Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Flipper]

He means that these would be valid predictions if there was any truth to a standard biblical explanation.

The genetic bottleneck is a good argument. Cheetahs are all nearly identical genetically (one reason why cheetahs are extremely vulnerable to Spongiform Encephalopathies) because they almost went extinct around the time of the ice age. The population did recover but at the cost of genetic diversity.

Why don't we see that in most animal populations?

And, if all the world's animals were re-seeded from mount ararat, one might expect to see a greater distribution of species around that area. Instead, we don't see that at all. Not even koala and platypus tracks from their patient migration to Australia.

As far as the strata argument goes - I believe this refers to the fact that the fossil record is not a jumbled one. If most sedimentary strata was laid down in the flood, then why do we not see man and dinosaur bones jumbled together? Why does there appear to be a clear pattern?

I particularly enjoyed a creationist explanation to the effect that the bones were sorted via the ability of the crittur to climb to safety.

 

[Stratnerd]

Z -

Endemic plants and animals near Ararat??

How so? I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression that Ararat was pretty much snow covered and glacial...

But if all critters were left off the Ark just 6000 years ago, wouldn't be expect that there would be an outstanding number of critters in the area and that total species diversity would decrease with increasing distance from such a place?

 

[Stratnerd]

Thanks flipper you explained me better than what I did

I particularly enjoyed a creationist explanation to the effect that the bones were sorted via the ability of the crittur to climb to safety.

makes you wonder what the Creataceous birds were on?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
I think I wrote: "the event that caused the inflationary period." Whether it's from some hypothetical "inflaton" or a result of two multidimensional objects colliding, or from another explanation I don't know. And neither does anyone else. However, we are at a stage where some of these hypothetical scenarios can be ruled out.

Incidentally, it's not an entirely different subject. See, the ekpyrotic universe theory is an attack on a standard inflationary model. So if it were found to be accurate, it would eliminate one model and would provide research directions for the creation event itself.

Good luck finding evidence that our universe was formed by the collision of two three-dimensional worlds inhabiting some hidden extra dimension. I have no idea how this is going to be tested, but it would sure be interesting to see how they propose to do it.

Of course these theories are far out there - we're talking about point zero. If a theory provides a mathematical framework for a creation event and also provides for the forces that govern our universe, then it should be worth pursuing.

Then why do people reject Biblical creation? Oh yeah -- it involves God. Hidden fantasy dimensions are ok...

In fact, isn't that how much of physics now works? The theorists develop their theories and ensure that they are mathematically and physically consistent. Then the experimentalists go out and try to test predictions that the theorists have made. If enough evidence is found and it can be repeated, then the theory is either wholely or partially accepted.

Well, don't count your eggs before they hatch. There are plenty of other models out there that are just as (if not much more) plausible than some ekpyrotic universe.

If the evidence is sufficient, then I hold that it will inevitably be accepted, no matter what the source.

Don't be so sure about that. Jesus said that "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead." Some people just can't be convinced, because they refuse to believe.

I'm somewhat interested in what creationists have to say when it's founded in science. Or when they espouse ad hoc notions like the vapor canopy, or man co-existing peaceably with dinosaurs.

How do you explain all those dragon legends throughout history, or all those pictures of dinosaurs on ancient artifacts, or descriptions of dinosaurs in ancient writings?

Job is held by many to be the oldest book in the Bible, and it has a perfect description of a dinosaur (Behemoth), as well as a description of a large marine animal (Leviathan). Did the writer just make a lucky guess?

Mainstream science tends to marginalize and freeze out its wackos. More `respectable' creation science generally, at best, pretends they don't exist and tries to disguise rifts between Young Earthers and Old Earthers (someone is several orders of magnitude wrong - you'd think it would be an easy one to sort out), or between the crackpot populists and those who are a bit more qualified.

Define 'more respectable creation science.' I'd like to get an idea of what you consider that to be, so I can check it out.

