TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for July 2006

Entry 1

Feedback Letter

From

Lutz

Comment

This is really a very interesting site. Good work. I hope you can help me with some questions. In the first paragraph of the answer to young earth proof 21 you mention three coincidences: that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening. I would be pleased if you could give me some references for that.

I do not know what to think about the RATE paper about radiocarbon dating.(see here: RATE on C-14)Are there major mistakes in ist? Were their results posted to a journal? (see: Poster presented AGU. I read your article about carbon-14 in coal deposits, but that does not help much in refuting that paper I think.

If the strong force is lowered as RATE proposed to accelerate nuclear decay, doesn't that mean, that a lot of more elements would become radioactive? If so, would there be any possibility to detect that some elements were radioactive in the past and now are not? What about other consequences of that?

Thanks for answering my questions.

Lutz

Response

From

Gary hurd

Response

The best single chronometric book for general readers I know of is by G. Brent Dalrymple, "The Age of the Earth" 1991: Stanford University Press. There you will find all the citations to the early efforts to estimate the age of the Earth, and why they failed. The magnetic and radiometric data regarding the Mid-atlantic Ridge System is closely examined by Alan P. Dickin in his book, "Radiogenic Isotope Geology" (2000 Cambridge University Press), particularly in his chapter 10, on potasium/argon dating.

The major error made by Baumgardner et al is that the detection of any trace of C14 is evidence of a young Earth and a recent global flood as told in Genesis. There are secondary errors as well. Examples include failure to account for multiple generation paths of C14, and that are also multiple means by which C14 can be introduced into a geological sample such as coal. Their most absurd suggestion is "... that carbon never cycled through living organisms..." The well known biological carbon isotopic fractionation (the different ratios of C12 and C13 in different plant groups first suggested by H. Craig in 1954) destroys such sillyness.

The consequences of playing around with the funadamental forces via deus ex machina can not be countered by science, because there is nothing to show that God could not have performed miracles with or without external signs. When, like the RATE group, you start tossing miracles around there is no limit to what you can pretend might happen, and speculation is pointless.

Entry 2

Feedback Letter

From

Chris Sergeant

Comment

I read the correspondence in the May 06 Feedback regarding the suggestion that “I believe that children should be able to choose what to think is right”. I was reminded of a speech Mayor Bloomberg is said to have made. The John Hopkins' motto is Veritas vos liberabit, "the truth shall set you free" and not "you shall be free to set the truth."

Entry 3

Feedback Letter

From

Paul

Comment

Hello There,

To preface, I just want to mention that while I love science, as a field of study to understanding things, I also do believe in God and that this universe and all we see was created.

Basically my comment is this. Whether or not those of you who write these articles and study these topics truly believe that there isn't a God, I find it amazing that you still promote the idea of evolution/Darwinism. There is an incredible lack of evidence for evolution, added to the fact that there is a plethora of evidence against it. Why then don't you abandon the idea as a failed theory and just come up with a new theory for how life came to exist here in such astounding diversity and uniqueness? I know that a personal conviction in a God-less life is not going to allow room for the idea of creation and I understand that, but for crying out loud look at how flawed and naive evolution is in light of all of the gained knowledge since Darwin's time. Move on, postulate new theories. I'd say that the smartest moment in a person's life, is not when they study an element of a greater thing and postulate an intelligent sounding theory based on that element, but rather when they see the thing as a whole and can drop their pride and say "I don't know how it all works."

Entry 4

Feedback Letter

From

Daniel DeStarkey

Comment

Why hasn't any Evolutionist accepted a purely scientific debate from Creationist, Dr. Walt Brown (Founder of the Hydroplate Theory)?

