OK, let’s have some fun with flakes, of which I …

Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by Sean Pitman.

OK, let’s have some fun with flakes, of which I am likely one 🙂 ( Wes as an artist may enjoy this flaky analogy as well). Not Kellogg’s corn flakes but snowflakes. Say an artist of Wes’s pedigree decides to use materials ( ceramics, etc) to make an apparently identical snowflake in appearance to that which appears in nature. Right down to the fine feathered filigree. Then a talented photographer takes pictures of the two, indistinguishable to the human eye. Then the Kime Inquiry National Gallery (KING) agrees to host the two exhibited pictures side by side. Sean and George walk into the KING and observe the photographs not knowing the sources of the images. Which one would they decide comes from intelligent design vs mindless nature. Art imitating life and life imitating art. Intelligent and mindless design side by each ( as they say in Newfounfland bye’).

At least you’re starting to think about the problem. Of course, as your illustration nicely points out, the detection of design requires that one knows what the material in question is and has some background experience with that material as it interacts with various forces of nature. Why do you think I specifically chose the material of granite, rather than pyrite, when arguing that a highly symmetrical granite cube would be a clear artifact of intelligent design? Knowledge of the potential and limits of the material in question makes a big difference – as you yourself know full well.

My point being that apparent intelligent design may not be so apparent at all.

Not true. Apparent intelligent design is not apparent until one has investigated the phenomenon in question, determined its material, and has some prior experience with the material in question regarding its potential and limitations in various natural environments. After all, not even you would question the intelligent origin of the rock formations in the photographs I’ve presented – even if found on an alien planet. Why not? Because you know that such formations are well outside of the creative powers of all known natural forces this side of a practical eternity of time (or a practically infinite number of universes). That is why your multiverse argument is meaningless and why you yourself don’t really subscribe to it and all that it implies.

And, as natural snowflakes eloquently demonstate, mindless nature is able to produce quite elaborate designs.

And yet, somehow, you’re still able to recognize that a highly symmetrical granite cube is outside of what mindless nature can produce (as many of the rock formations in the pictures I’ve presented to you). Again, your conclusion doesn’t rationally follow your argument nor are you being consistent…

The question of course are what, if any, the limits of nature to design by cause and effect mechanisms and the laws of the universe over 13 billion years? And, as some- granted disputed- evidence suggests, a metaverse exists can we say definitively that our universe was intelligently designed and not rsndomly formed?

Ok, given 14 billions of years of time, do you think it is remotely likely to find a highly symmetrical polished granite cube anywhere in the universe as a product of any mindless force of nature? – or any of the rock formations I’ve shown you so far in this forum? Of course you don’t. You know full well that you would recognize any of these phenomena as clear artifacts of intelligent design regardless of where they happened to be found in the universe. Your appeal to a multiverse is simply inconsistent with what you would actually conclude – or what any other rational person would conclude. The multiverse argument is in fact, as I’ve already explained, fundamentally opposed to scientific reasoning and methodologies.

Now, as time, technology and scientific investigation have advanced we are better able to determine how cause and effect mechanisms ‘design’. If is a legitimate question to investigate what the limits of those cause and effect mechanisms are. However I don’t think at a specific technological or scientifc point in time one can can default to intelligent design as a scientific conclusion. At best one can say we don’t yet have the answers to what appears to be designed mechanisms in the universe.

Oh please. Are you telling me that you would not recognize a highly symmetrical granite cube or any of the rock formations are true artifacts of intelligent design if they happened to be found on an alien planet? You would really argue that “we don’t know yet” what produced these formations? – that you have absolutely no idea if they are or are not intelligently designed? That’s such a ridiculous proposal that I don’t think you actually believe what you’re saying here. You’re basically arguing that SETI science is effectively impossible – even in theory. You’re saying that it is scientifically impossible to detect a true artifact as the result of intelligent design regardless of the nature of the artifact. That’s an absurd position that is completely opposed to basic scientific methodologies as well as numerous mainstream sciences that are based on the ability, the scientific ability, to recognize true artifacts of intelligent design with very high predictive value.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
I don’t think you understand the argument. Of course very small amounts of C14 can be produced by the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in rocks close by. That’s not the problem or the relevant question. The real question is, how much C14 can be produced by this method? And, why would this source of C14 production be so uniform? As I’ve already suggested to you, your argument that C14 production by uranium and thorium explains very high C14 levels within dinosaur bones equivalent to ages of 15-35 kyrs simply doesn’t seem like a tenable argument. Is there remotely enough uranium and thorium scattered in a fairly uniform manner all over the world to generate that much C14 underground? That’s a pretty big pill you’re asking me to swallow don’t you think? – especially given that a level of less than 20 parts per million of uranium and thorium was detected in the dinosaur bones that contained large quantities of radiocarbon? (Link) Beyond this, turning 12C into C14 by neutron capture isn’t very easy to do. In fact, nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons “110,000 times more easily” than does carbon. This dramatically increases the amount of uranium and thorium that would be needed to produce all the necessary C14 to make your theory tenable.

