Best Evidence for Evolution.

[Jehu]

Why did you bother if you didn't think it was factual?

Because I don't know for sure if it's factual or not and neither do you. You're taking the word of some atheist scrutinizing the study at face value, simply because of the people behind the testing.

So what? Only things that are written down are known or true? Rubbish.

Without any corroborating historical evidence you have no way of knowing if the assumptions behind your dating method are valid in that case. So C-14 alone will not produce results you can call true.

You don't get it, do you? It's not like the wicked atheistic white coats do C-14 dating and they get all kinds of wild results all the time, and occasionally manage to get the "right" results and they just disregard the rest. It's a refined, consistent system and when there are anomalies they are just that.

Why is it so hard to admit your belief system is based on faith? Every time a creationist does radiometric dating everything is scrutinized and criticized to the nth degree but you trust everyone else to be totally honest and unbiased in their work. I don't have your kind of faith in people or in the assumptions behind the method.

Oh, of course not- after all, he disagrees with you! How can smart can he be? He is not your target, grasshopper. Just the facts.

Judging by his article on Jesus he isn't very bright. There is very little factual information in the critique you posted, yet i'm sure you have full confidence in his honesty and objectivity. Your rhetoric is getting quite silly.

It's called scientific honesty. Short of rewinding history and watching it play out, what would constitute "evidence" in your opinion?

Scientific honesty would be admitting that consistently finding significant amounts of C-14 in coal might indicate that it's thousands of years old. But that is not considered, indicating that conflicting evidence is irrelevent in the face of a paradigm. Coal was already decided by uniformitarians to be millions of years old long before any dating techniques were thought of.

Evidence that all of the C-14 in coal is contamination related as opposed to natural? That would be seriously hard to do, but a good starting point would be to conduct studies that show uranium decay into C-14 (this seems to be the most likely option) is fast enough to constantly replenish it over the course of ~300 million years. Just going by what I've read uranium decays far slower than C-14 making that a seriously implausible hypothesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

Without any corroborating historical evidence you have no way of knowing if the assumptions behind your dating method are valid in that case.

Perhaps you don't know the difference between "inference" and "assumption." Scientists infer the dating methods are correct, because tests of them give accurate results. For example, the volcanic flow that buried Pompeii in 79 AD was recently tested by argon/argon in a blind study, and it did so accurately. There are many other ways we can test this process. Would you like to learn about them?

So C-14 alone will not produce results you can call true.

C-14 is rarely used in paleontology; it has too short a half-life.

You don't get it, do you? It's not like the wicked atheistic white coats do C-14 dating and they get all kinds of wild results all the time, and occasionally manage to get the "right" results and they just disregard the rest. It's a refined, consistent system and when there are anomalies they are just that.[/quote]

Why is it so hard to admit your belief system is based on faith?

Rather, why is it so hard for you to admit that radioisotope dating is based on evidence? And why are you, presumably a Christian, using "faith" like a dirty word?

Every time a creationist does radiometric dating everything is scrutinized and criticized to the nth degree

That's how the system works. If you want to do science, you'll be expected to stand up to the same kind of scrutiny scientists are.

but you trust everyone else to be totally honest and unbiased in their work.

Nope. That's why everything undergoes peer review. And if the results can't be duplicated, the scientist is in big trouble. Such things end careers for scientists.

I don't have your kind of faith in people or in the assumptions behind the method.

Perhaps, if you knew something about it, it would help.

Scientific honesty would be admitting that consistently finding significant amounts of C-14 in coal might indicate that it's thousands of years old.

Indeed. And it happened. But science doesn't stop there. It takes the hypothesis and tests it. And the hypothesis that coal was young, didn't make it.

The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)

The much longer version:

Over the weekend I emailed Dr. Harry Gove, an expert in the development of the AMS method of 14C dating. I picked him to bother with my emails because he had recently written some nice review articles about the AMS technique in the Radiocarbon journal. (Basically there are two ways of measuring 14C: (1) count the radioactive emissions, or, (2) a newer method, based on separating out the different carbon isotopes by their different masses via accelerator mass spectrometry [AMS] and counting the atoms themselves.)

Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. (In fact that's the more common use of scintillant. I use scintillant every day in my own work to detect 14C and 3H-tagged hormones. But I only use a milliliter at a time - the concept of 800 tons really boggles the mind!). So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected. The Borexino detector, and other planned detectors of this type, must keep native beta emissions to below 1 count per ton of fluid per week to reliably detect solar neutrinos. (In comparison, my little hormone vials, here in my above-ground lab, have a background count of about 25 counts per minute for 3.5 milliliters.)

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!

Dr. Gove and his colleagues are currently trying to improve AMS technology to be able to identify certain fossil fuels that have extremely low 14C content. Current AMS techniques have a 14C/C detection limit of about 10-15 (corresponding to 60,000 yrs), and Dr. Gove's current research, this year, is aimed at improving detectability to 10-18 (110,000 yrs).

Their ultimate goal is to reliably measure 14C/C ratios down to the unbelievably low levels of 10-22 (180,000 yrs). This AMS technology would then be used to identify certain oils that have very low 14C levels, and then those oils would be the ones used in the neutrino detectors.

(This research is part of the "Old Carbon Project" funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation's Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics Program and also by Canada's Natural Science and Engineering Research Council. The team will be presenting results to date this September at the 9th International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry in Japan.)

Finally, I did also get a copy of David Lowe's 1989 Radiocarbon paper. It is a short paper. A summary:

(1) old coal often has a little more 14C than expected - instead of having the expected ratio of 14C/C at or beyond the detectable limit of 10-15 (corresponding to ~60,000 yrs old), it often has detectable 14C/C of 10-14 or 10-13.

(2) radioactive elements hypothesis: Lowe briefly discussed the possibility that native radioactive elements can create new 14C by radioactive decay. He only discussed radium, and discounted this as a major effect based on low concentrations of radium in coal (and yet my own brief stint of research has turned up many abstracts showing that concentrations of radionuclides vary widely in coal - some of these are pre-1989 so I don't know why Lowe didn't address this more carefully).

(3) bacteria/fungi hypothesis: Lowe then makes a reasonable case for fungi and bacteria - there are fungi that can degrade lignite (Polyporus versicolor and Poria montiola), as well as autotrophic "thiobacillus-like" bacteria that oxidize pyrites in coal, and he points out that bacteria have been found 3km underground apparently living on granite. Lowe states that fungal and bacterial activity is particularly likely in warm, damp coal exposed to air, and he points out that microbial action only has to result in the deposition of ~0.1% by weight of modern carbon in the coal to produce an apparent age of 45,000 years for the specimen.

Since Lowe's paper, there have been many more reports of deep subterranean bacteria, which apparently form a heretofore unrecognized ecosystem deep below the earth in rocks and in oils (abstracts below). Presumably most of these bacteria never interact with the "modern" 14C of the atmosphere. But some deep bacterial activity apparently can result in increased concentrations of 13C.

(4) Lowe goes on to make recommendations about using only freshly mined dry coal stored under inert gas, and other recommendations about choice of "background" for radiocarbon labs.

So, it looks like in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis; but research is ongoing, and I look forward to seeing the results of the Old Carbon Project and new research on the deep subterranean bacteria.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

But that is not considered, indicating that conflicting evidence is irrelevent in the face of a paradigm.

It was not only considered, it was carfully studied. And the results show a correlation of C-14 (which is produced from Nitrogen by ionizing radiation) with the amount of uranium/thorium, which is a source of ionizing radiation. Imagine that.

Coal was already decided by uniformitarians to be millions of years old long before any dating techniques were thought of.

Creationist uniformitarians, in fact. And the evidence shows that they were right.

Evidence that all of the C-14 in coal is contamination related as opposed to natural? That would be seriously hard to do, but a good starting point would be to conduct studies that show uranium decay into C-14

:rotfl:

Do you think scientists don't know the daughter isotopes of radioactive elements? But it turns out that the radiation from heavier elements does indeed produce C-14.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Because I don't know for sure if it's factual or not and neither do you. You're taking the word of some atheist scrutinizing the study at face value, simply because of the people behind the testing.

So his scrutiny is suspect because he is an atheist? Face it, the Marlstone samples were not wood. They are invalid. Doesn't matter who did it, or why.

Without any corroborating historical evidence you have no way of knowing if the assumptions behind your dating method are valid in that case. So C-14 alone will not produce results you can call true.

C-14 testing isn't done in a vacuum- they use other geologic data to corroborate and to fine-tune the results.

Why is it so hard to admit your belief system is based on faith? Every time a creationist does radiometric dating everything is scrutinized and criticized to the nth degree but you trust everyone else to be totally honest and unbiased in their work. I don't have your kind of faith in people or in the assumptions behind the method.

Because its not based on faith. Science is testable and verifiable. People don;t have to be honest or unbiased. That's why science is a community. People are always examining and retesting others results- and you better believe they hope they find someone who's been fudging. Scientists are human, and they love the attention.

Judging by his article on Jesus he isn't very bright. There is very little factual information in the critique you posted, yet i'm sure you have full confidence in his honesty and objectivity. Your rhetoric is getting quite silly.