However, most of the creation science I have read about (and yes, I do read the web sites, the articles, and buy some of the books) seem to rely on incredulity and complexity while providing no mechanisms or explanations themselves.

Such as? I've seen plenty of mechanisms and explanations -- it just depends on what you're trying to explain.

Sorry, I don't find that satisfying. And using God or Gods as an explanation for events currently beyond our comprehension has not proven to be a successful strategy in the past.

Oh, but let's try hidden fantasy dimensions now. I don't see how that's much different.

I see no reason why it will be a successful strategy in the future.

Then why in the world would you present the ekpyrotic universe model as an explanation? It's no better than postulating some supernatural being. In fact, it's even worse. At least we know something about God from the Bible. What do we know about hidden dimensions? Zip.

 

[Flipper]

Stratnerd:

Apologies for putting words in your mouth - I was just giving my spin on what you wrote!

makes you wonder what the Creataceous birds were on?

Or, as someone on these boards once observed, those relatively slow horse-tails, pines and other cycads vs the swifter deciduous trees.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
hmmm... see below

Time to coalescense is the time estimated for a population to converge genetically into a single genetic unit taking into account mutation and extinction. This is what was used to date "Eve" - which was a population not an individual.

So here's an observation: All the time estimates of populations I've seen never have anything younger than 100,000 years.

Obviously that's because that's what all your sources say.

So my interpretation is that populations are >> 10,000 years. Yet you'd interpret that data as suggesting the organanisms were = 10,000?

What data? I'd have to see it before I interpret it as anything.

Here's another observation: as we march back in time the fossil record becomes more dissimilar from that which exists today. I'd interpret that as organisms changing through time but you'd interpret that as supernatural creation within a week just 6000 years ago?

You've included your conclusion as part of your observation here. The only thing we actually observe is the fossil record. Time is inserted into the equation from the outside.

Here's another observation: one method of radiometric dating gives consistent dating within a stratum and can be corroborated with other radiometric methods.

You obviously don't know much about the practice of radiometric dating. Note that I'm not talking about the theory. In practice, they get all kinds of dates and throw out the ones they don't like.

I'd interpret that as suggesting that radiometric dates give reasonable estimates of time and you'd interpret that as radiometric dates are inconsistent and the Earth being 6000 years old?

Radiometric dating simply measures the amounts of certain isotopes and their decay products, and extrapolates how much time has passed based on that. What they don't know is how much decay product was there to begin with. We've dated all kind of things incorrectly using these methods -- including many things that we already knew the age of.

No, I don't hold radiometric dating to be extremely reliable. It could be, but we have to make too many assumptions about the beginning conditions.

 

[Flipper]

Oh, but let's try hidden fantasy dimensions now. I don't see how that's much different.

Well, if you have a model that has been tested again and again, and has made a number of predictions that have been shown to be correct, but that model is incomplete, then naturally you would look for ways to complete it, wouldn't you?

And if one way that this model could be completed mathematically is looking to additional dimensions beyond 3+1, wouldn't you at least consider it?

Perhaps you are out of date in your awareness of the current state of physics?

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Denver earlier this month, top physicists and cosmologists expressed optimism that extra dimensions would be soon be uncovered.

"We have a number of hints from experiments and theoretical ideas that make us think they’re probably out there," said Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory physicist Joseph Lykken. "That’s why we’re so excited about looking for them."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/string_systems_030226.html

See? Prediction + experiment. Or perhaps you'd like to explain why FermiLab, which has been so successful in gathering evidence for the standard model in the past doesn't really know what it's doing.

No, C-theory is a way aways from being proven, but it is becoming a contender. And if sufficient evidence is shown to support it then it provides a foundational piece of evidence that may be used in support of a creation explanation.

 

[Stratnerd]

Flip & OEJ

Or, as someone on these boards once observed, those relatively slow horse-tails, pines and other cycads vs the swifter deciduous trees.

