Real Science Friday: 2011's List of Not So Old Things Pt. 2

[Alate_One]

DavisBJ, how hard are you trying? Can you think of any possible way? Anything even potential? Construed even remotely?

And how about 155-million year old ink not drying up? Any remote construed potential evidence there?

-Bob

p.s. Consider DBJ, if you found liquid ink in something that you didn't know what it was, would the liquid ink suggest to you that the thing was not tens of thousands or millions of years old, but likely, more recent?

You seem to be confused. The ink wasn't liquid. Perhaps you read this news story and not in detail? The scientists were able to use the ink to draw AFTER they ground it up and dissolved it in an ammonia SOLUTION. Or maybe you made this "mistake" on purpose?

 

[zoo22]

DavisBJ, how hard are you trying? Can you think of any possible way? Anything even potential? Construed even remotely?

And how about 155-million year old ink not drying up? Any remote construed potential evidence there?

-Bob

p.s. Consider DBJ, if you found liquid ink in something that you didn't know what it was, would the liquid ink suggest to you that the thing was not tens of thousands or millions of years old, but likely, more recent?

I'm certain that you're well aware the fossilized ink wasn't found as a liquid. It was found as a solid.

A well preserved, but solidified squid ink sac.

Part of that well-preserved solid substance was then ground up and mixed with an ammonia solution to be reconstituted. The resulting ink was then used to draw a diagram of a squid.

Remarkable, but a far cry from the ink being found as liquid.

A similar drawing had been done with dinosaur fossils (ground up, made into a sepia ink and drawn with) as early as 1834.

Again, I'm certain that you are aware of this, or at the very least, that you are well-aware that the ink was not found as a liquid.

 

[Jukia]

Simple set of questions, Pastor Bob, were you aware that the ink was not liquid? If not, why did you think it was liquid?

Time to step up.

 

[Alate_One]

A_O, Fred Williams and I recently agreed with Ken Ham's article, Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth in which the founder of Answers in Genesis points out that Christians do not need to believe in a young earth in order to be saved, that is, to be true Christians.

I take it you didn't read the article I linked?

ZERO atheists or Darwinists believe that the Earth is young.[/COLOR][/B]

That's a pretty bold claim claiming there's no one that is an atheist believes in a young earth. Even so, have you thought that maybe it is because, without a religious push to believe in a young earth, the evidence is very clear on the age of the earth? Really, you're making my case for me.

Bob is a young earth creationist because he takes the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 completely literally. I do not, and I don't think that this is a problematic stance for a Christian. It turned out that Bob was as much an expert on biblical scholarship as he was on biology. Again, he and I drew different conclusions, but at least we were speaking the same language.

Looks like you quoted something but forgot to cite what it was. Either that or you like to talk about yourself in third person. You being in any sense of the word an "expert" on biology is hilarious. :rotfl:

And if you are an expert, you're a liar, as zoo and I just pointed out.

You still haven't replied to the evidence I posted on Nuclear DNA which is the complement to the mt Eve story either. More cherry picking?

Isn't it true, A_O, that you would refuse to put 150-million year old biological material into the "Potential Evidence for a Young Earth" column?

True?

I see no reason that preserved biological material MUST indicate a 6-10,000 year old earth. We really have no idea what or if there is a time limit for biological material preservation. Preserved biological material isn't direct evidence for the age of the earth at all. "I think this is impossible over this period of time therefore the earth is young", isn't evidence, it is conjecture.

Radioisotopes of various types are evidence against a YEC level young earth, tree rings do the same, as do electromagnetic striping in the oceanic ridges, solar quake data, interstellar distance, old and new mountains etc.

I, on the other hand, have always admitted that there is strong "evidence" against various views, including a recent creation.

Is that why you constantly ignore all that evidence?

A_O, it seems that your bias is so intense that you can't sense it.

:sigh: Again, I *WAS* a YEC for a good portion of my life. I think I am a better judge of which side is biased more than the other.

I distinctly remember reading ICR tracts as a child and while generally believing them wondering occasionally why they were "trying so hard" on issues that seemed so weak. I remember trying to fit my worldview to whatever new scientific discoveries I read about, and how it became increasingly difficult over time.

But I'm sure you, Bob, are the one that is really capable of detecting bias in everyone . . . . except yourself.

