How old is the earth

Bob, whenever an old earther discusses geologic processes you always jump in about how those "uniformitarian" beliefs are false and should not be used. Never mind that you can never give any reason why the assumptions are not valid. But yet here you are wiling to break your own rules to say that because all life uses left handed amino acids today, they must have ALWAYS done so. That is quite a switch for you. But worse, you have no evidence to back up your claim. You cannot demonstrate that all life has ALWAYS used left handed amino acids. You cannot deny that proteins can be made from a racemized mixture. And you cannot show any weakness in my hypothesis on how we got to be all left handed. Three strikes and you are out.

 

Huh! Hello UTEOTW!! Recall that this was Isaac Asimov's "Massive DECREASE" required for the stories and myths in evolutionism about molecule-to-man secquences!!

Or have you now come to the point of thinking that I am Isaac Asimov???!!

Please try to keep your facts straight. If you will totally reject critical thinking - the least you could do is remember the quote.

Did you need me to repeat it here again for you?

You know, the quote from Isaak Asimov? The one with the "details" that evolutionism needs to ignore? The one that says that "Story" about molecule-to-human-brain evolutionism NEEDS a massive DECREASE in entropy ... and then note I will combine HIS STATEMENT that in fact we see an INCREASE in entropy in ALL human biological systems (by contrast to what is NEEDED by evolutionism - remember?).

IN Christ,

Bob

 

"You "believe" that in the easter-bunny unverifiable passtttt --- hopefully maybe possibly random chiral distributions were "viable" IN LIVING CELLS then though IMPOSSIBLE now."

Let's see, racemized mixtures of proteins can make amino acids. Yes. With an enzyme that makes only left handed amino acids there would have been tremendous selection pressure to use the amino acids you could make instead of those you had to find. Yes. Does this explain what we see today? Yes. What exactly is the problem there?

 

Asimov claimed - that the massive DECREASE was needed in the "Story" of molecule-to-human brain evolutionism. Remember? Did you forget already? Do you need the quote again? (And in this case - it is your OWN quote of ASIMOV -- remember??)

OK - here it is...YOUR quote again..

But here again Asimov holds the line insisting that increasing order in biological systems IS in fact a DECREASE in entropy. How awful for evolutionism’s faithful! This argument was supposed to be for “stupid Christians” – but Asimov will not let it go.

Evolutionist “have been claiming” that only a stupid Christian would say that evolution of biological systems has anything at all to do with entropy.

And yet...

In Christ,

Bob
[/QUOTE]

 

Bob, let me make it easy for you. I'll put your own quote up here and bold the important parts.

Now do you see? The UNIVERSE tends towards increased entropy but through WORK local decreases occur. As I have pointed out with G=H-TS, these local decreases can be spontaneous and favored.

And you have yet to tell us what the effect of the is required decrease is on evolution.

 

"But here again Asimov holds the line insisting that increasing order in biological systems IS in fact a DECREASE in entropy."

Fine. And has been demonstrated, decreases in entropy happen. So what is the problem? You point out what is not denied but continue to fail to give any consequence. Because there is none.

Your Asimov quote answers your own question. And combine this with the paper your side brought up yesterday (here is the link http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Evolution/Prigogine-I/ToE.html ) that shows that entropy is actually a driving force for life and not against it.

 

Bob Said: "You "believe" that in the easter-bunny unverifiable passtttt --- hopefully maybe possibly random chiral distributions were "viable" IN LIVING CELLS then though IMPOSSIBLE now."

Errr ... ummm.. NOT!

Rather racemized chiral orientations of AMINO ACIDS can made PROTEINS. Recall that proteins are MADE of long amino acid chains please.

And then notice that NOT A SINGLE ONE will be included in a living cell - at least if we have SCIENCE SHOW us the data.

And the PROBLEM with your "Works another way" story is that the LAB DOES NOT show us that it DOES WORK another way when they remove - the enzyme. In fact it doesnt work AT ALL in living cells -- period.

But that's science.

You still have your "hope" in the long distant easter-bunny passssttt -- where maybe hopefully possibly it DID WORK in living cells - you just have NO SCIENCE showing us any such thing works.

Not naturally - NOT EVEN contrived. You have "zip" and yet you "believe".

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Rather racemized chiral orientations of AMINO ACIDS can made PROTEINS. Recall that proteins are MADE of long amino acid chains please."

Typo. You know what I meant.

"And then notice that NOT A SINGLE ONE will be included in a living cell - at least if we have SCIENCE SHOW us the data."

But you cannot show that this has always been the case nor can you demonstrate a flaw in my reasoning about how we got to the point of using only lefthanded amino acids.

But you know, a random protein from all left handed amino acids would most likely be useless also.

 

Science finds no easter-bunny past in which your blue-sky speculation for living cells was ever true.