For example, to produce a C14 age of 40,000 years we need a ratio of 14C/12C equal to about 1e-14. As best as I can tell, producing this ratio would require 125 atoms of uranium per carbon atom, which is a concentration by weight of 99.96% uranium (Link).

Also, according to your arguments, C14 dating would be pretty much worthless beyond about 10,000 years due to all the extra C14 being produced by uranium and thorium underground. No one believes that. So, how then can C14 be used on the one hand to “reliably” date mammoths and mastodons and the like as living some 10-35 kyrs ago, but when these same levels of C14 are discovered uniformly throughout thick coal beds or dinosaur bones it must have been the result of non-atmospheric C14 production? A 14C/12C ratio of only 1e-15 corresponds to a ~60,000 yr age for a specimen. We’re talking about less than half that age or more than twice as much C14. I’m sorry, but yours seems like a self-defeating argument even without knowing how much uranium and thorium would be needed. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Do you see the problem I’m having here with your argument? Or, do I need to read more talk.origins or wiki articles to figure it out?

As far as Schweitzer’s discoveries are concerned, I’m not sure of the significance of your point when you argue that no “collagen reactivity” was detected in response to collagenase in the dinosaur soft tissues? In her 2007 paper (Link) she did in fact note that, “antibody reactivity was significantly decreased after we digested dinosaur tissues with collagenase.” However, even if this wasn’t the case, so what? The really amazing thing is that there are soft tissues at all – to include sequencable antigenic proteins and even fragments of DNA in dinosaur bones dating from 60Ma to more than 150Ma (Link). Just a few years ago science had shown, by kinetic chemistry experiments, that such soft tissues and proteins should have been completely degraded within less than 100 ka. The current argument that iron helps to preserve soft tissues like formaldehyde doesn’t really solve the protein of kinetic chemistry decay.


IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
There is far far too much radiocarbon in this samples of dinosaur bone to be explained by either contamination or uranium-thorium decay (production of non-atmospheric C14). These “talk.origins” and “wiki” arguments of yours are nothing new (Link) and they simply don’t hold water when it comes to explaining the origin of such high levels of radiocarbon. We aren’t talking about C14 dating beyond 80,000 years here. We’re talking C14 dates that are well within the detection spectrum of AMS techniques – well less than half that “age”.

And, as Dr. Giem noted back in 2010, “It is difficult to imagine a nature process contaminating wood, whale bone, petroleum and coal, all roughly to the same extent. It is especially difficult to imagine all parts of a coal seam being contaminated equally.” See also my 2010 discussion with Erv Taylor on the potential and limitations of radiocarbon dating here: Link.

But, please do, inform me of my inability to appropriately read the available “literature” that you cited here and why Schweitzer should be excused for not subjecting her dinosaur bone specimens to C14 analysis and publishing the result?


IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
Whatever. We’ve been through this endlessly before regarding your droll claim that it’s impossible to rationally think for one’s self or reasonably judge if anything is right or wrong unless some mainstream journal publishes the argument and a majority of Darwinian fundamentalists are converted. Forget about the idiots like Galileo, Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Aristotle, Archimedes, etc… who obviously learned nothing worthwhile or “scientific” on an individual basis because their work lacked official “peer review” in some popular journal of the day.

Sure, peer review has it’s place. It’s certainly worth while when available. However, it is by no means the end-all nor is it even vital to scientific discovery or understanding of the world in which we live. Do you think any of the guys mentioned above cared one lick if anyone else or any “majority” group of “peers” in the world agreed with them? Do you think any one of them would have changed his mind simply given the opposition of any kind of “majority opinion” alone? – without a personal understanding of the evidence itself? Not at all. Not a single one of them would have believed that they were in error simply because any or all of the peers of their day disagreed with them. They studied for themselves and came to their own firm conclusions regardless of what anyone else said or thought.

I recommend trying to do the same thing for yourself as well. Try thinking for yourself on occasion, at least on certain topics of special interest – regardless of what anyone else thinks. Who knows, you might like it! And then, please do let me know when you come up with something new and interesting for a change – something worth my time to “chat” about by the fireside.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
If you understood how these vaccines actually work, you would understand that they are part of helping to preserve life and health – part of ending all the death and suffering that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is causing on this planet.

