"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Tank]

If you want to see a selection process in action look at aircraft, in particular combat aircraft, specifically fighters. Early on there were hundreds of different types. By WWII they were almost all propeller driven low wing monoplanes. Then along came the jet and the propeller driven fighter became extinct. Now there are only a handful of fighter types in production, all jets. That's technological evolution and the selection pressure was simple. Those fighters that were not up to the job were shot out of the sky.

I don't see how that helps. First you (not some unguided selection process) narrow the field to "combat aircraft, specifically fighters" -- leaving out all non-military aircraft, not to mention lots of military types (like bombers and transports and drones). Then you expect me to equate the various observations of intelligent pilots, designers, scientists, and engineers -- and the subsequent actions they consciously take as a result of those observations -- as the equivalent of an unplanned and unguided "survival of the fittest" mechanism. Sorry, don't see it.

Sorry Gerry. I was trying to simplify the nature of selection for you. Seems I failed.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Gerry, you are easily intelligent enough to understand the difference between carbon dating and the methods used to date fossils.  They are totally different, as you must be well aware, yet you are trying to project the uncertainties of carbon dating pro rata back into geological time.

Yes, I'm aware that different methods are used to date different kinds of things. But I'm not projecting "the uncertainties of carbon dating pro rata back into geological time." I'm simply saying that if we have such trouble with near things, I suspect we'll have even more trouble with the far -- because (a) there's less data to go on, and (b) no chance of conclusively confirming the effectiveness of the dating method. For example, if I want to convince myself that carbon dating works, I can take something whose age is known and undisputed, and use that method to date it. But I can't do that with a method that only works on things so old that no known and undisputed samples are available.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Gerry, do you think you are better at science than the vast majority of scientists, or that they are all conspiring to support a false theory?

Of course I'm not better at science than the vast majority of scientists. And I don't think they are all conspiring to support a false theory. Conspiring is the wrong word. I have a friend who is a doctor of medicine (and claims to be a Christian) and he readily confesses that he gave answers on tests in medical school that he knew to be contrary to what he believed simply to get the degree he needed to further his career. I'm sure that sort of thing is rife in the scientific community. The books I mentioned earlier document some striking cases: Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743488288) and The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer by Hilton Ratcliffe (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1419695568). That's enough to make me suspicious of the whole enterprise, especially when it speaks with certainty about philosophical and historical things that (I think) are clearly outside of its proper scope. Not because I'm smarter than most scientists, or think they're conspiring together, but simply because I'm old enough to know the wickedness of the human heart, first hand.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

So the problem [dating the Shroud] was sample contamination not a fundamental inaccuracy of the dating process.

And exactly how uncontaminated can we expect a 100,000-year-old sample to be?

And of course if radiometric dating is wrong your computer shouldn't work because they are both based on the same physics.

That's simply not true; my computer does not depend on an estimated and unproven value for the half-life of carbon-14 to operate. (I say "estimated and unproven" because the currently accepted value is 5730 years -- it was 5568 in the 1950's and 60's -- and nobody has lived long enough to actually check those values.) Nor does the operation of my computer depend on the uncertain amount of carbon-14 that might leach into (or out of) the motherboard from (or into) the atmosphere over the years. Can you see that computers and radiometric dating of artifacts are two very different kinds of things?

Gerry, you can't cherry pick your science  based on your personal and unqualified opinion.

Sure I can. I'm ultimately responsible for my own philosophy of life and the decisions I make based on that philosophy. So it's up to me to evaluate the available information to my own personal satisfaction; and since there is so much information -- more than anyone could even scan in a lifetime -- I have to somehow focus on the kinds of information I think meaningful and reliable, and weed out the kinds of information that I think is less so. So I choose (a) actual reproducible empirical results, and (b) historical data that is confirmed by written records. And that gives me more than enough to work with for the rest of my life.

The issues are with the sample Gerry, not the process.

Again, I have my doubts about getting reliable, uncontaminated samples from 100,000 years ago. We can't even get them from 768 years ago, under the most stringent of rules and procedures.

[Tank]

So the problem [dating the Shroud] was sample contamination not a fundamental inaccuracy of the dating process.

And exactly how uncontaminated can we expect a 100,000-year-old sample to be?