Coooool... I've never thought of that before....

Then why do people reject Biblical creation? Oh yeah -- it involves God.

no no no no no NO. At best it might be the other way around. You will not find a more ardent supporter of evolution but you will not find me saying a word about God. I wouldn't even know how my puny brain could grasp a critter so.

How do you explain all those dragon legends throughout history, or all those pictures of dinosaurs on ancient artifacts, or descriptions of dinosaurs in ancient writings?

1. some legends have been attributed to crocs
2. ancient writings are full of fantastic creatures; so they overlap with a few real ones? We know most creatures didn't exist - look at Aristotles writing about two-headed people and such
3. most dragons that I've seen portrayed have 4 legs AND wings. This body plan doesn't exist (nor does fire breathing)

Job ... as well as a description of a large marine animal (Leviathan). Did the writer just make a lucky guess?

Perfect description of what animal exactly? What animal has spark come out of its nostrils?

Define 'more respectable creation science.'

that can't exist since science deals with alternative hypothesis and updating theories and creationism lacks these hallmarks (among a few others)

 

[Flipper]

OEJ:

What do we know about hidden dimensions? Zip

We can at least provide a description of them mathematically. Can you say the same for your deity?

 

[Zakath]

Sure, Flipper.

They usually use that figure eight, the one laying on its side...

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
He means that these would be valid predictions if there was any truth to a standard biblical explanation.

The genetic bottleneck is a good argument. Cheetahs are all nearly identical genetically (one reason why cheetahs are extremely vulnerable to Spongiform Encephalopathies) because they almost went extinct around the time of the ice age. The population did recover but at the cost of genetic diversity.

Well, they should be able to come up with some new diversity if evolution is true.

Why don't we see that in most animal populations?

Because most other animals have a wider gene-pool.

And, if all the world's animals were re-seeded from mount ararat, one might expect to see a greater distribution of species around that area. Instead, we don't see that at all. Not even koala and platypus tracks from their patient migration to Australia.

And you wouldn't if they got there by walking on land-bridges that have since been covered by the melting glaciers.

As far as the strata argument goes - I believe this refers to the fact that the fossil record is not a jumbled one.

Oh, it most certainly is a jumbled record. The order is in the interpretation of it.

If most sedimentary strata was laid down in the flood, then why do we not see man and dinosaur bones jumbled together? Why does there appear to be a clear pattern?

Because the pattern doesn't really exist. The geologic column, which you're invoking here, is a purely hypothetical construct.

I particularly enjoyed a creationist explanation to the effect that the bones were sorted via the ability of the crittur to climb to safety.

That's a better explanation than "it just lay there for millions of years until it got covered up."

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
We can at least provide a description of them mathematically.

Let me see one.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
no no no no no NO. At best it might be the other way around. You will not find a more ardent supporter of evolution but you will not find me saying a word about God. I wouldn't even know how my puny brain could grasp a critter so.

God is not a creature -- he's the Creator.

1. some legends have been attributed to crocs

Doesn't explain the size.

2. ancient writings are full of fantastic creatures; so they overlap with a few real ones? We know most creatures didn't exist - look at Aristotles writing about two-headed people and such

Are you sure Aristotle isn't simply describing freaks of nature? We get them all the time now, so I'm sure they got them occasionally back then.

3. most dragons that I've seen portrayed have 4 legs AND wings. This body plan doesn't exist (nor does fire breathing)

In ancient artifacts or your D&D books?

Perfect description of what animal exactly?

Behemoth. I believe that was a sauropod dinosaur. I can't think of any other animal that has a tail like a cedar -- can you?

What animal has spark come out of its nostrils?

You're speaking of Leviathan here, but that may just be figurative language.

that can't exist since science deals with alternative hypothesis and updating theories and creationism lacks these hallmarks (among a few others)

I wasn't asking you.

