@krissmith777: The journal Origins is peer …

Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Sean Pitman.

@krissmith777:

The journal Origins is peer reviewed by people with their Ph.D.s in the relevant field of study. – Sean Pitman

Fine, then my question to you is: Is it peer reviewed by just creationists? If so, then it’s reviewed in the same way Answers in Genesis’ “Answers Research Journal” is which only makes the peer review suspicious. –Sorry, but I learned the hard way not to trust YEC scientists, since they have already decided “a priory,” that they are right and everyone else is wrong; a dishonest stance to take. –The scientists I e-mailed the paper to are Christians, so as to make sure that I am not sending it to people with a reverse agenda.

Everyone has an agenda and everyone is biased to one degree or another – even your mainstream “Christian scientists” are biased in that they believe, “a priori” in mainstream evolutionary theories and life evolving on this planet over a billion years of time.

Perhaps this very same kind of bias is what caused you to believe an anti-creationist argument for radiocarbon dating that was published more than 25 years ago? – proving that you really have no idea about the AMS technology that is used today?

I’m afraid your own bias is showing quite strongly here when it comes to what “evidence” you are willing to choose and present as a basis for belief…

It’s considered reliable, but scientists shouldn’t be using one method to determine an age. Several methods were used to determine the age of the earth; had they only used one method, I wouldn’t blame people for their skepticism: It’s been tested by the Ar/Ar method, the Pb-Pb isochron, tje Rb-Sr isochron, the Sm-Nd Isochron, etcetera, and they all consistently produced ages between 4.38 to 4.57 billion years for the earth. –You don’t just use one method, you need to confirm it with others.

You do realize that many of these methods are calibrated against each other? For example, Ar/Ar dating is not an independent dating technique. It must first be calibrated against K/Ar before it can be used. The same thing is true of many other radiometric dating techniques. And, if they are calibrated against each other, they will agree by definition.

Beyond this, I have no trouble with the age of the material of the Earth itself being far older than the age of life on Earth…

And even if you were right that Noah’s flood, assuming it was global (I hold the local flood view), and EVEN IF it affected the C-14 results, tests I just mentioned were done on meteors, and therefore would not have been affected by Noah’s Flood since they would have been out into the astroid belt before Noah’s Flood. Their testing would also be valid for the age of the earth too since (assuming the YEC understanding of Genesis is correct), they would have been created either at the same time as earth, or only four days after.

I think you’re confusing various radiometric dating methods with each other. C-14 isn’t used to date meteors for obvious reasons. The arguments for Noah’s Flood messing up the C12/C14 ratio only pertain to radiocarbon dating.

Pretty much all of them have such soft tissue preserved… – Sean Pitman

Strange, since no one acknowledges this. Sorry, but I don’t believe you.

Well, you’d be wrong. Consider the following article from a 2006 issue of National Geographic (one year after Schweitzer’s first discovery of soft tissues in a T. rex bone) entitled, “Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside”:

Until now, Schweitzer said, “the standard wisdom was that if you dissolve away the mineral [in fossils], there would be nothing left.” That has been the case in about half of the specimens she has examined.

But the other half have yielded remarkably consistent results. The same features have emerged, and they are virtually indistinguishable from tissue samples from modern species…

Mary Schweitzer, the North Carolina State University paleontologist who announced the finding, said her team has now repeated that feat with more than a dozen other dinosaur specimens.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html

And this article was published just one year after Schweitzer’s discover. There have been many finds of soft tissues within larger dinosaur bones since that time. Consider also a few pre-Schweitzer findings:

In 1991, the Journal of Paleontology reported on one of the largest dinosaurs ever discovered—Seismosaurous. In the description of the Seismosaurousremains, the author admits—although in a veiled manner—that bone and bone protein is present (Gillett, 11:417-433). In 1992, Dr. Margaret Helder reported two cases of “fresh” dinosaur bones that were discovered in Alaska. In her report she asked: “How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived” (14:16, emp. in orig.). Also in 1992, an article appeared in Geology journal titled: “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs.” In this report Gerard Muyzer and his colleagues used a procedure known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify a bone protein from two Cretaceous dinosaurs (20:871-874).

In 1994, Scott Woodward and his colleagues wrote an article titled: “DNA sequences from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments” (266:1229-1232). In their report, the authors remarked: “DNA was extracted from 80-million-year-old bone fragments found in strata of the Upper Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation in the roof of an underground coal mine in eastern Utah (p. 1229). They continued: “On the basis of the circumstantial physical and geologic evidence, it is likely that the bone fragments belong to a Cretaceous period dinosaur or dinosaurs” (p. 1230, emp. added.). In 1997, an article titled “Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone” was published (see Schweitzer, et al., 94:6291-6296).

Yet, you write:

…and the context of the video, it implies that MOST of the testing and re-testing came from the same individual, since it ONLY mentions the other tests Duck-Billed AFTER, in which case, these are only two examples. Notice she never said that she had tested “several invidual” dinosaurs. She only mentions two individuals.

Well, you’re just unaware of all that has taken place since her first discovery I guess…

On a sidenote: Interestingly enough, the bone that She mentions in the video which she deducted that the T-Rex was a female gives good evidence of bird evolution from theropod dinosaurs, since the medullary bone is exclusive to female birds use to store calcium for making eggshells.