Depends on the sample and if it were contaminated it wouldn't be used would it? Do you think the scientists involved in this field are imbeciles? Apparently you do.

And of course if radiometric dating is wrong your computer shouldn't work because they are both based on the same physics.

That's simply not true; my computer does not depend on an estimated and unproven value for the half-life of carbon-14 to operate. (I say "estimated and unproven" because the currently accepted value is 5730 years -- it was 5568 in the 1950's and 60's -- and nobody has lived long enough to actually check those values.) Nor does the operation of my computer depend on the uncertain amount of carbon-14 that might leach into (or out of) the motherboard from (or into) the atmosphere over the years. Can you see that computers and radiometric dating of artifacts are two very different kinds of things?

Missing, or more to the point avoiding, the point again Gerry. What a surprise. Your computer relies on material sciences at the atomic level. The same fundamental physics that underpin the function your computer underpin radiometric dating. You don't understand how radiometric dating works Gerry. Please stop pretending that you do.

Gerry, you can't cherry pick your science  based on your personal and unqualified opinion.

Sure I can. I'm ultimately responsible for my own philosophy of life and the decisions I make based on that philosophy. So it's up to me to evaluate the available information to my own personal satisfaction; and since there is so much information -- more than anyone could even scan in a lifetime -- I have to somehow focus on the kinds of information I think meaningful and reliable, and weed out the kinds of information that I think is less so. So I choose (a) actual reproducible empirical results, and (b) historical data that is confirmed by written records. And that gives me more than enough to work with for the rest of my life.

Nope Gerry. It doesn't work that way. You may think it does but again you'd be wrong. Your choices are wrong but you can't/won't see that. And the reason they are wrong is because there is far too much subjectivity and ego on your part.

The issues are with the sample Gerry, not the process.

Again, I have my doubts about getting reliable, uncontaminated samples from 100,000 years ago. We can't even get them from 768 years ago, under the most stringent of rules and procedures.

Your doubts are superfluous Gerry. Who discovered the dating was wrong? Guess what Gerry, it was scientists. 98% of the time they know what they are doing and things go well. The 2% where it doesn't does not invalidate the 98% they get right. Your continual focus on the 2% simply reveals your agenda driven bias. I see you haven't addressed the Wedge Strategy. Again no surprise there. I'm also not surprised to see you dismissing out of hand the entire efforts of the science of palaeontology. You don't understand it so you dismiss it as a minor inconvenience.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Gerry how are fossils formed? Do you understand the processes involved?

My understanding is that a fossil can be formed when something is quickly buried by mud, silt, volcanic ash, or sand; or quickly frozen in ice, mummified in hot or cold deserts, or preserved in tar. I suspect there are other ways, as well -- each "contaminating" the samples in their own way.

Your comment about the cars is a false analogy, cars are not living creatures so they won't fossilise in the same way an animal carcass would.

Not exactly the same, of course not. But they still might be preserved by rapid encasement in mud, ash, sand, ice, tar, etc.

However, as cars developed they contained a higher and higher proportion of plastics. And one of the characteristics of plastics is they don't degrade.

That's not quite true. Most plastics decompose when exposed to sunlight (in or out of water), and many of the newer plastics are intentionally made to be biodegradable.

So 100,000 years from now they'll still be plenty of plastic car parts buried. More than enough to draw conclusions from. 

May be; But you and I will never know for sure.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Gerry I suggest you read
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, written by a Christian and a scientist, Kenneth Miller.  

Frankly, I'm not interested in finding "Common Ground Between God and Evolution" -- that's Bruce's bailiwick. I'm interested in investigating the common ground that has been common to all people throughout all of recorded history -- and that is still clearly evident today. And for which there are the two kinds of evidence I find compelling: (a) repeatable experiments, and (b) written historical records. Two examples:

1. People all throughout recorded history have recognized differences in kind (and not just degree) in living creatures. A writer 2000 years ago, for example, said, "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." And he wasn't trying to convince his audience of this; he was talking about something else and using this as an example that he knew would be immediately accepted by all. I submit that we feel the same way today: we recognize that fish, for example, don't have the same rights as humans and can be eaten for dinner if we please.