 

[Flipper]

OEJ:

How do you explain all those dragon legends throughout history, or all those pictures of dinosaurs on ancient artifacts, or descriptions of dinosaurs in ancient writings?

Job is held by many to be the oldest book in the Bible, and it has a perfect description of a dinosaur (Behemoth), as well as a description of a large marine animal (Leviathan). Did the writer just make a lucky guess?

Yes, that sort of creation science should certainly share the same status as cryptozoology.

In the 17th Century, Jonathan Swift was terrified by his older brother who told him of the manticore, the terrifying creature with the body of a lion, the claws of a dragon, and man's head with four rows of terrifying teeth. In the early 20th century, a essayist recorded the superstitious fear that Spanish peasants had of her travelling companion, who was unusually tall and had a black beard. One woman accused him of being a "mardichora".

The first mentions of this terrifying crittur (some attribute a scorpion's tail to it too, if the original was not frightening enough), come from the 5th century, documented by the physician Ctesias.

Oddly enough, the persian word for maneater is "martikhoras". Lions were quite prevalent in the levant in those days. Lions also have a sharp and stiff "sting-like" black hair nearly atop their tails.

So, were there really man-eating creatures with scorpion's tail, the head of a man, multiple rows of teeth, and dragon paws? Did Noah save this one too? Or is it more likely that the description of a man eating lion was embellished?

 

[Zakath]

OEJ,

Here's a bit of suggested reading for you, then.

James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, "The Wave Function of the Universe," Physical Review D 28 (1983): 2960-75

(Link to get you started)

 

[Stratnerd]

Obviously that's because that's what all your sources say.

But if creation were true... none of these publications should even exist or they should say... ALL dates put the origin of these populations at 6000 years. We're not looking for a few, many, population, the majority of populations should be dated about 10,000 years. But they ain't.

So how do you interpret this evidence? Or have you seen papers with the estimates of 6000 years? I thought we were looking at the same evidence.

What data? I'd have to see it before I interpret it as anything.

The estimates of coalescence are the data that we are using to infer ages of populations.

Time is inserted into the equation from the outside.

You cannot take time out! Strata at the bottom are laid down first, are they not? I can remove absolute time but then you still have the phenomenon of increasing dissimarity with increasing time. But please, what would you infer from this?

In practice, they get all kinds of dates and throw out the ones they don't like.

Everyone throws out data they "don't like". I do! The question is why they don't like it. Are dates being thrown out simply because they aren't old enough? Please point out that the majority of geo-paleological studies that use radiometric dating have thrown out their data simply because they don't like it. You are suggesting a conspiracy among physicists and absolute stupidity among geologists. You might be right, but I doubt it.

What they don't know is how much decay product was there to begin with.

they don't? I thought some of this stuff was gaseous and wasn't contained in rocks until they hardened and trapped the gas and started the clocks. I must be reading about something else.

I don't hold radiometric dating to be extremely reliable. It could be, but we have to make too many assumptions about the beginning conditions.

for these dates to be unreliable I would need to see that 95% confiderence intervals of all samples gave dates that were "wild" that is, included from 100's of years ago to billions. What are the standard errors associated with measurements?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
Yes, that sort of creation science should certainly share the same status as cryptozoology.

In the 17th Century, Jonathan Swift was terrified by his older brother who told him of the manticore, the terrifying creature with the body of a lion, the claws of a dragon, and man's head with four rows of terrifying teeth. In the early 20th century, a essayist recorded the superstitious fear that Spanish peasants had of her travelling companion, who was unusually tall and had a black beard. One woman accused him of being a "mardichora".

The first mentions of this terrifying crittur (some attribute a scorpion's tail to it too, if the original was not frightening enough), come from the 5th century, documented by the physician Ctesias.

Oddly enough, the persian word for maneater is "martikhoras". Lions were quite prevalent in the levant in those days. Lions also have a sharp and stiff "sting-like" black hair nearly atop their tails.

