145 Replies to “What is Intelligent Design?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    What is Science? Is Intelligent Design Science? Dr. Stephen Meyer – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHawDCUyFSg

    Of personal note, I think Dr. Meyer is far too lenient in allowing that Darwinism may be considered a proper science.

    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science
    Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such:

    1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria)
    2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis
    3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’
    4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis)
    5. Darwinism hinders scientific progress (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..),

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

  2. 2
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science
    Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such:

    1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria)

    Do you have a source for more discussion of this “no rigid mathematical basis” business? I know you’ve posted this or similar links, but I can’t remember if you cited an original source for it, other than the Chaitin quote.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity – October 9, 2014
    Excerpt: “it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.”,,,
    More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90231.html

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,,
    Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    Chaitin is quoted at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof – Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods.

    On Algorithmic Specified Complexity by Robert J. Marks II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600

    As an example of the ‘mathematical fog’ that permeates Darwin’s theory, 140 leading biologists signed a letter distancing themselves from the ‘strictly Darwin model’. Some say it is “unscholarly,” “transparently wrong,” and “misguided.”

    An Evolutionary Challenge: Explaining Away Compassion, Philanthropy, and Self-Sacrifice – Denyse O’Leary – January 9, 2015
    Excerpt: E. O. Wilson is widely hailed as the founder of sociobiology (circa 1975), which expounded these theories. Sociobiology later morphed into evolutionary psychology. But then Wilson dramatically abandoned kin selection in 2010 in a Nature paper, “The evolution of eusociality,” co-authored with mathematicians. He argued that strict Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation) “provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations,” dispensing with the other theories he had promoted for decades. Over 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature, attacking the 2010 paper. Some called his new, strictly Darwin model “unscholarly,” “transparently wrong,” and “misguided.”
    What? All this is said of a Darwin-only model, the gold standard of naturalism?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92581.html

    One of the primary reasons why a rigid, testable, mathematical basis for neo-Darwinism will never be formulated is because of the insistence of Darwinists for the ‘randomness postulate’ at the base of Darwin’s theory:

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    also of note: Darwinists offering the ‘pre-Cambrian rabbit’ as a rigid falsification criteria for Darwinism in science is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian thinking is in regards to rigid science:

    Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge
    5. Testability
    What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?,,,
    The evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what would convince him that evolution was false, replied that finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rocks would do quite nicely. Such a fossil would, by standard geological dating, be out of sequence by several hundreds of millions of years. Certainly such a finding, if rigorously confirmed, would overturn the current understanding of the history of life. But it would not overturn evolution.
    Haldane’s rabbit is easily enough explained as an evolutionary convergence, in which essentially the same structure or life form evolves twice. In place of a common underlying intelligent design, evolutionists invoke evolutionary convergence whenever confronted with similar biological structures that cannot reasonably be traced back to a common evolutionary ancestor.
    So long as some unknown or unexplored evolutionary pathway might have led to the formation of some biological structure or organism, evolutionists prefer it over alternative explanations such as intelligent design. And since the unknown and unexplored allow for an infinity of loopholes, the committed evolutionist regards Darwinian and other materialist explanations of life’s origin and subsequent development as always trumping alternative explanations, regardless of the evidence.
    – By William A. Dembski

  4. 4
    daveS says:

    Thanks, I will have a look.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    JB: Very well put, as usual. KF

  6. 6
    johnnyb says:

    DaveS –

    A more apt question would be, can you *find* a rigid mathematical basis for it? I agree with Chaitin’s assessment, but it is easy enough to find out – just ask on the websites that claim that Darwinian evolution is a fact, fact, fact, and you will usually get some vague tautological statement. You might get Dennett’s dictum that anytime that you have variations, heredity, and differential fitness you will get evolution. That is *somewhat* true, but it doesn’t tell you what kind of evolution you will get (you might get devolution or total extinction).

    There is nothing in Darwinian evolutionary biology that will tell you, mathematically, how to reliably gain complex adaptations.

    Part of that is that, right now, evolutionary biology more-or-less refuses to consider questions about what complex adaptations even *are*. Irreducible Complexity is one possible definition. Chaitin proposed using variations on the halting problem for mathematical evolution. But current evolutionary biology refuses to consider it because each realistic definition usually produces outcomes that materialists, with a few, notable exceptions, don’t want to talk about.

  7. 7
    Piotr says:

    Can you guys remind me what the rigid mathematical basis for Intelligent Design is?

  8. 8
    johnnyb says:

    Piotr –

    There are several. You can read about Dembski’s original Design Inference, you can read about my formulation of irreducible complexity with computability theory, you can read about Algorithmic Specified Complexity (which is basically equivalent to the independently-derived functional information), you can read about active information in search algorithms, and how active information can be applied in biology.

    You should read some of the linked papers – it is a very fascinating subject!

  9. 9
    Piotr says:

    Johnny,

    I have read some of the linked papers before, and I don’t find anything there that could be paraded as the rigid mathematical basis of Intelligent Design. There isn’t a single equation in your article (“…further research will work out quantitatively how different kinds of features contribute to RIC…” — oh, a promissory note, thank you very much). Dembski’s probability limits are useless if you don’t know what events have produced the object in question (and we won’t know that for ID, because it’s mainly interested in the outcome, not the process, of design). “Functional Irreducibly Algorithmic Specified Complex Organisation” [edit: full name corrected], or whatever you call it, is not quantifiable even in theory, let alone practice. Maybe Kairosfocus’s “methinks it is like a fishing reel” criterion counts as rigid maths?

  10. 10
    phoenix says:

    johnnyb,

    Dembski’s ID work has been a complete bust.

    In his entire career, he’s been unable to provide even one example of biological design in nature.

  11. 11
    phoenix says:

    Piotr:

    “Functional Irreducibly Algorithmic Complex Organisation”, or whatever you call it…

    You forgot “Specified”. It’s “Functional Irreducibly Algorithmic Specified Complex Organisation.”

  12. 12
    Piotr says:

    #11 Phoenix,

    Corrected, thanks!

  13. 13
    scottH says:

    Piotr
    If ID is junk science then why do you spend so much time on this site? What does that say about you? You’re like the 9th grader hanging around the playground picking on the 6th graders.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Piotr, instead of honestly admitting that Darwinism has no rigid falsification criteria, tries to shift the burden and say that ID has no rigid falsification criteria. This simply not true. Whereas there is no experimental finding that atheists will accept as a falsification for neo-Darwinism, ID is easily falsifiable. A single molecular machine produced by what are perceived to be unguided material processes would falsify ID:

    It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_

    It is also interesting to note how dishonest some atheists have been in regards to falsely claiming that unguided material processes have produced molecular machines when in fact they have done no such thing:

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

    Here is an apt quote in regards to ID being easily falsifiable and Darwinism being essentially unfalsifiable:

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    Of supplemental note: neo-Darwinism claims that biological information is ’emergent’ from a material basis. Advances in science have falsified that fundamental neo-Darwinian claim:

    First, quantum entanglement requires a non-local, beyond space and time, cause to explain its existence:

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    And ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    And this non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/information is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale in every DNA and protein molecule:

    Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video
    https://vimeo.com/92405752

    Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain – Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija – 2006
    Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural – amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy – classical and quantum state, and (3) information – classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system.
    http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491

    That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various ‘random’ configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

    In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!