Response

From

Chris Ho-Stuart

Response

This is addressed as creationist claim CA342. We also keep a record here of the terms of Walter Brown's Debate Offer. There's no reason to accept such a bizarre offer; Brown is a very minor player in the whole creationist circus. If you can't figure it out for yourself by looking at his notion of what the debate would involve, then see also More on Walter Brown's debate offer. This also gives links to the experiences of Joe Meert in attempting to set up a debate with Brown, and it shows that Brown is unwilling to engage in straightforward debate in open forums.

Brown's errors and confusions are being addressed very nicely; and he mainly seems to be using a highly indiosyncratic and unrealistic debate offer as an excuse for not engaging criticisms in place right now. See, for example, Fossil Hominids: Response to In the Beginning.

Entry 5

Feedback Letter

From

Jason

Comment

Would you care to comment on the bruhaha over species extinction? It seems to me that with macro-evolution creating new species, the extinction of existing species becomes a moot point. Since the history of the earth is evolution, extinction, evolution, extinction, it seems scientifically obvious that nature takes care of itself. Evolution of new species cannot be stopped, so why do we get so bent out shape over species extinction? Thanks.

Response

From

Gary Hurd

Response

I feel that there are two ways to view this. First is mere aesthetics- we are destroying species faster than we can record them.

The other perspective is more practical. The practical observation begins that top predators are vulnerable to species loss from below, and that humans are the top predator of the entire globe. We can quite possibly undercut our own existence. Further, most of our favorite foods, and essential medicines are natural products and there are many reasons to believe that there are many more yet to be discovered. The faster we destroy species the less likely such discoveries are.

A final consideration is religious, and while I take exception to some of his arguemnts, Ray Bohlin's article on Christian Environmentalism covers most of the basic positions. (Note that even after 14 years Bohlin's argument has failed to attract the religious right).

Entry 6

Feedback Letter

From

lim yoong san

Comment

[Uploader's note: this comment uses Chinese special characters. It is possible that some browsers will not properly display them.]

I have proof that the Big Flood did occur. The ancient Chinese recorded this catastrophic happening in the ancient form (AF) of the language. The AF of big flood (洪) shows earth, waters, hands held together and 8 persons. The AF of arc (船) shows a boat and 8 persons. The AF of along (沿) shows 8 persons floating on waters.

The Chinese ancestors employed 3 principles in making words, Photographic or word-picture, ideographic and phonetic principles. The word arc (船) has the same phonetic sound as pass on (傳). The word along (沿) has the same phonetic sound as continue (延). With the Noah's family of 8 surviving the big flood on the arc, human history can pass on. And with the Noah's family of 8 floating on waters, human history can continue until today.

Now the word island (島), it is made up of bird (鳥)and mountain (山).Why?

It is recorded in the Bible that 'Noah and his 3 sons Shem. Ham and Japheth, his wife and the 3 wives of his sons entered the arc (Genesis 7:13). The waters prevailed, were increased greatly upon the earth and the arc went upon the face of the waters (G 7:18). And Noah sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground (G 8:8). What more proof do you want. If you could prove me wrong, I am willing to renounce christianity. If not, get baptised immediately.

Response

From

Chris Stassen

Author of

Isochron Dating

Response

See: CG101: The Chinese glyph for ship is made up of pictographs for "vessel," "eight," and "mouth," indicating the eight passengers on Noah's ark..

In addition, Bill Jefferys wrote a long discussion about the claims regarding the "ark" character in this USEnet article.

In short, the claim rests on ignorance of how Chinese characters are formed, and deception regarding the likely origin of this particular one. As one of Bill's quoted sources notes:

Some have tried to prove that this character indicates that the Chinese knew about Noah's ark as it is made up of a boat and eight persons. Pa^1 Kou^3. This is only useful to aid in remembering how to write the character, as it is of modern construction, not much over 2000 years ago---long after the deluge.

Entry 7

Feedback Letter

From

Thomas Robertson

Comment

On a message forum, a Creationist asked me to explain how William J. Meister found a trilobite fossil alongside a human footprint near Delta, Utah in 1968.

What shall I say?