As are hair and milk glands to mammals (for the most part). No one is arguing that striking similarities exist between dinosaurs and birds. Again though, it’s not the similarities that are the problem for evolutionary theories; but the differences… the functional differences beyond very low levels of functional complexity (as defined by Hazen et. al.). Similarities, and even a nested hierarchical pattern of the Tree of Life, are predictions of common design as well as common descent. The problem is that the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS has a very very hard time explaining the functional differences between different gene pools beyond very low levels of functional complexity. And, there is also the problem of the ratio of detrimental vs. beneficial mutations per individual per generation… leading to genetic meltdown, not evolution, in slowly reproducing creatures like apes and humans and mammals in general…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Phil Mills:

One of these frequent posters claims to be a Young Earth Creationists, but believes in creation based on what he refers to as “faith.” One could get the idea that he fears that anything scientifically shown to support creation is actually bad since it would then somehow require less faith to believe. His faith, however, is more akin to the Catholic student who is reported to have said, “Faith is what you believe that you know ain’t so.”

This is not Biblical faith. Neither is it the faith of the Adventist pioneers. It certainly doesn’t build faith, it actually destroys genuine faith. This pseudofaith more closely resembles a mere superstitious belief. It is no surprise that agnostics, evolutionists, and other doubters have such an affinity for those who possess this kind of “faith” on this site. Why wouldn’t they agree with it. It doesn’t threaten them in any way. It bolsters their ranks. It confirms their unbelief since they already believe faith is unreasonable.

I couldn’t have said it better myself…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent:

Of course it’s a good thing; I never said it was bad. The problem is when you and Pitman maintain that empirical evidence from nature is essential to validate the Bible–and that is heresy and blasphemy.

You yourself made this “blasphemous” claim when you listed off several empirical evidences, like fulfilled prophecy (based on empirical investigation of real history), as reasons why you believe the Bible to be superior to other books claiming to be the true Word of God.

Here is what you wrote:

In short, there is ample evidence to support the Bible and Christianity, including fulfilled prophecy, the lives and testimony of the apostles, archeology, the impact of the Bible on personal lives, and so forth. All of this is “empirical evidence” that goes beyond what is needed to establish the validity of scripture. The other religions are confronted with serious shortcomings on these issues, in my opinion… – Professor Kent

Now, if the Holy Spirit is enough, as the Latter-day Saints believe, to lead you into all truth without having to use your brain, why did you appeal to these empirical evidences to support your belief or faith in the superior credibility of the Bible vs. other competing options held in higher regard by other faiths? Why didn’t you just appeal to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking directly to you as evidence enough?

So, the argument here isn’t really over the need for an empirical basis for one’s faith in the Bible before it can be considered rational. You yourself appeal to such. You admit to the need for an empirical argument as the basis for choosing the Bible over other competing options. You’ve made this argument several times now. Therefore, the real argument here is in regard to your notion that the empirical basis, or “weight of empirical evidence” for faith never changes or needs to be re-examined in any way over time – despite the discovery of new evidence and information?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@krissmith777:

You missed my overall point. The first sentence I quoted from it was: The rates at which sediments accumulate vary enormously, owing to the natural variability of the processes that produce and transport sediments. — The rates vary greatly depending on the conditions… Your argument pre-supposes that the rate has not changed, and you have not demonstrated that it has. — And frankly, it doesn’t have to be.

You misunderstand the “rate” that the author is talking about here. This rate is not the overall rate of ocean sedimentation which is in fact fairly constant at ~30 billion tons per year. I’ve already tried to explain this to you, but the variability your reference is talking about is the local variability that is indeed due to many factors of sediment transport within the oceans themselves. This local variability does not affect the overall sediment load that is consistently delivered to the oceans.

— David E. Thomas says it much better than I ever could:

…much sediment never gets to the ocean floor, but is trapped instead on continental slopes and shelves, or in huge river deltas. Over the years, some of these continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment, while others can even become part of mountain ranges in continental plate-to-plate collisions. Neither erosion nor subduction are expected to be constant processes over millions of years, and they are simply not good clocks.

Indeed, and my calculations take into account all the sediment currently in the oceans, to include the sediment on continental slopes and shelves and river deltas. The total amount of sediment, taking all of these factors into account, is only 10^17 tons. That tonnage can be explained in just 15 million years. That’s a huge problem for mainstream theories of plate tectonics and the proposed age of ocean basins. Your arguments about the variability of sedimentation for different parts of the ocean floor are completely irrelevant to explaining the total tonnage that is currently in the oceans regardless of its location.

I heard one geologist call it a “crude” dating method. Looks more related to “relative dating,” not “absolute dating.”

Again, you’re looking at local rates of accumulation over time, not the overall rate of accumulation over time. You’re confusing two separate concepts here. They aren’t the same thing.

Again, that is completely irrelevant to the point that the total amount of sediment, the total tonnage that is current in the oceans, irrespective of its location within the ocean basins, can be explained given just 15 million years… – Sean Pitman

And the paper I linked a while ago using the current rate gave the figure of 100 million years: (“At a rate of 0.5 cm (.2 in)/1000 years, it takes only 100 million years to accumulate 500 m (1600 ft) of sediment,”)

Indeed – the local rate of sediment accumulation on some areas of the ocean floor may indeed be this slow. Again, however, this is completely irrelevant to the fact that the total sediment contained by all the oceans in the whole world, to include the sediment that is on or close to the continent shelves, is far far too low for them to be nearly as old as mainstream scientists propose…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.