    And although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

    “The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.”
    – Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D- Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism

    Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified in its claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a reductive materialist basis.

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    Phillips, Craig & Dean – Great I Am – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhlDGS8wTeU

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    Phoenix again reveals attitude and agenda, imagining that by creating a mocking schoolyard taunt distortion of the descriptive expression, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I) he can then dismiss it and its import; that the only observed adequate cause — on trillions of cases in point — is intelligently directed configuration, aka design. Thus revealing the sort of puerile mentality we are dealing with. KF

    PS: I suggest a read here for those of a more reasonable approach:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-relevant/

  16. 16
    Piotr says:

    #13 BA77,

    The title of this thread is “What is Intelligent Design”? And in the very first comment you change the topic (capitalisation follows the original):

    What is Science?
    Is Intelligent Design Science?
    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (‘cuz, firstly, it has No Rigid Mathematical Basis)…

    OK, whatever “Darwinism” is, the present subject is Intelligent Design, not “Darwinism”. Does every discussion of Intelligent Design have to be immediately sidetracked in favour of discussing the alleged shortcomings of “Darwinism”? Is there really nothing to discuss as regards Intelligent Design itself? If you require a Real Science to have a Rigid Mathematical Basis or at least to build some quantifiable formal models, Intelligent Design Theory looks more like a Pathetic Cargo Cult.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Piotr, funny that you try to sheid Darwinism from scrutiny but fail to realize that it is in fact the SAME EXACT empirical evidence that would falsify ID and that would establish Darwinism as a proper science instead of a pseudo-science. Namely, the creation of a single molecular machine by unguided material processes.

    Go figure.

    Willful ignorance of the scientific issue at hand is no excuse for such a lapse in basic reasoning skills on your part.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    correction to 16

    Piotr, funny that you try to shield Darwinism from scrutiny by calling ID a ‘cargo cult’, but fail to realize that it is in fact the SAME EXACT empirical evidence that would falsify ID and that would establish Darwinism as a proper science instead of the pseudo-science that it is. Namely, the creation of a single molecular machine by unguided material processes.

    Go figure.

    We know for a 100% fact that Intelligence has a 100% probability of producing non-trivial functional information/complexity. Whereas no one has ever seen unguided material process produce as such!

    Willful ignorance of the scientific issue at hand is no excuse for such a lapse in basic reasoning skills on your part.

  19. 19
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    Edit:One thing about your set of links in #3 that stands out is that John Maynard Smith is the only biologist represented.

    Highfield’s statement about Maynard Smith’s chapter in a popular science book:

    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.

    is completely mooted by Maynard Smith’s book from 20 years earlier on the same subject, Evolution and the Theory of Games, which is full of equations and mathematics.

  20. 20

    Of ironic note here is that any metric that could substantiate ID as best explanation for a biological feature is the same metric that would substantiate natural processes as best explanation. The insistence that there is no valid ID metric is necessarily a simultaneous admission that there is no mathematical support for Darwinism (I.E., evolution via entirely non-intelligent processes).

    The terms “natural” (combined with selection) and “random” (combined with mutation) are ideological qualifiers that have no scientific place in evolutionary theory. To my knowledge, such selection and such mutation have never been shown in any mathematical or demonstrative way as being sufficient to generate, even in principle, the functioning diversity of highly complex biological technology we find in life.

    Darwinism is an ideological assumption, nothing more.

  21. 21
    Piotr says:

    #16 BA77

    “Darwinism” (I suppose you mean modern evolutionary biology) is not about the creation of molecular machines. It’s about heritable changes in the living world, over many generations, in different time scales (from varying allele frequencies to speciation and phylogeny). Evolutionary theory uses lots of rigid mathematical models which yield useful predictions. Ask Joe Felsenstein, who has spent all his long academic career doing fundamental reseach in maths-rich areas such as theoretical population genetics, coalescent theory, phylogenetic inference, etc. I’d be happy to discuss such stuff if it didn’t mean veering off topic. To refresh your memory, the topic is: What [if anything] is Intelligent Design?

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, I did not claim that Darwinism has no math in it. I claimed that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis to empirically test against so as to potentially falsify it as other overarching theories of science have.

    Big difference!

    Moreover, whenever the mathematics of population genetics are applied to Darwinian claims, in any kind of rigorous manner, neo-Darwinism is found to be falsified:

    Biological Information – Purifying Selection (Mendel’s Accountant) 12-20-2014 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJZDsQG4kQ

    Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008
    Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
    Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn.....Theory.pdf

    Biological Information – Mutation Count & Synergistic Epistasis (mutation accumulation) 1-17-2015 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gdoZk_NbmU

    Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 – video playlist
    (Behe – Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

    Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle – “Haldane’s Ratchet” – Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford – 2013
    Excerpt: We then perform large-scale experiments to examine the feasibility of the ape-to-man scenario over a six million year period. We analyze neutral and beneficial fixations separately (realistic rates of deleterious mutations could not be studied in deep time due to extinction). Using realistic parameter settings we only observe a few hundred selection-induced beneficial fixations after 300,000 generations (6 million years). Even when using highly optimal parameter settings (i.e., favorable for fixation of beneficials), we only see a few thousand selection-induced fixations. This is significant because the ape-to-man scenario requires tens of millions of selective nucleotide substitutions in the human lineage.
    Our empirically-determined rates of beneficial fixation are in general agreement with the fixation rate estimates derived by Haldane and ReMine using their mathematical analyses. We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as “Haldane’s Dilemma” is very real.
    Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon “Haldane’s Ratchet”.
    http://media.wix.com/ugd/a704d.....fa9c20.pdf

  23. 23
    daveS says:

    BA77,
    To clarify my statement from #18, if I’m not mistaken, all of the quotes in your #3 are interpretations by non-biologists. I don’t see any actual biologists complaining about the lack of a rigid mathematical basis for “Darwinism”.

    I will get back to your other sources later today.

  24. 24
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    daveS, I did not claim that Darwinism has no math in it. I claimed that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis to empirically test against so as to potentially falsify it as other overarching theories of science have.

    Big difference!

    Ok, but what is the point of including the Highfield quote in your links? I don’t see how it advances your case at all, when Maynard Smith’s earlier book is readily available.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Piotr claims:

    “Darwinism” (I suppose you mean modern evolutionary biology) is not about the creation of molecular machines.

    So you say that neo-Darwinism, i.e. the modern synthesis. does not explain the creation of molecular machines????

    Really???

    That’s good to know cause Darwinism would have a ‘whole lot of explaining’ to do if it did try to demonstrate molecular machines could arise by unguided material processes:

    Venter: Life Is Robotic Software – July 15, 2012
    Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter.
    http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/

    No, Scientists in Darwin’s Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close – Casey Luskin – June 6, 2013
    Excerpt: We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s.,,,
    But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
    (Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....72871.html

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, apparently John Maynard Smith himself did not consider any of the equations within population genetics as one of ‘the most powerful equations of science’

    from my cite:

    “John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.”

    daveS, I can see you are sinking back into being severely disingenuous to the evidence, so I rest my case and let the unbiased readers judge for themselves who is being reasonable and who is playing games.

  27. 27
    Piotr says:

    #22 BA77

    I found this by Paul Giem:

    Carbon-14 dating was the most fascinating method of all. Fossil carbon, with a conventional age of up to 350 million years, repeatedly dated to less than 55,000 radiocarbon years. This is compatible with a date of as low as 4,000 years in real time (the date of the Flood would have to be determined on other grounds). It is incompatible with an age of millions of years, or even realistically with an age of over 100,000 years or so. It basically forces one into accepting a short chronology for life on earth.

    No-one capable of uttering such nonsense in public can be trusted about anything that has to do with science. I don’t know if he wrote it honestly (which would make him ignorant) or with an intent to deceive his readers. Either way it makes him look bad. As for Rupe & Sanford, let them submit their paper to a serious journal and see the reviewers’ reactions.

  28. 28
    Piotr says:

    BA77

    So you say that neo-Darwinism, i.e. the modern synthesis. does not explain the creation of molecular machines????

    Really???

    Really!!!!! Creation is for creationists. Evolutionary theory studies and explains the evolution of such structures (what happens to them over time in different organisms). How they (or rather their distant precursors) arose in the first place is an interesting question, but it belongs more to OOL studies than to evolutionary theory proper.

    By the way, how does ID explain “the creation of molecular machines”? The designer designed them, full stop?

  29. 29
    johnnyb says:

    Aurelio Smith –

    A good prediction coming from a variety of formalisms is that when mutations do produce complex adaptations, it will be because of mechanisms within the cell being there to produce that change. This has been born out in many cases.

    Active Information is a great formalism, as it allows one to measure how many bits of information an organism contributes to its own evolution. For example, in the immune response, the cell contributes approximately 66 bits of information to its own evolution.

    Piotr –

    You can criticize me for not creating a quantitative model if you wish, but just like you have qualitative and quantitative chemistry, why is it necessarily a problem for mathematics to be qualitative? There is sufficient detail present to apply the formalism. Find me a counter-example! If I am wrong, that should be easy enough.

    If you must have it quantitative, off the cuff, I would say that a RIC feature moves to essentially an exponential probability on the size of the minimum viable feature. That is, if the minimum viable feature takes 12 bits to code, the probability is approximately 1 in 2^12.

    Of course, while dismissing the mathematical formalisms, you ignored all of the papers and books that provide mathematical definitions!

    Now, certainly, all of them are open to criticism. But find me something remotely similar for the ability of Darwinism to produce complex adaptations.

    “Dembski’s ID work has been a complete bust.”

    I disagree. I use it regularly.

    “In his entire career, he’s been unable to provide even one example of biological design in nature.”

    First of all, why is that the criteria? ID is about design qua design, not specifically design in nature. His books are replete with examples. Secondly, he is not a biologist – why should it be his specific role to apply his concepts in biology?

    I think that Active Information is a great tool for biologists, and can be readily adapted for experimental use. I show a simplified method here, but I have a more generalized method in an unpublished paper.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Lynn Margulis Criticizes Neo-Darwinism in Discover Magazine (Updated) – Casey Luskin April 12, 2011
    Excerpt: Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathemetized all of it–changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, “You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said, “Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said, “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get grant money.” –
    Lynn Margulis – biologist
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45691.html

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    So Piotr, according to you, neo-Darwinian evolution explains survival of the fittest but not arrival of the fittest? But why was Darwin’s book titled ‘Origin’ of Species instead of just being called ‘Survival’ of Species? 🙂

    As to your complaint that you can’t trust anything that Dr. Paul Giem says because he is a YEC, all I would ask you to do is please don’t look in the mirror because I certainly don’t trust anything anyone says who says that he believes that unguided material processes can produce the human brain in ANY amount of time:

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    Component placement optimization in the brain – 1994
    As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy … the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length.
    http://www.jneurosci.org/conte.....8.abstract

    The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain – Dec. 17, 2010
    Excerpt: In recent years, a growing body of evidence shows that photons play an important role in the basic functioning of cells. Most of this evidence comes from turning the lights off and counting the number of photons that cells produce. It turns out, much to many people’s surprise, that many cells, perhaps even most, emit light as they work.
    In fact, it looks very much as if many cells use light to communicate. There’s certainly evidence that bacteria, plants and even kidney cells communicate in this way. Various groups have even shown that rats brains are literally alight thanks to the photons produced by neurons as they work.,,,
    ,,, earlier this year, one group showed that spinal neurons in rats can actually conduct light.
    ,, Rahnama and co point out that neurons contain many light sensitive molecules, such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores and aromatic amino acids. In particular, mitochondria, the machines inside cells which produce energy, contain several prominent chromophores.
    The presence of light sensitive molecules makes it hard to imagine how they might not be not influenced by biophotons.,,,
    They go on to suggest that the light channelled by microtubules can help to co-ordinate activities in different parts of the brain. It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,,
    (So) It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....the-brain/

  32. 32
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA77

    So Piotr, according to you, neo-Darwinian evolution explains survival of the fittest but not arrival of the fittest?

    I thought that was interesting. Apparently, the origin of molecular machines is outside of the scope of evolution because it’s an OOL issue. Molecular machines are defining features of organisms, so the evolution of organisms should be OOL issues also. That gives evolution nothing to talk about – which really is the way it should be.

    The other interesting point I learned is that any time the term “created” is used, that means a creationist must have been involved involved, because “Creation is for creationists”. I hadn’t seen that one before now.

    I did hear Richard Dawkins refer to ‘what we know about creatures’ in a recent video and so I admit I found that humorous. But I didn’t realize the issue extended to the word ‘created’.

  33. 33
    drc466 says:

    Piotr @27,

    Okay, I’ll bite – why is the observation that C14 testing in coal beds presumed to be hundreds of millions of years by conventional dating always detects significant amounts of C14 that should not be there, “nonsense”? Either
    1) C14 is from contamination, in which case all C14 dating is called into question.
    2) Every C14 test that has ever been performed, that detected C14 where it shouldn’t be, was invalid.
    3) Giem is lying and there aren’t really any C14 tests that detected C14 in coal beds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old.
    Giem’s point is, obviously, that if you take the results of C14 testing at face value, coal beds clearly indicate a short chronology for life on earth. Which is true – to adhere to the evolutionary timeframe, C14 testing must be dismissed, ignored, or explained away, not accepted at face value.

    Bonus question:
    Why is it that Evolutionists always have to explain away the results (“Here’s why the C14 levels aren’t what we expect”) rather than have the evidence confirm their theories (“See? there’s no C14, exactly as predicted!”)?

    (P.S. This is another example of why arguing with evolutionists is so annoying – “hey, let me pull a quote that shows this guy has YEC sympathies, so I can yell ‘Creationist’ and act like that means everything they ever said has been discredited!”)

    (P.P.S. – I realize this is way off-topic, but in my defense Piotr started it with his attack on Dr. Giem’s credibility)

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    Evolutionary theory studies and explains the evolution of such structures (what happens to them over time in different organisms). How they (or rather their distant precursors) arose in the first place is an interesting question, but it belongs more to OOL studies than to evolutionary theory proper.

    Piotr, how life originated is directly correlated to how it evolved. If the OoL = design then we would say that organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design. It is only if blind and undirected processes produced life would we say they are responsible for its diversity.

    Why evos choose to remain ignorant of that is beyond me.

  35. 35
    Joe says:

    keiths:

    Dembski’s ID work has been a complete bust.

    All unguided evolutionary work has been a complete bust.

    In his entire career, he’s been unable to provide even one example of biological design in nature.