Response

From

Mark Isaak

Response

The trilobite is real, but the "footprint" was formed by spalling, a natural geologic process, not by feet. Similar spalling patterns which do not resemble footprints so much are common in that area. A little more information, plus references, may be found at CC102 in the Index to Creationist Claims.

Entry 8

Feedback Letter

From

RAY MOLLICA

Comment

YOUR ARTICLES MAKE ANYONE BELIEVING IN CREATION OUT TO BE INFERIOR IN INTELLIGENCE. WHEN IN TRUTH THE DISCOVERIES BY SCIENCE HAS MADE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION EVER HAPPENED. IT TAKES MORE FAITH TODAY TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION THAN IT DOES TO BELIEVE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT. WHY NOT JUST ADMIT THAT EVOLUTION IS A THEORY WITH VERY LITTLE SUPPORT FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD OR MATHEMATICS, ASTRONOMY,BIOLOGY, PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY. YOU CAN TRY AND MAKE A RELIGION OUT OF EVOLUTION BUT YOU WILL ONLY LOOK FOOLISH. GOD IS ALIVE AND WELL TODAY AND BECOMING MORE SO WITH EACH NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.

Response

From

Gary Hurd

Author of

Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths

Response

Well, I hope that you keep trying to stay current with those discoveries. And, I hope that you learn how to use your keyboard and the "shift" key. And finally, I hope that if you ever come to any understanding of science or scipture, you might recall that you wasted these electrons. As Paul is said to have written;

Hebrews 5: 11. About this we have much to say that is hard to explain, since you have become dull in understanding. 12. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the principles of God. You need milk, not solid food; 13. for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. 14. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

Entry 9

Feedback Letter

From

Quentin Cobb

Comment

Taking Back Astronomy, Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–USA http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0711astronomy.asp

In this article Dr. Lisle states that "it has been my aspiration to develop a resource that will do for astronomy what The Genesis Flood did for geology."

This is an excerpt from Dr. Lisle's book 'Taking Back Astronomy'

The moon moves about an inch and a half further away from the earth every year due to this tidal interaction. Thus, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Six thousand years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet (250 m) closer to the earth (which is not much of a change considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles, or 400,000 km, away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical timescale of six thousand years. If, however, the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as big bang supporters teach), then we would have big problems. This is because the moon would have been so close, that it would actually have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.

Dr. Lisle has made an elementary error in the above excerpt. While he is correct for his (approximate) distance of 250 m after 6,000 year calculation, he seems to have dropped a ‘0’ for the time for the Earth and Moon to touch.

Base Data:

Earth Moon distance = 400,000 km, Actually 384,000 km
Radius of Earth = 6400 km
Radius of Moon = 1700 km
So the Earth and Moon would be touching after the Moon has moved 384,000 – (6400 + 1700) km = 375,900 km
That’s 375,900,000,000 mm
Change = 1.5 in/year (38mm/year)

375,900,000,000/38 = 9,892,000,000 years or approximately 10 billion years for the Earth and Moon to be touching.

After 1.5 billion years the Moon would have been 57,000 km closer but still 318,900 km apart. This doesn’t seem to be quite such a ‘big problem’

I believe Dr Lisle has achieved his objective of doing for astronomy what 'The Genesis Flood' did for geology!

I wonder if we’ll see a follow-up book from Dr. Lisle “Taking Back Arithmetic”?

Entry 10

Feedback Letter

From

Lerma

Comment

I have never read something so funny! These men try to search and search and SEARCH for an explanation for everything! And yet, still - have no proof, no evidence and when trying to attempt an explantion, sound completely lost! Many evolutionists believe in God... tell me then, if you belive in God- why do you think he made you? For nothing? for His pleasure possibly? Or maybe he just made you to figure out that we all came from a good `ole slug or a monkey?? Amazing! It's like you're trying to gain wisdom from the things that God Himself has set before you, and then searching for a reason that it's here! What a silly game. If you believe in God- just ask Him to show you truth and He will! God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. You don't have to be a scientist to understand that. We'll see truth soon enough.... soon enough!

Entry 11

Feedback Letter

From

Paul Noah

Comment

On the web page http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html there is a reference to a letter from Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland. If you are interested the text of the letter can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/19980117183812/http://kriscot.com/cpattrsn.htm

thanks for the good work

Entry 12

Feedback Letter

Comment

May I suggest someone check out all of Walt Brown's credentials. I have just discovered he lied about being a former director of Benet Labs. He lists his credentials here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

As I know a formet director of that lab, I decided to see if he was also a director and emailed them today. I received this prompt reply a few hours later:

Walter Brown was not a director of Benet Labs. I believe he was a military officer here (during the 60's? 70's?) and might have been designated as acting director for short periods of time (a day here, a day there...) when the director at that time was out of the office. I ran across his website quite a few years ago and oddly enough, our Admin Office was doing a plaque listing our directors at that same time. I contacted Dr. Brown at that time. Dr. Brown is not listed on the plaque.

Susan A. Macksey Technical Information Specialist US Army Benet Laboratories

Entry 13

Feedback Letter

From

Tom Collins

Comment

First of all thanks for the great site. I've become very interested in the subject of creationism and I've found all the answers I've needed for the questions I've had about Evolution. Kudos.

This may be beyond the scope of this site but here's my question anyway: How does the Theory of Evolution deal with deliberate breeding? Race horses, farm animals and dogs have been extensivly breed and altered over the years by human hands. Can the theory take those kinds of actions into account? Would there anyway of noticing if, say, dinosaurs were specifically bred by a more intelligent speices? Selective breeding isn't really that natural unless humans are counted at the environment (which I suppose they should be). Does the predictive power of the theory break down in such situations?

Again thanks for a very interesting and informative site.

Kind regards,

Tom

Response

From

Gary Hurd

Author of

Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths

Response

We are glad you enjoy the site, it is the product of many people.

Selective breeding isn't really that natural unless humans are counted at the environment (which I suppose they should be).

I think that you have answered your own question. A related consideration is the unintended evolutionary modification of laboratory organisms.

Entry 14

Feedback Letter

Comment

The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." You are a fool! Just remember the operative word in the theory of evolution, it is THEORY. And you believe a theory! There are many answers in Genesis and I hope you find the truth some day. I am not interested in anything you have to say so do not respond to my comments. It will just go into my junk e-mail folder and I never look at junk e-mail, I just flush it.

Entry 15

Feedback Letter

Comment

In last month's feedback, May 2006, someone pointed out the existence of a creation wiki. Mark Isaak implied that they would not be correcting the articles because "Contributing editors must believe the universe and life on earth were created by God."

But even though you won't be correcting their articles, would you ever consider making a list of rebuttals to their rebuttals of your index to creationist claims?

http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Index_to_Creationist_Claims

And if they were to make a list of rebuttals to your rebuttals to their rebuttals of your index to creationist claims, would you make a list of rebuttals to that?

Response

From

Mark Isaak

Response

I considered doing that, and even planned to do it at one point, but decided against it for two reasons. First, rebutting everything the Creationwiki says would take all of my time and then some. Second, the effort would accomplish little. Almost all of what they say is either rebutted already in one form or another (for example, CA100, on the argument from incredulity, covers a lot of ground), or the points are so insignificant that few people would care about them. If we start filling the site with arguments that are found in the Creationwiki and nowhere else, we may distract people from the responses to arguments that are in common use by creationists.

And, of course, rebutting the rebuttals of rebuttals, ad infinitum, would only compound both of these problems.

Entry 16

Feedback Letter

From

Graham Richards

Comment

Re: Claim CI 101 on complexity and design. I think this could be stronger. Complexity and design are uncorrelated as designed objects like pins, plates and paperclips indicate. Also, none of the complex human artefacts we are now familiar with are products of a single designer but the outcomes of social processes in which numerous agents with different agenadas and roles have participated, sometimes over many generations. Paley's watchmaker was but the last in a line of clock & watchmakers and his own innovation may have been quite trivial, while some parts of the watch would have been supplied by others. The choice is not design vs chance but conscious single-agent design vs chance vs multi-agent design (which may or may not be fully conscious of the outcome and which is, in effect, what evolution proposes). So actually the more complex an object the LESS likely it is to have had a single designer. Design implies three things: an external designer, an object, a purpose for the designer. The first and second imply the third, the second and third imply the first, but the Arg.from D. falls because the existence of the first is the point at issue and there is no obvious third, only the objects themselves.

More power to your elbow - a brilliant site. Graham

Entry 17

Feedback Letter

From

anonymous

Comment

I think your origins archive having collaborated comments, articles and other documents over the Creation/Evolution debate is a superb idea. A website combining so much material makes it convenient for purposes of either research or personal inquiry. The site has great organization and offers itself to be very resourceful.

Entry 18

Feedback Letter

Comment

Why is it that lower forms of life coexist with higher forms? How come bacteria stopped at being bacteria, flies stopped at being flies, and humans stopped at being humans? This is a question that I haven't been able to figure out yet. Thanks.

Response

From

John Wilkins

Response

The assumption in your question is that if a life form can change to become something "higher" it will, but that is not what the theory of evolution predicts. Any life form that can do well in its environment will remain more or less the same. Bacteria do very well indeed - it is estimated that most living things are bacterial or single celled (Bacteria are only one kind of single celled organism) and ecological systems rely on them to survive. For instance, while you have a trillion or so cells in your body, you require about ten times that much of single celled organisms in your gut and elsewhere to survive.

All species are well adapted to their conditions of life. Flies do very well at their business, bacteria do very well at theirs, and so on. Evolution predicts that they will change only if they stop doing well at surviving in new conditions.

But moreover, each kind of organism has changed. Despite claims that there are "living fossils", these are different species to the ones found in the fossil record. Bacteria are constantly evolving, as are flies, mammals, and even humans. Evolution is always local, though - there's no goal to evolution, just adaptation to local conditions and the effects of chance.

Entry 19

Feedback Letter

From

Jerry Mytting

Comment

About Carl Wieland and his article 'Dinosaur bones: Just how old are they really?'

Where he writes:

"But this common picture is misleading. A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists. (...) The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks. 1"

And makes this conclusion:

"The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this."

The '1' refers to Currie's and Eva Koppelhus' book.

Link Where Currie point out, that dinosaurs existed in a period from 225 to 65 mill. year from now.

I asked Currie about his comment, and got this answer:

"Hi Jerry

We have been aware of this article for quite some time. They quoted us correctly, but of course offer their own interpretation of the facts. It is very typical that creationists offer half the story, but don't provide the half that contradicts their claims. In this case, they fail to mention all the bones that have turned to stone.

Cheers, Philip J. Currie, MSc, PhD, FRSC Curator of Dinosaurs Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology Drumheller, Alberta"

Furthermore, take a look at this:

Link

Jerry

Entry 20

Feedback Letter

From

Clint

Comment

Thanks for your work! I just read an excellent article from one of your authors who tracked down a false creationist claim about lack of red dwarf stars from an HST scan. I am a Christian, but not a young-earth creationist. It angers me to see the dishonest spread of rumor that goes on...from both sides of the fence. If both sides would stick to good science and good referencing many problems would be solved. I have a request... I just found an address of four popular young-earth dating methods on your site. I ask that someone address a few other (about 50 in all :) ) methods listed at the following site:

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch06a.htm

This link begins two parts of an address of methods to arrive at a young age for the earth. As a basically amateur scientist (only B.S. in Biology) I can account for some problems, but many of the astrology/cosmology methods go beyond my understanding. An address of at least some of these would be wonderful.

