterested parties independently review a paper to check for accuracy, relavance, and so on. I actually believe that most "evolutionists" are going to be much more impartial and qualified to review papers than a creationist.
Therefore the scientific credentials of the reviewer are important, and few creationsists are actually experts in a related scientic field. In other words, I'd be very suprised to find a geology PHD who was also a creationist.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78194
07/30/06 20:09
07/30/06 20:09
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I you misundersatand what peer review is supposed to accomplish- it is to ensure that supposedly disinterested parties independently review a paper to check for accuracy, relavance, and so on. I actually believe that most "evolutionists" are going to be much more impartial and qualified to review papers than a creationist.
No one says it has to be a disinterested party. It just has to be someone who is an expert in the relevant field. There's nothing magical about it. The 'judges' are just supposed to check for mistakes (as you've said) and challenge the author to make the paper the best it can be. It doesn't mean that the peer-review process automatically makes the paper 100% correct. It just means its less likely to contain mistakes.
Quote:
Therefore the scientific credentials of the reviewer are important, and few creationsists are actually experts in a related scientic field. In other words, I'd be very suprised to find a geology PHD who was also a creationist.
Humpheys has a Ph.D. in both Geophysics and Space Physics. One of his other colleagues has a Ph.D. in Geology, and I can't remember what the other two had Ph.Ds in except that one of them I think is just regular old Physics.
These guys (outside of their YEC work) have done important secular work. Designing things for governments and whatnot. You can check out their biographies on AiG if you really want, not that you'd believe them anyway.
But they do have real Ph.Ds from real schools.
Edit: By the by, the evolutionist superstition is really showing its stripes. When they find 'soft tissue' in bones that are 10 million years old and older, they believe it managed not to decay for that long. I don't mind if you're going to have a superstitious belief, but don't get it mixed up with science. 
(For instance, there's no evidence that any 'soft tissue' could last that long, and really I think the burden of proof is on evolutionists to show how it could happen instead of resorting to circular reasoning...."It survived for 10 million+ years because there it is".)
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/30/06 20:24.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78195
07/30/06 21:04
07/30/06 21:04
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
But they do have real Ph.Ds from real schools.
I dont belive that...they probably eitehr bought the degrees or lie about it. However, either way, it doesnt make them credible when they are clearly at odds with the the mainstream thought.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78196
07/31/06 06:17
07/31/06 06:17
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I dont belive that...they probably eitehr bought the degrees or lie about it. However, either way, it doesnt make them credible when they are clearly at odds with the the mainstream thought.
That's perhaps the most illogical thing you've managed to say, yet. You can't buy degress from accredited schools. If you don't believe they have Ph.Ds, then I don't believe evolutionists do either. A little food for thought, Henke is obviously (judging by his actions) desperate to conclude that Humphreys is completely wrong about this Zircon junk. Perhaps the quickest way to end the discussion would be to say, "Humphreys and his colleagues don't have Ph.Ds/have fake Ph.Ds." You wouldn't even need to say anything else. Is it any wonder that he hasn't said that yet?
If we determine right from wrong by mainstream thought, then we truly are screwed. Good luck with that.
I don't suppose there's much more to say on this. The discussion isn't going to go anywhere if you've removed yourself from reality.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/31/06 06:18.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78197
07/31/06 06:44
07/31/06 06:44
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
This is not a very good way to build up your discussion, Irish_Farmer. You think you have won now because Matt made a comment concerning the PhD? That is too funny. I like this thread. It is entertaining. To be honest. I used to work at a university and everybody can get a PhD. Just write a paper and defend it later in front of a few specialists. You can pick up a very special topic and you will have no problems to get a PhD. That even does not mean you are a big scientist afterwards. You could even get a Creationist after that. In Germany are a lot of dubious PhD's as well. Some became politicians and that says all
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78199
07/31/06 17:34
07/31/06 17:34
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Excuse me, the one with the geophysics Ph.D is Baumgardner and he got it from UCLA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but UCLA wasn't a degree-mill last time I heard. What you guys are thinking of are degree mills. Schools where you usually don't have to do anything except pay money to get a "Ph.D." Of course, the burden of proof is on you guys to show that they got their degrees from degree-mills. Humphreys got his Physics Ph.D. from the Louisiana state University. That is also a 'real' school. Quote:
This is not a very good way to build up your discussion, Irish_Farmer. You think you have won now because Matt made a comment concerning the PhD? That is too funny. I like this thread. It is entertaining.
What are you talking about? This is about two different viewpoints commenting on a technical discussion between two scientists. I don't think either side has the ability to 'win' this discussion.
Its also apparent that evolutionists are starting to get annoyed by the increasing inability to preach evolution since they're developing new ways to indoctrinate children as young as 5 years old.
Man, that website has an ugly design.
Quote:
To be honest. I used to work at a university and everybody can get a PhD. Just write a paper and defend it later in front of a few specialists.
Good luck doing that without years of schooling. If you're right, and EVERY Ph.D. is useless, then how do I know any evolutionist is qualified?
I accidentally started filling out the application for schooling to attain a Ph.D. at the college I was looking at going to. You have to write an essay just on the application explaining why you want to persue the Ph.D. Then it appeared to me that you have to do more schooling. It sounds like Ph.D.s are a commitment, something that takes years.
Really, you guys are pretty good at distracting the argument from the point. If it wasn't obvious already, then its quite apparent now that most evolutionists have to rely on distraction, confusion, and insults as opposed to real ideas.
I would try and distance myself from the tactics of people like one of Kent Hovind's spokespersons. He downplayed the importance of Ph.Ds, too.
Quote:
How is what i said illogical anyway? I just am suspicious that these people have PHDs from actual universities. If they do I would be surprised--I would certainly flunk any geophysics major who believed that Earth was only 6000 years old
Well, I'll make the case one last time. If these creationists working on the RATE project didn't have real degrees or doctorates or whatever, evolutionists (like Henke) would have pointed it out by now. Evolutionists never fail to point out stuff like that. Henke hasn't done it yet, so its apparent by the tone of his 'essays' that he recognizes these men as 'real' scientists, even if he doesn't view their work as 'real'.
If you guys aren't going to believe anything except what you hear from evolutionists, then that speaks volumes about why [you] people even believe evolution in the first place. At least amateur creationists tend to consider the other side without coming up with excuses for dismissing them, or more accurately: slinging mud.
We're not getting anywhere.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/31/06 17:38.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