    In its entire history no one has been able to provide even one example of it producing any multi-protein machinery. And thanks to evolutionary biology we don’t even know what makes an organism what it is! The most basic question in biology remains unanswered thanks to evolutionary biology.

  36. 36
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    daveS, apparently John Maynard Smith himself did not consider any of the equations within population genetics as one of ‘the most powerful equations of science’

    And yet the chapter is in the book. Why do you think that is?

  37. 37
    johnnyb says:

    Aurelio Smith –

    I think such a discussion about Active Information is hugely important, but would hate to waste it on a post titled “What is Intelligent Design”. Why don’t we talk off-list and we can do a more front-pagey thing where proper criticisms can be better aired? Email me at jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com

  38. 38
    Piotr says:

    drc466,

    Okay, I’ll bite – why is the observation that C14 testing in coal beds presumed to be hundreds of millions of years by conventional dating always detects significant amounts of C14 that should not be there, “nonsense”?

    The half-life of C-14 is 5,730 years. That means that after 50,000 years only about 0.24% of the original radiocarbon content is left in organic material. For the result of dating to make sense, the count-rate for the sample being dated has to be distinguishable from the background level. The usual criterion is that the count-rate should be at least 2*sigma greater than zero. If the count-rate is below 2*sigma, the laboratory may quote “a minimum age” (e.g., 55,000 years), which in practice means that the age of the sample may be anything between that value and infinity. The upper limit for standard radiocarbon dating is 40-50 thousand years depending on the background count-rate (which varies from laboratory to laboratory). More sophisticated measurement techniques can extend the limit to 60-75 thousand years, but for any older sample the result of radiocarbon dating is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

    Now suppose you send a sample of fossil carbon to a laboratory. They get some positive signal smaller than double sigma. They add 2*sigma to it, put it in the age equation and get some number which they quote in the report as the minimum age (approximately equal to the dating limit). If no maximum age is quoted, or if it’s quoted as “background” or “infinite”, you know that your sample is too old to be datable by C-14. It may be 100,000, 1000,000 or 50,000,000 years old — there’s no telling. Radiocarbon dating doesn’t work for such ages; you have to use some other dating method. If, however, you are scientifically illiterate, and you haven’t read the description of the procedure on the laboratory’s website, you may mistake the “minimum age” quoted by the laboratory (which really means, “Sorry, mate, we can’t date it reliably”) for a real radiocarbon age. It’s still worse if you have read the description, and you do know about the age limit but you pretend that the sample has been incorrectly dated. That’s malice, not just ignorance.

  39. 39
    Joe says:

    Piotr, did you understand what Paul Giem wrote? He said the sample showed it was less than 55,000 years old. That would mean that more than 0.24% C14 was found.

    Fossil carbon, with a conventional age of up to 350 million years, repeatedly dated to less than 55,000 radiocarbon years.

    That means they got positive signal greater than double sigma.

  40. 40
    Andre says:

    Science deniers aka materialists say the darnest things. This thread is an absolute treat. The gems they conjure up has me in stiches.

    P.S. This post is what ID is so I’m right on topic.

  41. 41
    Piotr says:

    johnnyb

    You can criticize me for not creating a quantitative model if you wish, but just like you have qualitative and quantitative chemistry, why is it necessarily a problem for mathematics to be qualitative?

    I have got nothing against qualitative arguments, especially at the exploratory stage, before reliable formal models can be developed. I was, however, responding to BA77’s claim that “Darwnism” is a pseudoscience because it has no “rigid mathematical basis” (which you supported in comment #6). If he demands such rigour of any science, let’s see how Intelligent Design fits the bill.

  42. 42
    kairosfocus says:

    JB, I strongly advise against publishing an email online, especially in a controversial forum, unless it is a throwaway. But then you are the expert IT person. KF

  43. 43
    Piotr says:

    #41 Joe,

    That means they got positive signal greater than double sigma.

    Nope. If the laboratory’s upper age limit was within the usual range (40,000-50,000 years), they could have dated the sample “repeatedly” at, say, 40,000 years or more. The minimum date would be below 55,000 years for nearly all commercial laboratories. I’d like to see the actual laboratory report rather than Paul Giem’s interpretation of it.

    By the way, if you are striving for precision, after 55,000 years only 0.13% C-14 is left.

  44. 44
    Joe says:

    Piotr:

    If the laboratory’s upper age limit was within the usual range (40,000-50,000 years), they could have dated the sample “repeatedly” at, say, 40,000 years or more.

    If pigs could fly. You have no idea what they found.

    I’d like to see the actual laboratory report rather than Paul Giem’s interpretation of it.

    Perhaps you should shut up about it until you do.

  45. 45
    Piotr says:

    Joe,

    If pigs could fly. You have no idea what they found.

    If they had found something sensational (say, 4230+/-50 BP repeatedly reported for samples of anthracite), I’m sure YEC creationists world-wide would quote the exact figure every time radiocarbon is mentioned. Something as vague as “less than 55,000 radiocarbon years” can only mean that the reported date was somewhere close to the upper limit of the method (as expected).

  46. 46
    franklin says:

    Piotr

    I’d like to see the actual laboratory report rather than Paul Giem’s interpretation of it.

    He (giem) is likely referring to the RATE project data which collected data so fatally flawed as to be useless for anything or anyone (outside of YEC).

    When they had the samples analyzed by a AMS lab (in Australia I believe) they decided to do it on the cheap and opted for no sample process controls. Instead they decided to use the AMS sample process controls generated years prior to the sample processing done for the RATE project submitted samples. A fatal error for any analytical procedure.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

    and we have this from a Christian web site:

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/educat.....ate-ri.htm

    The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception.

  47. 47
    Joe says:

    Piotr, YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist, so YEC creationists is like an ATM machine or a PIN number.

    Also get something to eat before the wind blows you away. Or is super skinny “in” in Poland?

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Piotr, you state:

    “If he (BA77) demands such rigour of any science, let’s see how Intelligent Design fits the bill.”

    although I’ve already laid out the empirical evidence that would falsify ID, (1 molecular machine produced by unguided material processes), and although johnnyb already touched on the rigor of Dembski’s ‘active information’ to accurately measure information conservation in biological processes,,,

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-557955

    ,,,instead of going deeper into that, I would instead like to compare the rigor of each hypothesis to make successful predictions in science.

    Lakatos tipped toed around the fact that Darwinism has no demarcation criteria,,,

    A Philosophical Question…Does Evolution have a Hard Core?
    Some Concluding Food for Thought
    In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24)

    “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.”

    So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off…
    http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosm.....ore_pg.htm

    Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a bad theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:

    Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) –
    “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosop.....cript.aspx

    In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”.
    Almost 20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that

    “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....27s_theory

    Dr. Hunter comments here:

    “When their expectations turn out to be false, evolutionists respond by adding more epicycles to their theory that the species arose spontaneously from chance events. But that doesn’t mean the science has confirmed evolution as Velasco suggests. True, evolutionists have remained steadfast in their certainty, but that says more about evolutionists than about the empirical science.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    To further follow Lakatos’s lead that good theories in science will make successful predictions and bad theories in science will generate bad predictions (and epicycles), we find in a head to head comparison of major successful predictions in science, that it is not even a close contest.

    Compared to materialism, and compared to Darwinian evolution in particular, Intelligent Design, and Theism in particular, ‘fits the bill’ quite well as a rigorous, and successful, science thank you very much.

