Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Sean Pitman.
Recognizing the problem based on test tube models is one thing, but accepting it is another, particularly when the models do not appear to apply in all real world situations. Using Pitmanese, the models may well lack predictive power because they do not take into account all possible variables that potentially influence soft tissue preservation.
It is impossible, in science, to take into account all possible variables or potentialities. That is why science is always open to the potential for falsification given additional information. Science is risky, by definition, because of this.
The point is, given what is known right now, there is no good explanation from the mainstream perspective when it comes to explaining how elastic soft tissues and sequencable proteins (and maybe DNA as well) could survive more than a few tens of thousands of years, much less tens of millions of years, given the evidence of kinetic chemistry that was previously thought to be rather definitive in mainstream science.
Do you not realize that Schweitzer dismisses the “problem†altogether? She continues to date the soft tissue remains at millions of years.
Of course she does. She is convinced that the weight of evidence still favors the mainstream perspective on origins. She still believes that somehow there is an answer to solve the kinetic chemistry problem. However, at least she admits that she has no good solution to this problem. She just thinks that there must be a solution because she knows that the bones in question really are many tens of millions of years old. Therefore, there has to be a solution… obviously! 😉
In her article that appeared just this month, she wrote, “Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.†She then went on to describe her finds of ancient organic material–proteins–up to 70 million years or more in age. This sums her position concisely enough: “Mounting evidence from dinosaur bones shows that, contrary to common belief, organic materials can sometimes survive in fossils for millions of years.â€
Again, this isn’t based on a solution to the kenetic chemistry problem. This is based on her own belief, along with all of mainstream science, that these bones must be tens of millions of years old, therefore, the kinetic chemistry evidence must be mistaken…
In her article, she mentioned three factors that may aid the preservation and recovery of these materials. (1) Sandstone sediments in particular seem to protect against complete loss of organic remains, possibly because the porous sands allow the corrosive fluids that form during decomposition to drain away. (2) Especially deep burial may promote soft-tissue preservation because it protects against oxidation, changes in pH and temperature, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation that can occur at the surface. Eventually the animal comes into chemical equilibrium with the underground environment, which may be key to preservation. (3) Minimizing exposure of the fossil to the atmosphere during excavation may help protect fragile organic molecules from contamination and degradation; analyzing the fossil for organics promptly after it has been excavated may boost chances of recovering these materials. And at the time she wrote her article, she was likely unaware of the recent study showing how biofilms could potentially enhance preservation.
And none of these protective factors address the kinetic chemistry problem – as I’ve already noted.
When the protein model for inheritance failed to explain inheritance, scientists dismissed the protein model as inadequate. If the “kinetics†argument fails to explain the actual preservation limits of soft tissue, scientists will conclude their knowledge of organic tissue degradation is incomplete.
Why would you want to take a stand on a testtube argument that others are obviously dismissing as inadequate? Are you seriously prepared to stake your belief in the Bible on your understanding of kinetics?
I’m just saying, kentic chemistry is just one unexplained problem, among many, for the mainstream perspective that is quite consistent with the creationist perspective. Carbon-14 is another. And, there are many many more. The evidence is adding up and its weight, in my opinion, is strongly in favor of the biblical model of origins…
I’m sorry, but I believe that the Bible is what it claims to be, not just based on its claims (many books claim to be the “Word of God”), but because it can back up its claims with the weight of real empirical evidence.
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.â€
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.â€
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,â€)
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.