So, were there really man-eating creatures with scorpion's tail, the head of a man, multiple rows of teeth, and dragon paws? Did Noah save this one too? Or is it more likely that the description of a man eating lion was embellished?

What does that have to do with Biblical creation? The manticore isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
But if creation were true... none of these publications should even exist or they should say... ALL dates put the origin of these populations at 6000 years. We're not looking for a few, many, population, the majority of populations should be dated about 10,000 years. But they ain't.

These publications aren't evidence, are they?

So how do you interpret this evidence?

See above.

Or have you seen papers with the estimates of 6000 years? I thought we were looking at the same evidence.

We are.

The estimates of coalescence are the data that we are using to infer ages of populations.
You cannot take time out! Strata at the bottom are laid down first, are they not?

Obviously, but how much sooner?

I can remove absolute time but then you still have the phenomenon of increasing dissimarity with increasing time. But please, what would you infer from this?

Loss of genetic information.

Everyone throws out data they "don't like". I do!

I'm sure you do.

The question is why they don't like it.

You tell me.

Are dates being thrown out simply because they aren't old enough?

I've seen dates thrown out because they were too old, but this was in relation to a crystal formation -- not any fossils.

Please point out that the majority of geo-paleological studies that use radiometric dating have thrown out their data simply because they don't like it.

Just go to a lab next time they date something. If they let you in to watch, you'll see it for yourself.

You are suggesting a conspiracy among physicists and absolute stupidity among geologists. You might be right, but I doubt it.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy among physicists, but I have no problem suggesting absolute stupidity among most geologists.

they don't? I thought some of this stuff was gaseous and wasn't contained in rocks until they hardened and trapped the gas and started the clocks. I must be reading about something else.

Let's say I give you a mammoth bone. How much carbon-14 and nitrogen-14 was there to begin with?

for these dates to be unreliable I would need to see that 95% confiderence intervals of all samples gave dates that were "wild" that is, included from 100's of years ago to billions.

I have no idea what a "confiderence interval" is, but if you want to see some wild dates, then get out there and look. They've dated freshly killed animals at hundreds, or even thousands of years old.

What are the standard errors associated with measurements?

You tell me -- you fancy yourself to be a scientist.

 

[Stratnerd]

Well, they should be able to come up with some new diversity if evolution is true.

Not how it works... if populations are consistently small then genetic diversity will not increase because everytime a new allele arises it is fixed or lost.

Because most other animals have a wider gene-pool.

if creation were true then population genetic models would consistently suggest so.

And you wouldn't if they got there by walking on land-bridges that have since been covered by the melting glaciers.

no such land bridge can be postulated for Australia and probably many others. But you'd also expect (if your theories were driven by literature and not science) that the most volant organisms would be the organisms on Australia yet Koalas and most of those other marsupials aren't exactly birds are they? Plus most organisms go extinct when populations go very small. It would be much easier if you just said the Bible is right and it doesn't matter what the evidence says.

Oh, it most certainly is a jumbled record. The order is in the interpretation of it.

so we do have a good representation of modern forms at all layers?

That's a better explanation than "it just lay there for millions of years until it got covered up."

do you have any idea how scientists propose fossils form? i guess not

Are you sure Aristotle isn't simply describing freaks of nature?

yes these were supposed to be a whole "country" and

so I'm sure they got them occasionally back then.

you've seen a two-headed person?

In ancient artifacts or your D&D books?

look at my avatar? it's the welsh flag - a bit older than D&D

Behemoth. I believe that was a sauropod dinosaur. I can't think of any other animal that has a tail like a cedar -- can you?

yes, a dragon and both part of legend.

You're speaking of Leviathan here, but that may just be figurative language.

like the tail of a cedar? or do you just get to pick and chose?

 

[Flipper]

OEJ:

What does that have to do with Biblical creation? The manticore isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? It's an example of how real animals are inflated into mythological creatures by embellishment.

Honestly.