What part did you object to? Spell it out.

Scientific honesty would be admitting that consistently finding significant amounts of C-14 in coal might indicate that it's thousands of years old. But that is not considered, indicating that conflicting evidence is irrelevent in the face of a paradigm. Coal was already decided by uniformitarians to be millions of years old long before any dating techniques were thought of.

Evidence that all of the C-14 in coal is contamination related as opposed to natural? That would be seriously hard to do, but a good starting point would be to conduct studies that show uranium decay into C-14 (this seems to be the most likely option) is fast enough to constantly replenish it over the course of ~300 million years. Just going by what I've read uranium decays far slower than C-14 making that a seriously implausible hypothesis.

The Barbarian has done an excellent job with this question so I'll let his stand for now.

 

[macguy]

I quite frankly like to stay away from the age of the earth debates since geology isn't exactly my area of knowledge. However, I know that this was answered before:

Evolutionary Explanations for Anomalous Radiocarbon in Coal, " CRSQ 41(2):104-112, September 2004

There's also a page on 614-616 of Rate ll by John Baumgardner which answers talk origins allegations as well.

 

[Hank]

I think you meant to say that if nothing changes in the assumed variables that extrapolation is scientific. But making that assumption without good evidence that it is valid is not scientific.

No, I meant to say exactly what I did. If nothing changes that would change the procedure, then backwards extrapolation is not only scientific, but logical.

I would think that any reasonable person not dogmatically attached to the idea that there is no God would conclude that unlimited backwards extrapolation of an expansion leads to nothing (pun intended).

I believe there is a God and I don’t conclude that an unlimited backwards extrapolation of a expansion leads to nothing. It could lead to something where the laws of science as we understand them do not exist which is exactly where the mathematics point. Or it could lead to a cyclic type universe. Neither of which apply to TOE.

Science by its very nature is powerless to say anything authoritative about ultimate beginnings.

That’s true so far but modern science has only been working on it for it for a few hundred years. That doesn’t change the fact that a belief system not supported by evidence is not scientific.

People here call me a liar all the time without any proof. You seem to be hinting at this.

People who feel compelled to repeatedly avow something about their past are often trying to convince themselves, not someone else. That’s not really a lie as much as it is self-deceit.

Your doubt about my past indicates to me that you have a closed mind on the subject of common descent from a single primitive ancestor.

Lol, my doubting you means I have a closed mind about a single primitive ancestor? How can anyone argue with that kind of logic? You just have a steel-trap mind.

And further you may have compartmentalicized your mental state by not being that curious about how that primitive ancestor could possibly have arisen naturally (the complaint we hear all the time: "evolution does not include abiogenesis")

I AM curious about biogenesis and think that some day we may understand that process. But either your mind doesn’t operate on a logical basis so that it can separate the two branches of science or you intentionally blur the two because you think it makes a better argument if you imply that if biogenesis is not true the TOE is not true. The first is unfortunate and the second is sad.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Wow bob a"coupla fossils" is thats how you explain away the whale ?

Well theres more than a couple, theres plenty of evidence and theres the whale itself (and Dolphins) a Mammal in the sea that used to be land based. You think it evolved over just 6000 years ? or do you think it was made to look like it was once on land as a sort of trick ? or are you simply saying it absolubtly terrible design cos it's not set up to breath right the way an whale breaths cannot be designed bob it would point to a lousy creator... research it a bit and come back to me your answers are not usually so short you usually have a lot to say about nothing so this should give you something to get yer teeth into.

 

[Hank]

OK, so now we have two offerings of "scientific evidence" to support the idea that all life has descended from a single primitive cell:

1) people sometimes resemble their parents, and

2) there are 4 or 5 fossils that have been found that some people claim indicate that modern day whales evolved over millions of years from a four-footed land animal roughly resembling a modern day fox.

One of the biggest problems that Creationists face is the excellent collection of skulls that link apes to modern humans. They have never been able to agree on where the line is between where apes end and humans begin. You could give it a shot any time you like. And that is exactly what TOE would predict.

 

[bob b]

One of the biggest problems that Creationists face is the excellent collection of skulls that link apes to modern humans. They have never been able to agree on where the line is between where apes end and humans begin. You could give it a shot any time you like. And that is exactly what TOE would predict.

As I have said many times TOE predicts nothing. Evolutionists do have general expectations, but nothing in detail. Whatever they find "proves evolution". All one needs is a good story.

 

[bob b]

Wow bob a"coupla fossils" is thats how you explain away the whale ?

Nope, whale like creatures that lived in the sea undoubtedly were there from the beginning.

Well theres more than a couple, theres plenty of evidence and theres the whale itself (and Dolphins) a Mammal in the sea that used to be land based. You think it evolved over just 6000 years ? or do you think it was made to look like it was once on land as a sort of trick ?

Like this thread illustrates, there is supposedly always "tons of evidence", but somehow nobody can actually state any. A whale most assuredly doesn't look like it was once running around on the land. BTW if a "trick" is involved you should consider that you may be "tricking" yourself.

or are you simply saying it absolubtly terrible design cos it's not set up to breath right the way an whale breaths

Whales seem to do just find in the sea. They don't survive long when they are "beached".

cannot be designed bob it would point to a lousy creator... research it a bit and come back to me your answers are not usually so short you usually have a lot to say about nothing so this should give you something to get yer teeth into.

My answers are appropriate considering the content of your posts.

 

[Jukia]

As I have said many times TOE predicts nothing. Evolutionists do have general expectations, but nothing in detail. Whatever they find "proves evolution". All one needs is a good story.

First of all bob b, as you well know, being a science lover and all that, "proof" is not a function of science in this area. Proof may be a function of math and good whiskey but not here.
That being said, isn't it amazing how the findings of science support evolutionary theory? Might even make you think that there may be some real world basis for it after all.

 

[bob b]

That being said, isn't it amazing how the findings of science support evolutionary theory? Might even make you think that there may be some real world basis for it after all.

Depends on what you mean when you use the term "evolutionary theory".

For instance I believe that creatures do change and diversify over time. If this is what you mean then we agree.

On the other hand the key question is whether one can extrapolate backwards without limit and reach a single hypothetical protocell or even some kind of so-called primitive bacteria (Today's bacteria are awesomely complicated and sophisticated).

My view is that the simple story in Genesis is essentially true: multiple types of fully functional sea, land and air creatures at the beginning. God undoubtedly did such a great design job that there were built-in mechanisms to aid in rapid diversification. Isn't that what a master designer would plan ahead for?

It seems to me that evolutionists came up with a real "boo boo" when back around WWII days they tried to attribute this diversification in nature to a mere case of "random mutations" (let's try changing DNA at random and eventually anything can be created). This idea is becoming so absurd as the real extent of design and sophisticated mechanisms is being revealed by research that it almost takes my breath away.

How could they be so blind as to not see this?

 

[Evoken]

...theres plenty of evidence

Where?

and theres the whale itself (and Dolphins) a Mammal in the sea that used to be land based.

How do you know it used to be land based?


Evo

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

For what it's worth; http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

 

[bob b]

For what it's worth; http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

If the whale is the best evidence that all life has descended from a primtive single-celled creature, then I would say that the ToE is in deep doo doo.

 

[SUTG]

If the whale is the best evidence that all life has descended from a primtive single-celled creature, then I would say that the ToE is in deep doo doo.

The whale isn't the only piece of evidence, just one of many from many different disciplines of science. Of course, with your YEC worldview, you are forced to disregard most science.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

If the whale is the best evidence that all life has descended from a primtive single-celled creature, then I would say that the ToE is in deep doo doo.

Of course, this statement comes from someone who would refuse to acknowledge any evidence for ToE short of a divine fiat, doesn't it?

 

[called_out]

First off, I would change that to "Young Earth Creationists do not understand evolution." There are probably a few that do, but in general it is the case that they are either ignorant of the theory or they intentionally misunderstand it.

I'd say the best case for evolution is that there is so much coherent evidence from so many different disciplines. Even in Darwin's time I think the case was made, but now we have the molecular evidence which I would consider the best evidence for evolution.

I see the word evidence, but I don't see the evidence you are speaking of. Are you referring to evolution of the cosmos or evolution of man?

Evolve means to unfold, open or expand. The universe is evolving as science has shown. Man, is increasing in knowledge, but where is the evidence that man has evolved from one thing into another?

Be Blessed

 

[SUTG]

I see the word evidence, but I don't see the evidence you are speaking of.

Are you a Young Earth Creationist?

 

[bob b]

Of course, this statement comes from someone who would refuse to acknowledge any evidence for ToE short of a divine fiat, doesn't it?

So do you agree with Justin that the whale is the best evidence for evolution?

If so it may be worth exploring just what the scientific evidence is for it having evolved from a four footed land animal similar to a modern day fox.

 

[SUTG]

If so it may be worth exploring just what the scientific evidence is for it having evolved from a four footed land animal similar to a modern day fox.

As a self proclaimed "science lover" I thought you would have explored this by now.