Science finds that ALL living cells work as I have shown and that experiments to create amino acids and form proteins DO NOT form viable proteins viable for creating living cells EVEN if they ensure no Levro correcting enzyme is present in the lab (as if it was ever there in these kinds of experiments).

ALL the data that SCIENCE has supports my obvious statments. But your "blue-sky speculation" model requires NEW science and entirely DIFFERENT laws of biology - unknown to mankind/science/fact/data/labs etc.

You claim this is a good example where YOU have the data!!!

I claim that this shows how far in the dark evolutionism drives its devotees when it comes to critical objective thinking.

However, I really do appreciate your willingness to keep reviewing these simple basic facts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As I said before, this is why I do not like going down the road of abiogenesis. Because of the nature of the beast, there is not any physical evidence available to examine. And this is true for each of our positions. Furthermore, abiogenesis is a seperate topic from evolution. One is about the origin of life and one is about how life changes with time. So if you are trying to cast doubt upon evolution, it would be best to cover evolution related topics.

Now, you are stuck on calling my answer to your question a "blue-sky speculation" when the same can be said for your position. Remember, we are talking about a time in which neither of us have any physical evidence. So my speculation of how life came to use all left handed amino acids has no more nor any less physical evidence than your speculation that life has always used left handed proteins. We are both forced into speculating because there is not any physical evidence available.

But I do have a bit of circumstanial evidence in my favor. Primarily this takes the form of a known enzyme, shared throughout life, that makes a precursor to the amino acids used by life. The precursor and the amino acids that result are all left handed. This allows me to hypothesize that at one time life was required to get amino acids from the environment. Do you have a problem with that? We can make proteins from either left handed or right handed amino acids or a mixture of the two. Do you doubt this? At some point an enzyme developed that allowed organisms to make their own amino acids. We still have that enzyme around so I at least have some circumstantial evidence. That it is shared among all life is an indication of how ancient the enzyme must be. Now, the amino acids made by the enzyme were all left handed. This we can observe still today. Now. from this point forward there would be a strong selection pressure on the organisms. If the instructions call for a right handed amino acid, then it must be found in the environment. If it calls for a left handed amino acid, it is already made and laying around. There would be a huge advantage to using left handed amino acids. Surely you can see why this would quickly lead to only left handed amino acids being used? If you object to that, please give a factual reason why. Once natural selection acted for a while, only left handed amino acids were used and right handed amino acids and their proteins, no longer would function. This explains what we see today.

Sure, it is speculation. As said, there cannot possibly be evidence from this time. But, you cannot point to a step in my speculation and tell us why that would not work. And that, in the end, is the point. Though we are both speculating, I at least can build a case with some circumstantial evidence to which you have no factual objections. And it still is a different topic than evolution.

On the topic of evolution, are you yet able to give us any consequences for entropy on evolution? I take it by now you have seen where in your Asimov quote he tells you how to overcome the universal increase of entropy on local scales. That is, through work. And you should now understand that G=H-TS lets us know that local decreases in entropy can be both favored and spontaneous.

And what about the chalk deposits... Where did they come from? They are observed to accumulate at rates of inches per thousand years and require almost perfectly still water to settle out. Just how did we get those thick layers at Dover and other places?

What about all those objections I have raised on the other thread? There has been no attempt to deal with them.

 

BobRyan kind of reminds me of the compulsive bad science behavior of people who publish proofs that pi is equal to 3 or that they have discovered a way to square the circle . . .

compelled to share their discovery with the world they become obsessed with telling their story over and over regardless of what others who really know the science or math involved try to tell them. Kind of a sad thing to see when it happens

 

How about:
1) You don't know how much parent product was in the original sample,
2) You don't know how much daughter product was in the sample,
3) You don't know that the decay rate has been steady (extrapolating "millions of years" from little more than 100 years of study is a bit much).
4) If there is evidence of leaching or additions, but the age fits the "geologic column", the evidence is ignored in favor of the desired date,
5) If the there is no evidence of leaching or additions, and the age doesn't fit the "geologic column", leaching is assumed,
6) If different tests from the same sample give different results, the one closest to the expected age is kept while all others are thown out. (Why? Keep the evidence you want, and get rid of all contrary evidence)

This is why uniformitarian assumptions are invalid. Simply, the results are not falsifiable. Any concievable disparate bit of evidence can be explained away.

The difference, Bob is arguing from what is known in modern science today, while you are arguing from silence. Bob is arguing from current, empirical, verifiable knowledge. While you, and your long-age, geologic process buddies, are arguing from what you BELIEVE happened based on assumptions that CANNOT be verified.

Assumptions are fine and necessary in science. The question comes down to the quality of those assumptions. Can they be verified or not? Bob's assumptions are grounded in modern science, yours are grounded in a fantasy history of the earth that no one could possibly verify.