2. People all throughout recorded history have recognized the appearance of design in nature. Another author from 2000 years ago said it this way: "Every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God." And again, he wasn't trying to convince his audience of this fact; he was talking about something else and using this as an example that he knew would be immediately accepted by all. I submit that even dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists can't help but see design in nature: which is why a guy like Francis Crick has to remind his disciples, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved" -- in other words, they must intentionally deny the obvious evidences provided by their senses and intuitions.

The thing that most strikes me is how the evolutionary paradigm attempts to turn these two historic and ubiquitous concepts on their heads; it's a 180-degree reversal. The evolutionary paradigm requires us to abandon any real distinctions in kind, and to write off the appearance of design in nature as an illusion. Personally, I don't think it's wise to glibly reverse that which has been so obvious, so practical, and so fruitful for people everywhere throughout all of recorded history. In my personal view, it smacks of diabolical thinking. And I haven't seen any good fruit grow from that questionable tree, either; just the opposite: society, all told, seems to me to be degraded in every area where the evolutionary paradigm has held sway.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

Right back at you: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf

The whole matter is under dispute and mostly concerns pre-history (which, as I've said above, falls outside the range of my primary interests).

Different kinds of people find different kinds of things persuasive; I'm sure you know this. I am a polymath, not a specialist; a general practitioner, if you will. Or perhaps you'd prefer "Jack of all Trades, Master of None"! So be it. I'd consider that a compliment. But since I'm now 61 years old and have but nine years before my three-score-and-ten run out, I need to carefully allocate my remaining years; restrict my studies and activities to the areas I find most fruitful for me, my wife, my kids, my grandkids, and my students in various fields. Call me arbitrary, but I've decided to place all of pre-history out of bounds, and focus only on those obvious and fundamental things that can and have been helpful to people everywhere throughout all of recorded history.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

The point was to work out the contradiction in what you said here, in this thread, and your statements in your original thread on common ground. Clarification was all I was after.

The reason I ask is that, at some of my other online haunts, I see people every day who claim to have "studied" a particular person's work, and yet have almost zero understanding of what that person was actually trying to say. They can parrot one-liners but and excerpts but are lost whenever anything that contradicts their views are presented.

Lenin provides an excellent case study: there is a segment of the left which takes the concept of Leninism to dogmatic extremes. These individuals tend to come in two flavours 1) old school party hand-raisers who can't get past their chosen organization's particular reading of Lenin and 2) young people drawn to the left who view Lenin's body of work as a step-by-step instruction manual.

Both flavours are seemingly incapable of gaining a deeper understanding of what Lenin probably got right because they fail to look past his prescriptions for the RSDLP or his analysis of early 20th century politics and gain and understanding of why he thought the way he did. What's the reason for this? By and large it's because they haven't "studied" more than a few excerpts. Or if they have, anything that might contradict their view is ignored.

I'm not sure how to respond to all that, but when you brought up Lenin it reminded me of a picture I painted on request some time ago. Seems some people think Lenin's influence now reaches further than some might suspect. Perhaps the historian in you will get a kick out of it. Cover up the right and you'll see Barack Obama; cover the left and you'll see Alger Hiss.



This is an aside, of course, and has nothing to do with intelligent design. Unless one thinks perhaps there's some unseen design behind current political machinations!

[xSilverPhinx]

Gerry I suggest you read
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, written by a Christian and a scientist, Kenneth Miller.  

Frankly, I'm not interested in finding "Common Ground Between God and Evolution" -- that's Bruce's bailiwick. I'm interested in investigating the common ground that has been common to all people throughout all of recorded history -- and that is still clearly evident today. And for which there are the two kinds of evidence I find compelling: (a) repeatable experiments, and (b) written historical records. Two examples:

1. People all throughout recorded history have recognized differences in kind (and not just degree) in living creatures. A writer 2000 years ago, for example, said, "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." And he wasn't trying to convince his audience of this; he was talking about something else and using this as an example that he knew would be immediately accepted by all. I submit that we feel the same way today: we recognize that fish, for example, don't have the same rights as humans and can be eaten for dinner if we please.

2. People all throughout recorded history have recognized the appearance of design in nature. Another author from 2000 years ago said it this way: "Every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God." And again, he wasn't trying to convince his audience of this fact; he was talking about something else and using this as an example that he knew would be immediately accepted by all. I submit that even dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists can't help but see design in nature: which is why a guy like Francis Crick has to remind his disciples, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved" -- in other words, they must intentionally deny the obvious evidences provided by their senses and intuitions.

The thing that most strikes me is how the evolutionary paradigm attempts to turn these two historic and ubiquitous concepts on their heads; it's a 180-degree reversal. The evolutionary paradigm requires us to abandon any real distinctions in kind, and to write off the appearance of design in nature as an illusion. Personally, I don't think it's wise to glibly reverse that which has been so obvious, so practical, and so fruitful for people everywhere throughout all of recorded history. In my personal view, it smacks of diabolical thinking. And I haven't seen any good fruit grow from that questionable tree, either; just the opposite: society, all told, seems to me to be degraded in every area where the evolutionary paradigm has held sway.

Gerry I'm sitting here wondering just how much you know about evolution. You dismiss it so lightly when there are mountains of evidence to support it. What is doesn't care in the slightest about what you beliefs are, and quite frankly if I were a believer I would want to get it as close to the truth as possible.

Do you think that evolutionary theory states that mankind evolved from chimpanzees? Forget fossils for a bit, how much do you know about molecular biology? Do you think that evolutionary theory states that crocoducks could be the hybrid offspring of a duck and a crocodile? How about the second law of thermodynamics, do you think it disproves evolution? And what about the fused second chromosome in humans? Why would there be two telomeres in the middle?

[Gerry Rzeppa]

I see you haven't addressed the Wedge Strategy.

When someone mentioned the Wedge Strategy before I went looking for information on it. I found this interview with Phillip Johnson:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html

Frankly, I thought he sounded quite reasonable and much of what he said I might have said myself. I disagree, however, that Christians should restrict themselves to the "experimentally verifiable" and refrain from giving the Designer the obvious name God. In fact, I got myself kicked off Dembski's Uncommon Descent site some years ago for pressing the issue. As I've said before, it can be lonely in the middle of the road. I have no idea how many of my posts are still there: this is the only thread I could find, but I didn't look very hard: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/leibniz-machines-of-nature-all-artificial-automata/ s

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Forget fossils for a bit, how much do you know about molecular biology?

When my wife was 56 we mixed up a blastocyst in a dish and implanted it in her well-past-menopause garden. Then, for nine months, we fed her sandwiches from Subway, and, lo and behold, out came a fully formed human baby. Now based on my 60 year's experience with making things -- from books to paintings to songs to houses to computer programs to electronic circuits -- I find it utterly incredible (as in unbelievable) that such a system -- a machine that takes submarine sandwiches and converts them, silently, in just nine months, into a fully functional human baby -- could exist without Somebody designing and constructing it with that end in mind. It's as simple as that.

What's really cool is that the little guy's development didn't stop there. Here he is about six years later:



That stuff on the wall didn't happen without design; nor did that picture on his shirt. I'm pretty sure that he didn't either -- especially since he's billions of times more complex and carefully tuned. It just seems obvious to me. Which is why I started this thread with stories about what's obvious to some and not others: Smullyan's laughter, Well's eyesight, Abbot's spacial dimensions. I don't need "fossil evidence" for laughter, or eyesight, or spacial dimensions; or babies. I have first-hand experience with such things. I simply know.

[xSilverPhinx]

Once you actually learn about a topic, in this case evolutionary theory,  you'll see just how much sense it makes.   As I've said before, forget fossils, most of the evidence for evolutionary theory hinges on molecular biology and genetics, things Darwin didn't even know about. It's a topic well worth researching in depth, and once you do so much makes sense.

[Asmodean]

Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

I must admit, the title made me curious, so I went in. I must say, I was surprised, and in a very positive way, by how comprehensive that paper is, what with presenting the information in a bite-sized, for-the-uninitiated way.

The whole matter is under dispute and mostly concerns pre-history (which, as I've said above, falls outside the range of my primary interests).

Different kinds of people find different kinds of things persuasive; I'm sure you know this. I am a polymath, not a specialist; a general practitioner, if you will. Or perhaps you'd prefer "Jack of all Trades, Master of None"! So be it. I'd consider that a compliment. But since I'm now 61 years old and have but nine years before my three-score-and-ten run out, I need to carefully allocate my remaining years; restrict my studies and activities to the areas I find most fruitful for me, my wife, my kids, my grandkids, and my students in various fields. Call me arbitrary, but I've decided to place all of pre-history out of bounds, and focus only on those obvious and fundamental things that can and have been helpful to people everywhere throughout all of recorded history.