 

[voltaire]

Bob Enyart said:
And now, reportedly, sponges are genetically 70% the same as humans? And what was so much of the genetic toolbox doing in "ancient" species that would not need those tools for tens and hundreds of millions of years?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These common genes are not human specific. This merely shows that genes can perform a multitude of task depending on the non protein coding portions of the genome that tell genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to do their job. These non coding sections are directions on how to build and maintain the organism. They are like architectural blueprints. This is also why a rice genome can have as many genes as humans. The rice has less non functioning code than human and may even have none as far as I know. There is a direct relationship between the amount of non coding sequences an organism has and the complexity of the organism. As for the sponge, it has very little blueprint telling the genes when to turn on and off. The human on the other hand has a massive amount of blueprint directions of how to manipulate the genes.

 

[voltaire]

That's a pretty bold claim claiming there's no one that is an atheist believes in a young earth. Even so, have you thought that maybe it is because, without a religious push to believe in a young earth, the evidence is very clear on the age of the earth? Really, you're making my case for me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlateOne. How is bob making your case for you? It could be just as likely that as a result of wanting God to disappear, the atheist is looking for anything that would make evidence of God go away. A creation that is a result of a direct intervention of God is the best evidence for God's existence. The atheist will grab onto anything that makes it look like the supernatural had nothing to do with creation.

 

[voltaire]

AlateOne. There are multiple lines of evidence that radioisotopic dating greatly exaggerates the age of the earth. Your other lines of evidence certainly refute a 6000 year old earth and I have given up on that age as well myself. I would be interested in the minimum ages required by the evidences you listed excluding radioisotopes. I not interested in these other lines of evidence if the ages given are also related in some way to radioisotopic dating. I want the evidence on its on non radiometric merits. Tell me about the sea floor magnetic striping for instance. I currently give an age of the earth as about 25% older than whatever the accepted age is for mitochondrial eve. Last i heard, she was 200,000 years old.

 

[Bob Enyart]

A_O, it seems that your bias is so intense that you can't sense it.

*BANG*

There goes the irony meter again.

But DW, I had just admitted that:

I have always admitted that there is strong "evidence" against various views I hold, including a recent creation.

Isn't it elementary my dear that someone who ADMITS (like I do) strong evidence AGAINST his own view is probably more AWARE of his own bias than those (like you and A_O) who probably can't site ANY evidence against their views?

-Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

voltaire, thanks for some thoughtful input. And regarding:

AlateOne... Your other lines of evidence certainly refute a 6000 year old earth... I would be interested in the minimum ages required by the evidences you listed... mitochondrial eve. Last i heard, she was 200,000 years old.

Tree Rings: voltaire, A_O's mention of tree rings probably refers to Bristlecone Pine Tree Rings. As I wrote for our RSF: Bristlecone Tree Rings & A Young Earth radio program, Bristlecone pine rings do NOT provide evidence as claimed by evolutionists of an age for the Earth greater than the Bible's record. The refereed scientific Journal of Creation presents the overwhelming evidence as presented in this radio show that these trees growing in the arid White Mountains of California, one of the driest places on earth, grow multiple rings per year. Thus once again scientifically careful research, this time in dendrochronology, is consistent with biblical chronology.



Mitochondrial Eve: And at our KGOV.com/list#Eve of not-so-old-things, as for mtEve, by admittedly including chimpanzee DNA among their data, evolutionists initially calculated that Mitochondrial Eve, the one woman from whom all living humans have descended, lived as long ago as 200,000 years. But in 1998, as widely reported including by Science magazine, dropping the chimp data and using actual human mutation rates, "Eve... the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), was now dated as only six thousand years old! See Ann Gibbon's Science article, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Creation.com's "A shrinking date for Eve," and Walt Brown's assessment. Expectedly, evolutionists have found a way to reject their own unbiased finding (the conclusion contrary to their self-interest) by returning to their original method of using circular reasoning, as reported in the American Journal of Human Genetics, "calibrating against recent evidence for the divergence time of humans and chimpanzees," to reset their mitochondrial clock back to 200,000 years.

-Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

You seem to be confused. The ink wasn't liquid. Perhaps you read this news story and not in detail? The scientists were able to use the ink to draw AFTER they ground it up and dissolved it in an ammonia SOLUTION. Or maybe you made this "mistake" on purpose?

Alate_One, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll look into it quickly and make whatever corrections are appropriate. Again, thanks!

-Bob Enyart

 

[Sherman]

Alate_One, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll look into it quickly and make whatever corrections are appropriate. Again, thanks!