 

No, Bob has no proof that life has always used left handed amino acids. He has no proof that this is so and no real reason to think that it is the case. I have presented him a very viable scenario that shows one way that life could move to left handed amino acids from using a mixture. He, so far, has no factual objections to that scenario. He is saying that because something is a particular way today that it must have always been that way in the past. It is hypocritical to randomly apply that stategy whenever he feels that it suits him and to criticize it when he feels that it does not suit him. And besides, that is still arguing about abiogenesis and not evolution.

You have jumped off into geology (or maybe physics) now, again not evolution, but I can never let anything go unchallenged so I'll address your concerns.

Let me takes these a bit out of order.

") You don't know that the decay rate has been steady (extrapolating "millions of years" from little more than 100 years of study is a bit much)."

First, the decay is caused because the atoms have an unstable configuration with respect to how many protons and neutrons are in the nucleus and how they are arranged. There is a statistical likelyhood for any one of these to decay and that let's us know the halflife. We measure the decay rate for a known amount of the isotope. The question to you becomes, what could have changed the decay rates? We have a good idea of why they decay and we do not know of anything that would have changed the rates. If you know of something, present it. This is Nobel prize type stuf if you can prove it.

But, more to the point, we do not have to extrapolate without evidence. Light has a finite speed and therefore takes a period of time to travel a given distance. Whenever you view something, you are looking back in time to see how that object was how ever long ago the light left the object. Not too important when looking across a room, but very important when looking across the cosmos. By looking out into space, we can directly observe the decay of radioactive isotopes from across the universe. And even looking back billions of years, the rates are the same. How is this done? Let me give you one way. Some massive stars will end their life as a supernova, a giant explosion. A supernova is so intense that lighter elements are fused together to make heavier elements. Some of these are radioactive. After the explosion, the light from the expanding remnant comes largely from the decay of some very short lived isotopes forged in the explosion. As far back as we can look, these all decay at the same rate. So we have direct evidence of the decay rates being constant as far back in time as we can look.

"1) You don't know how much parent product was in the original sample, 2) You don't know how much daughter product was in the sample, 4) If there is evidence of leaching or additions"

Now this really depends on the method. First off, why would I need to know how much parent material was originally in the rock, I am looking for ratios? I am not sure I understand that objection.

Second, it is only true that you must know how much daughter element was initially present for some methods. And that can be a valid assumption. For instance, take Potassium/Argon dating. Argon is the daughter element. The age of the rock is reset to zero when all of the argon is removed from the rock when it is heated and melted at sufficient temperature. A good geologists should be able to tell by looking at the type of rock that it is the proper type of rock to indicate that all of the argon was removed during the formation of the rock. Therefore assuming that there was not any initial daughter element is a valid assumption.

But there are many methods that do not require prior knowledge of the initial amount of the daughter isotope. Isochron dating is an excellent example. It yeilds correct dates without knowing how much initial daughter element was present. Even better, since it is a seperate method, it can be used to check the other methods of finding dates. This has been done and has validated the assumptions of the other methods.

But there is an even better thing about isochron dating. You were concerned about leaching materials into or out of the rock. First off, a good field geologist should be able to collect samples that present evidence that they have not been leached. (You may be seeing a pattern in which proper sample selection can avoid many of the problems you have before the sample is even taken to the lab. The flip side is that improper sample selection can lead to problems and this can be seen in some of the examples the YE websites always throw out.) But even if they make a mistake, isochron dating will catch it. Instead of going through the whole method, let's just say that instead of one ratio, isochron dating takes multiple ratios and plots them. The slope of the line tells the age. If there has been leaching or other contamination, the points will not fall on a line and there is no age produced by the result. So you have two chances to catch it. First, proper sample selection. And second the method provides a second check against contamination.

And if you want to make the charge that researchers routinely throw out most of their data and only keep what they already expect, then you will have to offer some strong proof. This is a serious charge and should be supported with strong evidence. And I do not mean an anecdote or two.

"Assumptions are fine and necessary in science. The question comes down to the quality of those assumptions. Can they be verified or not? Bob's assumptions are grounded in modern science, yours are grounded in a fantasy history of the earth that no one could possibly verify."

I think we have seen that Bob has no basis for his extrapolations while I can offer proof and support for those that I need to make. Bob is the one using an unverifiable "fantasy history of the earth." If you wish to join in there is a long list of topics Bob has avoided over the past few weeks at http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/12.html . They are summarized in the seventh post on the page. You can read back through the preceeding pages to get all of the context.

 

UTEOTW, by the logic you want to use against Bob, wouldn't it be just as easy for me to come on here and say the color of the sun used to be purple with yellow polka dots and NEITHER of you could prove that it wasn't.