Not all science is bad. Most of the discoveries of science are actually good – especially when it can be tested and observed in real-time. True scientific knowledge and medical advancements are a gift of God to ease the pain of humanity in this fallen world…


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I don’t know when Novavax will be approved? Here’s the latest on their clinical trials: Link


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I don’t know what is happening in Orange County, but I do know that the vaccines have not been approved for anyone under 16-years-of-age. And certainly, any medical procedure done on a child or a minor should first be approved by the parents…

That being said, I would certainly have my own two boys (9 and 11) vaccinated as soon as the mRNA vaccine is available for children.

Again, the evidence is very very clear that the risks associated with the mRNA vaccines are far far outweighed by the risks associated with getting the actual live COVID-19 infection where up to 1/3 of children sustain long-term/permanent injuries – not to mention the risk of passing it on to others who may also be die or be permanently injured.


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
If that makes you more comfortable, that’s fine. However, when it comes to the mRNA vaccines, in particular, there really are no more remaining questions of any real seriousness to be answered. The technology has been around and studied for over 30 years now and the vaccine trials were a great success, demonstrating amazing efficacy as well as safety. The same has been true of the general rollout around the world. Those countries with the highest percentage of vaccinations are doing the best regarding a reduction in death rates and injuries from the COVID-19 virus. The longer you wait, the greater your personal risk and the risk to others around you.


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche

Can you talk about the blood clot side affect — the rash side affect — and the other side affects listed in the VAERS document? Are these deaths and suffering are just “ho-hum” dispensable humans to the cause of good for all?

I talk about VAERS here (Link). The Herpes Zoster rash happens in a low percentage of immunocompromised people who have previously been infected with the Herpes virus (Link). While certainly uncomfortable, it’s not life-threatening and it isn’t a risk for most people. The blood clot risk is a very rare risk (about 1 in a million for young women) for the DNA vaccines, possibly related to the adenoviral vector used for the vaccines. I talk about this here (Link). There is also a very rare risk for severe immune thrombocytopenia (Link). Note that for all of these risks for the vaccines, the very same risks are much much much higher when it comes to being infected by the live COVID-19 virus. So, if you want to reduce your risk as much as possible, the best way to do that is to get vaccinated.

What is happening to cause so many side affects? How is one to know if there is a chance of dangerous side affects of the vaccine for a person?

The thing about risk is that it is impossible to know, ahead of time, exactly how a particular person will react. That’s just the nature of the concept of “risk”…

Are vaccinated women who get the vaccine during pregnancy, or get pregnant and give birth having any side affects among their babies?

No. I talk about this rumor here (Link).

Also, have your children been vaccinated? What is your opinion of elementary or high schools requiring the vaccine for school children? Which childhood conditions need to be studied before administering the vaccine to children with these conditions?

The mRNA vaccines are not approved for children under the age of 16. They are currently in the trial phase of testing for younger children. My own boys are 9 and 11 years of age, so no, they haven’t been vaccinated yet. However, once approved, I would be getting them vaccinated since even children are at risk for long-term injury and sickness from COVID-19 (30% of children get Long-Hauler’s following even asymptomatic infections with COVID-19). As far as childhood “conditions”, I know of no common childhood conditions which would preclude vaccination…

What “empirical evidence” is there that mRNA vaccines do not cause any side affects “a year or two or three down the line”? Is there a study I can read – link?

As I’ve already mentioned, the evidence for this is the very long history that we’ve had with vaccines and understanding how they work with the human immune system. When complications arise, they do so within the first few months for large populations (Link). It is extremely unlikely that something brand new and unexpected will come to light years down the line (Link). Also, by that time, millions will have been killed and permanently injured by the very real and very well-known risks of the COVID-19 virus itself.

Yes, your glowing recommendation is convincing with several issues not addressed in the glow.

I have addressed most of your questions already in other posts on this topic…

Do you recommend a yearly booster vaccine like now is being developed? I think big Pharma announced a flu/covid combo vaccine coming out for next fall. What is your opinion please?

For now, it seems likely to me that the mRNA vaccines will produce immunity lasting more than a year, likely several years. However, as with most viruses, the COVID-19 virus mutates. If a new mutant strain comes along that “breaks through” the immunity provided by the original vaccine(s), then yes, a booster would be necessary. However, if enough people would get vaccinated quickly, it would make the odds of such breakthrough mutations less likely.

Thanks for your help in understanding the full spectrum of topics about these mRNA vaccines.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions.