Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Sean Pitman.
You said earlier in this tread that kinetic rates are a fact.
No I didn’t. Kinetic chemistry extrapolations are based on real observations that are consistently repeatable, but these extrapolations are not absolute facts by any means.
You may be right, but I have news for you: So are the rates of Radiometric Decay as their rates have been ovserved and measured over the last 40 to 100 years (Link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html )
The decay rates aren’t the problem with radiometric dating methods. The assumption of particular starting conditions, contamination over time, and various calibration methods are the main problems with radiometric dating methods.
Now nobody said that it is without flaw; no one says it is perfect since abberations occure, and I am okay with that. You may be right that kinetic decay rate is a “fact,†and I am okay with that too. But since Radiometric Dating can (and has been) fooled, why can’t we allow that there may be abberations in kinetic rates as well?
There could be. The point is that kinetic rates have long been assumed by mainstream scientists to offer an extremely reliable upper limit cap to protein and DNA viability. So far, no one has come up with a reasonable explaination to counter the implications of kinetic decay. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a good explanation. It just means that so far it isn’t forthcoming.
Eddie is right. It is inconsistent of you to hold on to the “rate†of one detail in conventional science as a fact while at the same time rejecting the other known rate that is known to be based on hard fact as well. One thing that we all learn: There are exceptions to every rule. As there are occasions when radiometric rates can be fooled, why can’t we accept that kinetic rates cannot be fooled as well?
Again, you misquote me. Kinetic decay rate limits are not absolute “facts”. They are simply a currently unexplain observation/theory that strongly favors the creationist position over the mainstream position. Does this evidence qualify as absolute proof? or even offer the weight of evidence, by itself, to the creationist position? Hardly. It is just one piece of evidence, among many, that contributes to the overall weight of evidence. The same is true for the finding of significant quantities of carbon-14 uniformly in coal, oil, and non-fossilized portions of fossils.
Well, a paper from Plos One published last October says that “the crystallization of microbial biofilms on decomposing organic matter within vertebrate bone in early taphonomic stages may contribute to the preservation of primary soft tissues deeper in the bone structure.†— It also says:
The results presented here suggest an important role of microorganisms in taphonomic processes, notably for the preservation of primary soft-tissues within bone, through a microbial masonry process. Although biomolecular studies on soft-tissue extracts from fossil vertebrates have shown that the proposed alternative interpretation of primary soft-tissue as microbial biofilms is unlikely, biofilms may play a critical role in the preservation process.
Link: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013334
Take note: This is not the “the-tissue-are-bacterial-biofilm†paper that was published by Thomas G. Kay in July 2008. It doesn’t even support the hypothesis.
Mary Shweitzer’s hypothesis is that the tissue can be preserved for 68 million years deep in the ground because it was “in equilibruim†with the enviorment. The support for her hypothesis is that the degredation of remains began after she had removed the fossils from their enviorment.
Link: http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=5980
In another paper that Professor Kent had linked a while ago that was submitted by Ms. Shweitzer, she pointed out that the fossils that contained tissue were from strata comprised of sandstone; the strata of mudstone and fossil marine enviorments are much less likely to produce them.
Link: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1607/183.full.pdf
Considering that, her hypothesis may carry some weight since it seems to support the notion that it depends on the enviorments of the fossil.
Nice hypotheses, but these concepts are untested and are largely based on the effort to find something, anything, to explain away the evidence of kinetic chemistry. Note that Schweitzer’s references to the stabilizing effects of microorganisms in taphonomic processes reference the work of David Martill.
Dr. Martill works with very finely preserved fish and other types of fossils from the Santana formation. These fish were fossilized so rapidly, under supersaturated conditions, that they were turned to stone within one hour of death – dubbed the “Medusa effect” by Dr. Martill. Martill suggests that biofilms perhaps played a role in this fossilization process. Note, however, that the soft tissues were not preserved much less stabilized during this process. They were completely replaced by minerals from the environment.
In short, as of this time there is still no good evidence that such processes have any long-term stabilizing effect (i.e., tens of millions of years) on actual soft tissue, protein or DNA sequences against the degenerative effects of kinetic chemistry outside of the wishful thinking of mainstream evolutionists who have nothing else to go on but know that there must be some sort of explaination…
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.