Hasn't it already been shown that decay rates can be much more rapid than ever thought in high temperature conditions, which were thought to exist at the onset of creation? (however one believes it was started)

Gina

 

"UTEOTW, by the logic you want to use against Bob, wouldn't it be just as easy for me to come on here and say the color of the sun used to be purple with yellow polka dots and NEITHER of you could prove that it wasn't."

No, not really.

What it boils down to is this, we can look around us and see how things work. In some cases we can look back in the past and see how things worked then. We can also think about what might have been different and what effects those could have taken.

I know your example was meant to be absurd to demonstrate a point but... We know how big the sun is. We know how fusion works. We can work out a fairly good history for the sun. If someone wanted to say that it once was purple, a convincing case could be made for or against that.

For Bob's claims on chiral compounds, one of my ongoing points has been that we cannot possibly have physical evidence from that time so both of us are forced into speculation. For my speculation I at least have the support of a plausible scenario that draws support from a known enzyme and that proteins are not limited to being only left handed though extant life only uses left handed versions. Bob has no evidence to support his assertion.

Furthermore, Bob will often makes claims about how we cannot know how things were in the past as a dodge even when data is presented to show that we can know how things were in the past. (A good example is summarized above in how we can actaully measure decay rates well into the past. We have direct evidence that they were the same.) Yet in this case, he wants to make the claim that things have always been as they are without any data to support his assertion. He cannot have it both ways.

"Hasn't it already been shown that decay rates can be much more rapid than ever thought in high temperature conditions"

At temperatures of up to a few thousand degrees, it has been shown that temperature does not have an effect. Now above that, I do not rightly know though I suppose that someone could probably find out. But it does not matter. The clock starts on the rock when it is formed. Any high temperature heating would reset the clock. The important part is that we have directly measured the decay rates well into the past. (And do not forget about the implications that there is a billions of years old history to look at in the first place. Light has a finite speed.)

I hope that helps clear things up.

 

As "nice" as that sounds - Gina is correct and you are misdirecting to throw her off point.

She is correct to observe that in your appeal to "a hope for entirely different laws of biology in the unknown past" - you are doing the SAME thing as saying "We know how the sun is working today BUT WHAT IF entirely DIFFERENT laws of physics were in operation in the unknown past such that sunspots existed as pink polka-dots on a purple sun".

By throwing in your "entirely different laws of science" model that we call "The Easter Bunny Model" of guesswork -- not science, you can posit any blue-sky notion that enteres your mind.

Her point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

hmmm - looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.

And Gina's point (About the duck) "again" --

Gina said

UTEOTW - why is this point so hard for you to grasp? You keep going back to "I hope we had entirely different laws for biochemestry back then so my beliefs can still be true" and as Gina points out-- pink polka dots on a purple sun would fit your model just as well.

Yet you stick with it "as if" you were actually saying something. Why??

Then you pretend that your having NO SCIENCE to show your blue-sky speculation is true - is the SAME as my having ALL THE SCIENCE showing that MY view of biochemistry IS the one and only right one.

I can't believe you are so blatant in doing that UTEOTW? Shouldn't you try to cover up that embarassing leap into fantasy?

What objective reader is going to fall for believing that having NO SCIENCE to support you is the same as having ALL the data in my support?

What are you thinking?

I like that - "it is plausible to HOPE for ENTIRELY DIFFERENT laws of biochemistry so UTEOTW's blue-sky speculation can be true ... yes Paul there IS an Easter Bunny! Or at least there WAS one".

I only have the EXISTING LAWS OF SCIENCE in my support as it comes to biochemistry. I do not have to rely upon FAKE made-up laws that I "wished" to exist - even though they do not.

But of course in the land of blue-sky gueswork (we call it evolutionism) not HAVING any - is to have "no evidence".

Oh this is good! Now we get to see the entirely different laws of biochemistry NEEDED in the past to prop up UTEOTW's blue-sky speculation...

Did I just see a topic SWITCH???

Did I just see UTEOTW bail out of his blue-sky speculation and an appeal to "entirely new laws of biochemistry in the unknown past"????

Surely not!!

But that is where belief in evolutionism takes you --

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh this is really good! Now it turns out that having ALL the data on my side when it comes to the chiral orientation of amino acids IS THE SAME as appealing to the BLUE-SKY "what if the impossible used to happen all the time" approach that UTEOTW is using on that same point???

I love the way evolutionists are so confused on the facts - that they can not see the forrest for the trees. Here is a case WHERE ALL the science, ALL the data points to ONE and ONLY ONE way for this to work.

And since I accept it - and it is repeatable in the lab - every single day... Paul claims that this is the "Square Circle" belief of Bob - becuase I am ACCEPTING the every-day DATA we see in the lab!!!

Its REAL science that is refuting your blue sky speculation that "entirely different laws of biochemistry hopefully would exist in the past so that abiogenesis can be true".

Yet you accept your myths and quesswork AS IF they had substance.

In Christ,

Bob