Attempting to honestly and uniasedly weigh the evidence,

Clint

Entry 21

Feedback Letter

From

Joseph

Comment

Soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones. Is it possible that such soft tissue could not contain carbon 14? If it does contain carbon 14 (which I assume it does)does it not at least prove that that particular animal lived within the last few thousand years? Lastly, is it reasonable to believe that soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years?

Response

From

Gary Hurd

Author of

Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths

Response

The topic of dinosaur "soft tissue" and the creationist distortions of this research has been examined in two TalkOrigins FAQ articles, "Dino-blood and the Young Earth," and "Dino Blood Redux"

Read them, and if you still have questions I suggest that you address them to the principal scientist of this research, Professor Mary Schweitzer. She should be both willing and able to answer all creationist claims based on her reportage of dinosaur "soft tissue."

Entry 22

Feedback Letter

From

John Rastatter

Comment

You keep talking about facts, facts, facts of evolution, and that everyone thats smart believes its a fact. Yet you provide no facts other than to say everyone who is smart believes its a fact. Most of the recent "facts" have been unmasked as frauds like embreo drawings, the painted spotted finches, Leakeys fake skull, etc, etc. No serious theory would resort to this amout of fakery and isolation from competition. Evolution may turn out to be true but I wouldn't bet on it.

Response

From

Mark Isaak

Response

The facts are the actual embryos, the actual finches, and the myriad actual fossil skulls of human ancestors. If you really believe that there is a secret evil conspiracy among all the world's biologists and paleontologists to misreport what they see, you are welcome to go and look at the finches, embryos, and fossils for yourself. In fact, please do so regardless.

The embryo drawings have been covered here. I have no idea what you mean by "Leakey's fake skull" or "painted spotted finches." Do you?

Entry 23

Feedback Letter

From

Keishu Asada

Comment

I have a problem with a certain set of terms and I'm wondering what you think. I am currently only an undergrad (in Marine Biology), but I personally see little use for and have even a slight resentment toward the distinction of "micro-" and "macro-" evolution.

I first encountered the distinction when debating creationists online, and almost every time I heard it since, it was in relation to their ignorant drivel. As a matter of fact, this website is the only non-creationist example I can think of that uses this distinction. (Of course, I could be wrong.)

So my question is; is this a real distinction actual biologists use in the course of their studies? To me it seems like a creationist attempt to deliberately isolate substances that are a problem for them from the bigger picture, thereby making them easier to attack. I do not think there is any point in giving seperate names to what ultimately is merely different extents of the very same process.

I love this website by the way.

Response

From

John Wilkins

Author of

Macroevolution FAQ

Response

It is an authentic distinction in science, although creationists use it wrongly. But there is a revision to the Macroevolution FAQ listed above on the way.

It is an open question whether macroevolution is just microevolution writ large. Some scientists think it is, others don't. I think it is, but add to the mix that macroevolution involves processes that we can't include in simple models of population-level change.

Entry 24

Feedback Letter

From

Scott V. Burger

Comment

Hello, I'm an avid pro-science fanatic and I love your website. Great job on maintaining it and paying for bandwidth and all the other lovely tech-stuff I don't understand about websites.

Two weeks ago, my friends Andrew and I debated Kent Hovind, a big fan of your website (hah). We got on his creationist talk show and 'talked' with him for 45 minutes.

You can download a copy of the debate here in .mp3 format. Right click and save the link, otherwise the streaming will nuke the server we have it on.

I've also typed up the 20 page transcript of the debate, verbatim, which can be downloaded here.

I highly reccomend the transcript as an aid to the .mp3, since Hovind is very quiet during the debate.

Anyway, just thought everyone at TO might be interested.

-Scott

Response

From

Gary Hurd

Response

I'll check it out