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin – (video)
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

  49. 49
    drc466 says:

    Piotr @40,

    So, basically, you’re going with “explain away” by hoping that the measured amounts of C14 are so small that they are essentially “noise” in the detection of C14.

    Sorry, not the case. I won’t go into the details, but I will point you to the actual amounts detected in various materials. You might find the link interesting, because it references a couple of studies that were done by Evolutionists that were also trying to “explain away” the C14 results being too high.
    Measurable C14 in Fossilized Organic Materials

    Again – if you take the amounts measured at face value, they don’t match evolutionary timeframes. Your attempt to explain away the amounts, for example, (“double sigma”), only indicates that confidence in the accuracy of the date is too low to be definitive. It doesn’t refute the fact that the amount is a) measurable, b) significantly greater than minimal detection levels of the equipment used to detect C14, and c) incompatible with evolutionary dating methods that predict the C14 levels should be much lower.

    To use an analogy – if all of the water in a gallon jug had evaporated except a millimeter, it might be below the “double sigma” level for determining age based on rate of evaporation – but it is still well above the nanometer accuracy of the measuring device, and is certainly more than evolutionary theory says should be there (completely dry).

    I still haven’t seen any reason why you would accuse Dr. Giem of “nonsense” just because you don’t personally accept the C14 measurement results at face value. Certainly not “malice”.

  50. 50
    PaV says:

    Johnnyb:

    Nice article. Concise, meaty and easy to follow.

  51. 51
    franklin says:

    drc466

    Sorry, not the case. I won’t go into the details, but I will point you to the actual amounts detected in various materials.

    You have forgotten to highlight the complete lack of sample processing controls. Without that data to characterize the extent of contamination produced via processing the sample for analysis everything that follows is nonsense.

    to repeat:

    The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception.

  52. 52
    Mapou says:

    Nicely written article. I must say that there seems to be some confusion about the difference between intelligence and consciousness. However, it does not take away from the power of the arguments. Here’s something that caught my attention.

    While Dembski’s method is too mathematically intense to review, a simple way of explaining it is to say that intelligent causes produce logical patterns that are independent of the underlying local physics.

    Seriously, I think it is time to extend this definition. Intelligent design also produces a hierarchical organization or classification over time. However, this tree of life is not strictly nested as dictated by the Darwinist doctrine of common descent.

    Intelligent designers are free to reuse designs from different parts of the tree. This is what is called multiple or lateral inheritance in design and engineering. It is analogous to horizontal gene transfer in biology. The good news for ID is that this is exactly what is observed in both the fossil and genetic records.

  53. 53
    drc466 says:

    franklin,

    As your “argument” hinges entirely on a baseless claim of “lack of processing controls”, and a quote from ASA, I will ignore the former and simply point out that the content of the second is self-refuting. The bold-faced content of your quote is a deceptive misrepresentation of what the RATE project actually says – while the RATE report is intellectually honest enough to admit that not all of the empirical evidence provides direct evidence for a young-earth, it most decidely does NOT state that those individual problem areas mean that nothing in the RATE report provides scientific support for a young earth view. Therefore, this ASA quote engages in the exact type of deception it claims to oppose, and should be accorded the lack of respect due such deception. Additionally, while they claim not to “oppose [YEC]”, they authored an entire document solely for the purpose of trying to discredit the RATE report. Additional cause for lack of respect for ASA lacking the honesty of the RATE report they do a hit-job on.

    Regardless, and ASA’s blanket misrepresentation notwithstanding, nothing in their disreputable statement (or hit-job on RATE) provides empirical refutation of Dr. Giem’s assertation that raw measurements of C14 in organic materials disagree with evolutionary timescale predictions. There is certainly nothing there that would make his statement “nonsense”, per Piotr.

    Now, if you would like to accuse the self-proclaimed Christian organization ASA of intellectual dishonesty, I would be happy to agree with you.

    (Post-edit: By the way, I realize that the standard evolutionist view on empirical evidence is contemptuous indifference, but you do realize that just yelling “contamination” and providing mathematical analysis showing something is “possible”, doesn’t actually comprise a “refutation”, right? A “refutation” would be to go sample the coal yourselves, applying proper “processing controls”, and demonstrating that coal from Mya coal beds always yields C14 rates below minimal detection and contamination levels. If you don’t want to do that, or you don’t feel it is necessary, that’s fine – but until you do, you haven’t refuted anything. And you certainly haven’t proven all measurements that show the contrary are “nonsense” – it is your claim of “contamination” that is hypothetical, and his claim of measurable C14 that is empirical).

  54. 54
    Mung says:

    From the linked:

    Intelligent Design, to put it most simply, is the study of patterns related to intelligent causes.

    There are no intelligent causes. Just study the posts of the ID Deniers and you will see this is true.

  55. 55
    Piotr says:

    Regardless, and ASA’s blanket misrepresentation notwithstanding, nothing in their disreputable statement (or hit-job on RATE) provides empirical refutation of Dr. Giem’s assertation that raw measurements of C14 in organic materials disagree with evolutionary timescale predictions. There is certainly nothing there that would make his statement “nonsense”, per Piotr.

    You are aware, aren’t you, that the radiocarbon method is not the only dating technique? And that Steve Austin attempted to undermine the K-Ar method in a similar way, but this time picking samples known in advance to be too young to be datable by that method (so that no sensible miminum date could be established? Can you see a pattern in those “honest” tricks?

    http://noanswersingenesis.org......ite_kh.htm

    I have a set of digital kitchen scales which can be used to weigh stuff from 0 to 2 kg; its accuracy is about 1 g. I don’t use it to prove that nothing on Earth weighs more than 2 kg or less than 1 g.

  56. 56
    franklin says:

    drc466

    As your “argument” hinges entirely on a baseless claim of “lack of processing controls”, and a quote from ASA, I will ignore the former and simply point out that the content of the second is self-refuting.

    My argument hinges on the facts of the presented research. The RATE manuscripts clearly indicate the lack of sample processing controls as well as using sample processing control data that was collected several years prior to the RATE sample analysis. It is all well documented and if you don’t believe me in that regard you can either read the manuscripts themselves or ask Paul Giem and he can tell you the same thing.

    Additionally, while they claim not to “oppose [YEC]“, they authored an entire document solely for the purpose of trying to discredit the RATE report.

    Why should they not object to crap science as everyone else should do as well.

    A “refutation” would be to go sample the coal yourselves, applying proper “processing controls”, and demonstrating that coal from Mya coal beds always yields C14 rates below minimal detection and contamination levels.

    You do realize that this is not the first time those materials have been dated (see linked article below for details and references). It just so happens that the RATE data produced data contrary to all the other dates for these samples. The RATE project was also the only one who included no sample processing controls to account for known methods of contaminant introduction as well as a failure to characterize the instrument background as well.

    We also have Kirk Bertsche:

    Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche’s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design.

    whom I would believe to know his way around AMS C14 dating methodology.

    He says this:

    Summary

    Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

    While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to“intrinsic radiocarbon” raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?

    These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon” but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon” will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible … level of 14C”

    found here :
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

    I encourage you to read the linked article by Dr. Bertsche.

  57. 57
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    I want to bring this to your attention. The source you cited is bias….

    Why?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....nists.html

    A supposed scientific website giving you pointers on how to debate Creationists. What’s up with that mate?

    Your source can be dismissed as nonsense.

  58. 58
    PaV says:

    Piotr:

    Dembski’s probability limits are useless if you don’t know what events have produced the object in question

    But we do know when it comes to biology: random mutations.

    And we even know probabilities of occurrence for those mutations.

  59. 59
    Paul Giem says:

    Piotr,

    I notice that you have read my very short summary of what I see as the evidence. If you want actual numbers to back up that summary, you can go here which will give you a fairly comprehensive list of the data on carbon-14 in fossil carbon at that time (and to my knowledge the most comprehensive at the time–if you have more data I would appreciate knowing about it).

    In comment #51 drc466 has already given another reference, which is largely repeated here. Franklin and I have had a long discussion about this research, that can be found starting here and continuing here (regarding the presence of carbon-14 in Baumgardner’s data, franklin disagrees with his handpicked expert, and has quoted him selectively above). After you have read that, so you know what the data actually are, it might be interesting to have a conversation about carbon-14 in coal. I am well aware of the meaning of “>40,000 radiocarbon years”, and assure you that most of the AMS data do not fall into that category.

    And recently, there are new data from dinosaurs, which have carbon-14 contents that put them clearly above the standard background.

    One last point. This sidebar got started when you used my belief (based on evidence, some of which I was instrumental in obtaining) that carbon-14 in fossil material argued for short age, as a means to discount everything I said. That’s called an ad hominem argument, and as I’m sure you know is not valid. I could be wrong on YEC, but correct on loss-of-function versus gain-of-function mutations. bornagain77 cited me, even though, AFAICT, he disagrees with some of my YEC views. And in that video I was citing (at length) an article by Michael Behe, and his article had nothing arguing for the short age of the earth in it (he doesn’t even believe that!). If, unlike ba77, you don’t like videos, and wish to interact with the article itself, it can be found here (the reference is cited near the beginning of the video). Informed commentary is always preferable to uninformed commentary.

  60. 60
    Clarice says:

    johnnyb posed the question: “What is Intelligent Design?”

    According to William Dembski, ID advocate, founder of this website, and often appealed to as an ID authority by other ID advocates:

    “My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.”

    “If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e., the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.”

    “Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him.”

    “Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God.”

    “The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ…. And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view…. It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.”

    “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

    “This is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That’s really what is driving me.”

    “I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed…And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done – and he’s not getting it.”

    “Theism (whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) holds that God by wisdom created the world. The origin of the world and its subsequent ordering thus results from the designing activity of an intelligent agent—God.”

    “Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

    Would any of the ID advocates here be willing to do a walk through, in detail, of how, when, and where “Christ”, “Jesus”, and “God” designed and produced (created) the Earth and all of its life forms?

  61. 61
    Piotr says:

    #61 Paul,

    I am familiar with your linked texts, as well as standard literature on radiocarbon dating, where the limitations of the method are laid out and the background problem discussed. Instead of an assurance, I would appreciate the actual laboratory datings with error bars. Can you direct me to the “new data from dinosaurs” with C-14 levels above the standard background? Unless you mean this:

    http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

    (in which case you needn’t bother).

    I also find it disturbing that in your “Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon content” paper you say this:

    Second (and less legitimately), if a short (or a long) age for life on Earth is philosophically ruled out, no amount of evidence matters.

    I see. So philosophical (and, I suppose, theological) considerations override any amount of scientific evidence?

  62. 62
    Andre says:

    Piotr

    In your case it does, you’re ignore all the evidence and clinging to your philosophical views. Follow your own advice for once and be disturbed about why you cling to your dogma and are completely unwilling to accept the evidence that materialism is nonsense!

  63. 63
    Andre says:

    I have my reservations about YEC, at this point I’m not convinced it to be true yet, but some recent scientific findings are making it very difficult to ignore YEC or to discard it out of hand.

    The soft tissue finds in Dinosaur fossils and the recent discovery that the speed of light is not constant does make me uncomfortable with the possibility that this place might not be as old as we think, add to that the fact that written language is only about 5000 – 6000 years old and the genetic bottleneck of between 5000 – 10 000 years and the case for YEC is not in tatters or easily dismissed as some might think. On this one I will have to be open to the outcome not attached to it.

  64. 64
    Paul Giem says:

    Piotr (#63),

    You are not familiar with my linked texts, as if you had read the first linked text, you would have noted a table summarizing the data, with “actual laboratory ratings with error bars”, or perhaps more accurately given standard deviations, copied (and in some cases, which are noted, estimated from graphs) from the original literature, which is cited so you can check the reportage yourself.

    The link you cite does not appear to have any raw data. I am rather thinking of the report made to the American Geophysical Union and the Asia Oceania Geophysical Society in 2012 in Singapore. The authors kindly sent me the original data after I e-mailed them. You may or may not agree with their interpretation (I disagree with certain aspects of it), but their data demand an explanation. (Yes, I did a video entitled The Missing Presentation on this.)

    You quoted me as saying, “Second (and less legitimately), if a short (or a long) age for life on Earth is philosophically ruled out, no amount of evidence matters.” You then comment, “I see. So philosophical (and, I suppose, theological) considerations override any amount of scientific evidence?”

    You completely misunderstand my position. Notice that I said “(and less legitimately)”. In my opinion philosophical and theological considerations should not override any amount of scientific evidence. I am curious as to why you read it as saying the opposite of what I meant. (I might be wrong, but that is my present opinion.)

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    Clarice,

    I see you have popped up here as well with much the same line of argument.

    Pardon a repetition by clipping, of what I pointed out in the AS vs evidence thread:

    __________________

    >> While much of the above is rather tangential to this thread (which responds to a science, worldviews and cultural agendas theme and accusation of irrationality targetting today’s target of the daily two-minute hate, as evolutionary materialist ideology these days typically dresses in a lab coat as opposed to the philosophical garb of Plato’s day . . . ), some notes.

    I write such in hopes that you will examine them, instead of filtering them out and dismissing them through being locked up in some ideological scheme or other.

    The following will probably sound strange but I think on what you have posted is needed:

    1: The design inference proper, is about inferring design as process on empirically reliable tested signs, as opposed to inferring the identity or nature of relevant candidate designers.

    2: The positive evidence associated with that abductive inference to best current explanation as a form of inductive reasoning, for example include the only observed adequate cause of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I), and the linked analysis of sol system or observed cosmos scale blind chance and necessity search of configuration spaces for the describing info once it is beyond 500 – 1,000 bits.

    3: The verdict here is that on a trillion member database of observed cases FSCO/I is reliably produced by intelligently directed configuration (= design), and design is the only plausible cause, so FSCO/I — among other such — is shown to be a highly reliable sign of design as causal process.

    4: Thus, we are epistemically and logically entitled to infer from observed sign to its empirically and analytically associated cause, design as process.

    5: This particularly applies to two main cases. Historically, first and foremost, the fine tuning of the observed cosmos that sets up a world in which C-Chemistry, aqueous medium, protein using cell based life is enabled.

    6: Secondly, to the FSCO/I rich features of such life, from its origins and across major body plan origins to that of our own, including our peculiar mental, linguistic and moral characteristics.

    7: As the OP points out, once we make a claim A and hold it warranted, that leads to, why so. Thence, B as grounds. Thereafter, C, D, . . . So, we face infinite regress, circularity or else finitely remote first plausibles able to hold their ground on comparative difficulties.

    8: This ties directly to a reasonable understanding of knowledge: well warranted, credibly true (thus, inter alia reliable . . . ) belief.

    9: Unless one accepts and trusts an item, K, it is not a candidate for knowledge in a world of knowing subjects, S1, S2, . . . Sn including ourselves.

    10: For some Sj to know K, K needs to be accepted with grounds that it is well warranted, and credibly true (thus, inter alia reliable . . . ); albeit perhaps open to correction. (Though, there are certain foundational self-evident plumbline truths such as first principles of right reason stemming from things having distinct identity and the Royce proposition, error exists, or the fact of conscious rational contemplativeness, that are self-evident and thus are standards to judge other things by. What is self-evident will be true, will be seen as true once properly understood, and as necessarily true on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial.)

    11: In this context, we all have clusters of start-point first plausibles that define our worldviews and so must live by faith, but such ideally will be well-informed, anchored on evidence with plumbline first truths that keep things aligned, meeting the comparative difficulties tests (factual adequacy, coherence, balanced explanatory power), and so is a responsible, reasonable faith-point.

    12: this is as opposed to a sense of “faith” that is a commonplace among the schooled classes of our day, faith as blind beliefs clung to without regard for evidence as a blind leap to have some subjective anchor-point in a world on the other side of the ugly gulch between subjective inner world and whatever is as things in themselves.

    13: From F H Bradley on, it has been pointed out, first, that postulating such an ugly gulch that tries to deny knowability of the outer world, itself implies strong knowledge claims regarding that world and is thus self-referentially incoherent.

    14: A sounder base, is to accept first plausibles with plumbline first truths, and to use the pivot, error exists. This is undeniably true and self evident. It is a case of truth and of knowledge to utter certainty. So, schemes that would deny or dismiss such are decisively undermined by counter-example.

    15: One of the issues in the thread and OP above as well as the background debates, is evidence. Wikipedia provides a useful in a nutshell, testifying against known interest on the force of the matter:

    Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

    In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the “facts of the case.” Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case.

    Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

    In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.

    16: Thus, evidence will include observations, empirical findings, testimony and record [including that of experimenters and journals etc], first truths, logical inferences on such that are not readily apparent, and more broadly, associated chains of claimed warrant that present such.

    17: And while an explanation in the abstract is not equal to evidence, inference to best explanation on comparative difficulties across alternatives that has led to identification and warrant of a given explanation as best thus far, is evidence.

    18: In short, we need to make explicit acquaintance with abductive inference to best explanation as a major feature of scientific and general inductive reasoning.

    19: In actuality we have invisible rays that are information-bearing all the time, we can them radio waves. Which, are used in remote control, and thus may be embedded in FSCO/I rich irreducibly complex systems. And, until we detect and decipher such, we may well see a mysterious seeming guidance from nowhere visible.

    20: Such a case should give us pause before reverting to strawman caricatures soaked in snidely dismissive or demonising ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion.

    In that light, we can refocus the point in this thread.

    One of the major worldviews in our civiliation os ethical theism, but al too many a priori evolutionary materialists dressed up in lab coats and their fellow travellers, would wish to deride and dismiss such as inherently irrational or even delusional, emotionally clinging to imaginary crutches without evidence, and being a menace to progress.

    That such is a strawmannish sterotype that feeds polarisation and bigotry should be patent, and is further supported by an extension of the above.

    That is, ethical theism is a legitimate and far from blind worldview, once we look at the cumulative force of a convergent cluster of evidence and argument with associated logic. And, in the OP I particularly took time to use the observed cosmos as key evidence no 1, on the nature and origin/source of being through ontological considerations.

    A root necessary being is a serious option.

    Then, with the moral issue that we find ourselves under the government of OUGHT, this points to a world foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT. Where after centuries of debates, only one serious candidate exists: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of service by doing the good, and of ultimate loyalty and allegiance, i.e. worship.

    Not, as a matter of blind adherence to what we may read in books from classical times, or associated traditions of worship, but as a consequence of worldviews analysis through philosophy that inter alia will reckon with scientific evidence that points to design.

    And, as this blog also exists for the wider, worldviews and cultural agenda issues, such is a suitable topic to be reflected on.

    Where also the fact that after two weeks or so, we find advocates of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller views unable and/or utterly unwilling to engage the matter on the merits, speaks loud volumes indeed.

    And, not in their favour. >>
    _________________

    I trust you can distinguish between a scientific investigation and a broader worldviews oriented discussion that uses findings from such investigations. If you do not, you run a serious risk of grand out of context citation and resulting snip-snipe tactics. Which, I believe obtains for some of what you have done above with WmAD.

    Who, BTW, is not blindly cite as holy writ. Insofar as he holds any authority it is hat of being a pioneering thinker and analyst, no stronger than his underlying facts, analysis and reasoning.

    As a very simple example, I find that 500 – 1,000 bits makes a better basis for the threshold of sufficient complexity in FSCO/I to infer design, and that is why I use it rather than the 500 bits WmAD uses or has used. Likewise, in looking at search for search, I tend to point to how a search is a subset of the set of subsets of a set of cardinality W [ignoring repetitions of elements in such sets], thus comes from the resulting set of cardinality 2^W. With W = 10^150 – 10^301, 2^ W is calculator smoking territory, so a hoped for blind search for a golden search is hopeless.

    And, so forth.

    KF

  66. 66
    kairosfocus says:

    Dr Giem, well said. KF

  67. 67
    Box says:

    Piotr:

    No-one capable of uttering such nonsense in public can be trusted about anything that has to do with science. I don’t know if he wrote it honestly (which would make him ignorant) or with an intent to deceive his readers. Either way it makes him look bad.

    This is actually a compliment, since it comes from someone who is thoroughly dishonest and has been shown wrong on everything that he posted on this forum.

  68. 68
    Piotr says:

    Paul:

    “actual laboratory ratings with error bars”

    I asked about datings, not ratings. I mean the radiocarbon dates calculated by the laboratory and quoted in the report (+/- standard error), rather than C-14/C ratios. Otherwise I only have your word for it that the dates were well within the laboratory’s maximum age limit (or even “compatible with a date of as low as 4,000 years in real time”, as you put it).

    You completely misunderstand my position.

    Sorry if I did. I suppose I was misled by the stuff in the parenthesis: (or a long) age for life on Earth. This can only apply to YECs, since no-one else I know would like to rule a long chronology on “philosophical” grounds. You certainly know the history of determining the age of the Earth and life on it, and how the timeline was extended from thousands to millions, and eventually to billions of years. Not by “atheists/materialists/Darwinists” (underline your favourite word) with a philosophical axe to grind, but simply by physicists, geologists and paleontologists (of different philosophical and religious persuasions) who respected empirical evidence and went where it led them.

    There are many independent dating techniques consistent with one another and together covering the history of life on Earth. What YEC proponents do when they try to cast doubt both on methods applicable to “young” samples (radiocarbon) and on those applicable to “old” samples (K-Ar, for example) can only be described as manipulation: choosing samples that are bound to cause dating problems (for reasons not connected with the validity of the method), and making the most of the resulting confusion. I suppose you do it in good faith, so I won’t even try to persuade you that this desperate denialism won’t work. I still wonder how many IDers here honestly believe that scientific dating has been abused by experts all along and only Young Earth Creationists know how to do it properly. The UD folks don’t like to broach topics that might be controversial in their own camp.