What you specialize in is up to you, of course, but when it comes to radiometrics being disputed, they really are not. Not by any serious scientist. Oh, they may bicker over the finer points of the seventeenth-or-so decimal in the results measured, but that only translates to a minute margin of error when looking at the overall scope.

[Recusant]

Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

Right back at you: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf

Thanks. I read through that. I doubt that you bothered to read the Wiens piece. But then, why would you? You don't actually care about this aspect of science, as you've said.

I found Walker's approach to the topic ludicrous. He isn't examining the science of radiometric dating from a scientific perspective, but from the perspective that anything which contradicts a literal reading of the Bible has to be incorrect.

Although the paper is published on the website of ASA, an association of Christian scientists, we should not accept claims that contradict the Bible.

As he states on his website:

Because we believe the Bible is true, we assume that its plain reading gives an accurate understanding of Earth history. Biblical chronology is used as the basis for geological investigation.

One of his main themes is all too familiar. It's the Ken Ham mantra: "You weren't there!" You've used that same line of argumentation, and it really isn't effective. The evidence doesn't depend on some person being alive millions or billions of years ago.

I will point out that Walker is not a reliable source of information. Before he obtained his BS in Earth Sciences, he had published Young Earth Creationist articles for Creation Ministries International, in which his YEC ideas were put forth unequivocally. Yet his bachelor's thesis (which acknowledges Jesus as an inspiration) is completely in line with main-stream geology, referencing processes that took millions of years and examining radiometric dating within the that framework. He wrote what was (as far as he was concerned) a piece of fiction in order to obtain his degree. He has thus shown that he's willing to play fast and loose with the truth in service of his agenda.

Tasman Walker has availed himself of the opportunity to gain a scientific education.  By publishing a thesis that contradicts his true YEC beliefs, Walker is guilty of ethical misconduct. Instead of pretending to believe in an ancient Earth, Walker should have done a thesis on landslide erosion, coal ash disposal, groundwater pollution or another topic that would not involve compromising his religious beliefs on historical geology.  There's also no doubt that when he embraced a 6000 year old Earth, he only pretended to adopt the accumulated geological evidence supporting an old Earth to please the faculty at the University of Queensland and get his degree.  This is a prime example of an immoral "ends justifies the means." In reality, Walker held a religious dogma that is antithetical to science long before he completed his thesis. Tasman Walker has misrepresented science to the public and he deceptively did it in the name of the University of Queensland.  Can there be any mitigating circumstances for Walker to tell lies for Jesus?

[source]

Walker refers repeatedly to the failed RATE project, as if it refutes the science that Wiens is presenting. It does not. In fact, among other things it's an example of the dishonest practices of the proponents of Young Earth Creationism.

Dishonesty is a recurring theme in Young Earth Creationism. In fact, I would consider it endemic. You say you're not interested in examining the issue of the age of the Earth. That's probably a good thing, since it allows you to ignore the mendacity of those who agree with your position.

The whole matter is under dispute and mostly concerns pre-history (which, as I've said above, falls outside the range of my primary interests).

It's under dispute by those who are ready and willing to lie for Jesus. But again, apparently that's no concern of yours.

Different kinds of people find different kinds of things persuasive; I'm sure you know this. I am a polymath, not a specialist; a general practitioner, if you will. Or perhaps you'd prefer "Jack of all Trades, Master of None"! So be it. I'd consider that a compliment. But since I'm now 61 years old and have but nine years before my three-score-and-ten run out, I need to carefully allocate my remaining years; restrict my studies and activities to the areas I find most fruitful for me, my wife, my kids, my grandkids, and my students in various fields. Call me arbitrary, but I've decided to place all of pre-history out of bounds, and focus only on those obvious and fundamental things that can and have been helpful to people everywhere throughout all of recorded history.

OK, have it your way. It's clear that your pronouncements on this topic aren't based on an informed position, and thus are not in themselves interesting.

If you change your mind and actually want to go through the science in the Wiens article and the counterclaims made by Walker, I am willing to do so.