-Bob Enyart

Still if it were millions of years old, it would not be ink anymore. lain:

 

[zoo22]

Still if it were millions of years old, it would not be ink anymore. lain:

I suppose what you mean is that a fossilized solid would not be ink. Ink is a semi-liquid, so no, a solid wouldn't actually be ink (no matter how old it was... A year old or 150 million years old). Something solidified / fossilized (such as say, a squid ink sac) would not itself be considered as ink.

But (as in this case) to grind that well-preserved (but now solid) ink sac, and re-suspend the particles in a liquid solution can reconstitute it as ink. Which is what was done with the fossilized squid ink sac.

Most traditional ink is made from soot. Soot itself obviously isn't ink. It takes the liquid to make it ink. If you leave ink long enough, it becomes a solid. I imagine you've seen dried-out (solidified) ink in an ink jar? That solid can be reconstituted.

It's not all that remarkable that the fossilized ink was able to be reconstituted as ink and written with. Ink is (basically) simply a pigment (organic or inorganic) suspended in liquid. You can go to your fireplace, take some soot, make ink and draw a tree with it. What's really remarkable is that the ink sac, which was primarily a liquid, was preserved so well. It was a very rapidly created fossil.

 

[Alate_One]

voltaire, thanks for some thoughtful input. And regarding:

Tree Rings: voltaire, A_O's mention of tree rings probably refers to Bristlecone Pine Tree Rings. As I wrote for our RSF: Bristlecone Tree Rings & A Young Earth radio program, Bristlecone pine rings do NOT provide evidence as claimed by evolutionists of an age for the Earth greater than the Bible's record. The refereed scientific Journal of Creation presents the overwhelming evidence

:rotfl: Oh yes the totally *unbiased* "Journal of Creation" :rotfl:

Clear Explanation of tree rings

B]Mitochondrial Eve[/B]: And at our KGOV.com/list#Eve of not-so-old-things, as for mtEve, by admittedly including chimpanzee DNA among their data, evolutionists initially calculated that Mitochondrial Eve, the one woman from whom all living humans have descended, lived as long ago as 200,000 years. But in 1998, as widely reported including by Science magazine, dropping the chimp data and using actual human mutation rates, "Eve... the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), was now dated as only six thousand years old!

Bob. Are you going to respond to the nuclear DNA evidence or keep repeating the same irrelavent information on mt Eve?

Genetic variation at most loci examined in human populations indicates that the (effective) population size has been - l0^4 for the past 1 Myr and that individuals have been genetically united rather tightly. Also suggested is that the population size has never dropped to a few individuals, even in a single generation. These impose important requirements for the hypotheses for the origin of modem humans: a relatively large population size and frequent migration if populations were geographically subdivided. Any hypothesis that assumes a small number of founding individuals throughout the late Pleistocene can be rejected. Extraordinary polymorphism at some loci of the major histocompatibility complex (Mhc) rules out the past action of severe bottlenecks, or the so-called founder principle, which invokes only a small number of founding individuals when a new species emerges. This conclusion may be extended to the 35Myr-old history of the human lineage, because some polymorphism at Mhc loci seems to have lasted that long. Furthermore, although the population structure prior to the late Pleistocene is less clear, owing to the insensitivity of Mhc alleles, even to low levels of migration, the nature of Mhc polymorphism suggests that the effective size of populations leading to humans was as large as 10^5. Hence, the effective population size of humans might have become somewhat smaller in most of the late Pleistocene. The reduction could be due either to the then adverse environment in the Old World and/or to the increased migration rate. It is also argued that population explosion fostered by the agriculture revolution has had significant effects on incorporating new alleles into human populations.

Journal Article

 

[Jukia]

Alate_One, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll look into it quickly and make whatever corrections are appropriate. Again, thanks!

-Bob Enyart

Perhaps you could start by actually reading the paper. If you don't understand it, contact the author.

The public media uses dumbed down information as a marketing tool. That should not be a surprise to you, you are a marketer after all.

 

[DavisBJ]

DavisBJ, how hard are you trying? Can you think of any possible way? Anything even potential? Construed even remotely?

And how about 155-million year old ink not drying up? Any remote construed potential evidence there?
…
p.s. Consider DBJ, if you found liquid ink in something that you didn't know what it was, would the liquid ink suggest to you that the thing was not tens of thousands or millions of years old, but likely, more recent?

I realize your assertion about “150-million year old biological material” was actually a backhanded way of trying to mock the old-earth dating conclusions of science. You should be a bit careful, because creationists (including you) find that such arguments are two-edged swords. If ultimately it turns out that biological material can remain somewhat intact far longer than was believed to be the case, then science has egg on its face for a while, but then the understanding of ancient processes is also enhanced. Like when you used to actively promote that silly argument about NASA being fearful of deep moon dust, so they put duck feet on the lunar landers. The creationists claimed that space dust infall rates for billions of years would have resulted in the lunar lander sinking deep into the dust layer, but since that didn’t happen, the moon must be young. Now that we know with pretty high accuracy that the dust accumulation rate is much lower than creationists had claimed. Using the moon dust depth as a primitive indicator of the moon’s age, just as you did, we now come up with several billion years as the “moon dust” age of the moon.

Of course that is not something I expect you to pass on to your radio audience. Creationists abandon such arguments when they realize it turns against them.

On the 155 mya old liquid ink, I will let you stew in your own juices on that one. Your polite acknowledgement to Alate for catching your error in that was the minimum needed to maintain any pretense of credibility. But I suspect what you said under your breath, when you realized you had committed a very blatant faux pas, was not so polite. Go lick your wounds on that one.

 

[Alate_One]

Still if it were millions of years old, it would not be ink anymore. lain:

See what Zoo already said to you. Bob sure "got" me didn't he? :chuckle:

Alate_One, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll look into it quickly and make whatever corrections are appropriate. Again, thanks!

-Bob Enyart

So lets see that's two very clear ones for me, plus all the other obfuscation (poor logic and cherry picking) you've been doing. Please respond to this while you're at it

What I really want to know is where are my post(s) of the day?

:readthis:

 

[GuySmiley]

I realize your assertion about “150-million year old biological material” was actually a backhanded way of trying to mock the old-earth dating conclusions of science. You should be a bit careful, because creationists (including you) find that such arguments are two-edged swords. If ultimately it turns out that biological material can remain somewhat intact far longer than was believed to be the case, then science has egg on its face for a while, but then the understanding of ancient processes is also enhanced. Like when you used to actively promote that silly argument about NASA being fearful of deep moon dust, so they put duck feet on the lunar landers. The creationists claimed that space dust infall rates for billions of years would have resulted in the lunar lander sinking deep into the dust layer, but since that didn’t happen, the moon must be young. Now that we know with pretty high accuracy that the dust accumulation rate is much lower than creationists had claimed. Using the moon dust depth as a primitive indicator of the moon’s age, just as you did, we now come up with several billion years as the “moon dust” age of the moon.

Of course that is not something I expect you to pass on to your radio audience. Creationists abandon such arguments when they realize it turns against them.

:chuckle: What do atheists do when they realize they are wrong? Apparently you'd prefer it if creationists stick to arguments they realize are wrong. Could an equally dramatic and ominous warning be given about an evolutionist being wrong?

On the 155 mya old liquid ink, I will let you stew in your own juices on that one.

:rotfl: I checked my atheist to english dictionary. So you have no answer and are afraid to consider the ramifications.

Your polite acknowledgement to Alate for catching your error in that was the minimum needed to maintain any pretense of credibility. But I suspect what you said under your breath, when you realized you had committed a very blatant faux pas, was not so polite. Go lick your wounds on that one.

Wow, and I thought remote viewing was a hoax.

 

[Stripe]

:chuckle:

Atheists can't even handle some else being wrong.

 

[DavisBJ]

:chuckle: What do atheists do when they realize they are wrong? Apparently you'd prefer it if creationists stick to arguments they realize are wrong. Could an equally dramatic and ominous warning be given about an evolutionist being wrong?

Both the creationist moon dust and the liquid ink claims were known to be wrong the moment the creationists uttered them. Big difference between an error made because of an incorrect understanding based on what was thought to be true (such as no soft dino tissue) and intentional deception (moon dust and liquid ink).

I checked my atheist to english dictionary. So you have no answer and are afraid to consider the ramifications.

Answer what? The ink was not liquid. You think it was?

Wow, and I thought remote viewing was a hoax.

Don’t know, haven’t tried it. Maybe kinda like what went on in Matt 4:8?

 

[Jukia]

:chuckle:

Atheists can't even handle some else being wrong.

Last time I checked Alate was not in the atheist camp. I realiize that often anyone who does not buy the same theological version as you is considered an atheist, but you are wrong on that count, as you are most of the time.

The issue is not being wrong, the issue is jumping on something in order to support your position without investigating enough and feeling so superior that you keep repeating yourself.