  69. 69
    Piotr says:

    Box,

    This is actually a compliment, since it comes from someone who is thoroughly dishonest and has been shown wrong on everything that he posted on this forum.

    I’ll take it as a compliment, then. Thank you.

  70. 70
    johnnyb says:

    Clarice –

    The answer is fairly simple, and most Christian philosophers are agreed – God is the source of being itself. So, anything that exists, came into existence through God, no matter when, where, or how it happened. The ultimate source is God.

    Theism is also the grounding of the principle of sufficient reason (ex nihilo, nihil fit – out of nothing, nothing comes), which is itself the grounding of science. When I teach chemistry, I do it on the basis of the principle of sufficient reason.

    Now, about specific places, times, and events where God plugs in to do more than just ground being, there is a lot of discussion. So far, what Intelligent Design *itself* does, is determine that a given configuration requires design somewhere in its causal chain. That’s it. It doesn’t tell you who, where, how, or when. It is possible that sometime in the future, someone will develop ID-based methodologies to answer some of those questions, but that is doubtful because of the nature of ID. For instance, if I hand you a computer program, you cannot tell from the computer program, who programmed it, what kind of keyboard they used to program it on, what series of dates it was programmed on, etc. ID is about analyzing the program. You *can* tell from the program (a) that it was designed, (b) its logical patterns, and (c) its purpose. That is what ID focuses on.

    That isn’t to say that if you are part of the ID movement you don’t have answers to the who, what, where, when questions, it’s just that ID itself doesn’t give them to you – you have to peer into other subjects to get the answers. ID is like a thermometer. A thermometer just tells you the temperature, it doesn’t answer every question you might want to know. Likewise, ID focuses on design-related questions, it doesn’t tell you the answer to all questions. That, scientifically, is a plus – it means that people are using the tool within the domain that it was developed for.

  71. 71
    franklin says:

    PG

    In comment #51 drc466 has already given another reference, which is largely repeated here. Franklin and I have had a long discussion about this research, that can be found starting here and continuing here (regarding the presence of carbon-14 in Baumgardner’s data, franklin disagrees with his handpicked expert, and has quoted him selectively above).

    If by ‘quoting selectively’ you mean that I only quoted the entire summary of Dr.Bertsche’s article at TO then that is correct. I also suggested that drc466 (and others) read the entire article and references pertaining to the RATE projects shoddy work.

    Also your assertion that I disagree with Dr. Bertsche is false. I believe his criticisms of the data and methodology utilized in the RATE project was spot on. Quantitative analysis of this sort (AMS C14 determinations) demand that quality control be stringent throughout the entire process. To not include sample process controls and quantification of instrument background for each set of samples being analyzed is sloppy and shoddy science and generates data that has little to no interpretative value. To even think that it would be ‘proper science methodology’ to use sample process values generated years prior to the samples being discussed is so ludicrous that I am still amazed that you tried to defend that approach in our previous conversation.

    In any case since you are posting here why don’t you go ahead and clear up drc466 misconceptions on the sort of quality control and samples that the RATE project presented. You will likely believe you telling him there were no control samples (sample chemistry controls) in their study as well as the logical conclusion from that failure of attention to detail.

  72. 72
    franklin says:

    Andre

    Your source can be dismissed as nonsense.

    If you cannot address the points raised by Dr. Bertsche then I guess that would be you best option to prevent questioning your belief system.”

    Dr. Bertsche is eminently qualified to judge the RATE projects methods and results. How about you?

  73. 73
    Andre says:

    I’m not qualified but I have enough common sense to tell me that a source that, gives tips on how to debate creationist are to be treated with suspicion, you are welcome to hang onto every word the supposed expert has to say. Me I would rather get it from a non bias and impartial source rather over one with a specific agenda.

    As a human being that wants to know things truth needs to be impartial to agendas don’t you think?

  74. 74
    franklin says:

    Andre

    I’m not qualified but I have enough common sense

    Ok, then what does your common sense tell you about a presentation of data that purposely omits essential control samples in their data collection?

    you are welcome to hang onto every word the supposed expert

    Dr. Bertsche credentials are now in question? What in is brief resume suggests he is no more than a ‘supposed’ expert?

    Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche’s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design.

    Do you have someone else in mind you who is more qualified to evaluate this data and its collection methods?

  75. 75
    Paul Giem says:

    Piotr (#63),

    You said,

    I asked about datings, not ratings. I mean the radiocarbon dates calculated by the laboratory and quoted in the report (+/- standard error), rather than C-14/C ratios.

    The 14C/C ratio, measured as percent modern carbon (pMC) is what the labs actually measure, and the standard deviations are actually measured in those terms. The radiocarbon date can be calculated by the formula
    Date = 5568 years * log2 (100% / pMC),
    which can be done on most i-phones now. Dates may be more familiar to you, but the pMC is more basic, and they are easily interconvertable.

    I should cut you some slack, as English is apparently not your primary language. You will remember that I said,

    Second (and less legitimately), if a short (or a long) age for life on Earth is philosophically ruled out, no amount of evidence matters.

    Your comment on this was,

    This can only apply to YECs, since no-one else I know would like to rule a long chronology on “philosophical” grounds.

    I am surprised that you have not run into anyone who would prefer that life on earth has been around for billions of years with an irrebuttable presumption. It would be nice if you were right. I presume that this means that if the evidence for long age were shown to be faulty, and if the evidence for short age were shown to be strong, that you would personally find int not problematic to switch to a short age paradigm, and you don’t know of anyone else that would say “but the earth just has to be old.” Oh, to live in such a society! Lyell would not belong in it.

    The reason why I put in “(or a long)” is because I believe that if creationists wish others to put their beliefs on the table for examination, we have to be willing to do the same ourselves. That is a controversial position; nevertheless it is mine.

    Your comment about not using recent known age materials to test a dating method makes no sense to me. It seems to me that if you test water and get 125 mg/dl of glucose as an answer, you had better check your machine. Similarly, if you check recent samples by potassium-argon dating and get hundreds of thousands to millions of years, there is a problem with the dating method. This is not limited to the creationist literature. What really needs to be done in that case is to check multiple recent samples and report all the data. This has been done (see here, pp. 116-136), and the results are a little disconcerting. Perhaps another set of tests and review is in order.

    I am not saying that I am right beyond question. But I don’t think I am wrong beyond question. Both sides could use a little humility with regard to dating the earth.

  76. 76
    Paul Giem says:

    franklin,

    Keep digging your hole. I’ll get back to you this afternoon.

  77. 77
    Box says:

    Franklin,

    Paul Giem: regarding the presence of carbon-14 in Baumgardner’s data, franklin disagrees with his handpicked expert, and has quoted him selectively above.

    Franklin: If by ‘quoting selectively’ you mean that I only quoted the entire summary of Dr.Bertsche’s article at TO then that is correct.

    I may be mistaken, but that doesn’t seem to be what is meant by “quoted him selectively”.

    Franklin: Also your assertion that I disagree with Dr. Bertsche is false. I believe his criticisms of the data and methodology utilized in the RATE project was spot on.

    Franklin, maybe the time has come to finally answer the questions put to you by Paul Giem back in 2013.

    Paul Giem:

    You are ignoring our discussion in #74ff of this thread.

    where I pointed out that Dr. Bertsche acknowledges that

    While this conclusion explains the higher values for the biological samples in general, it does not account for all the details. Some biological samples do have radiocarbon levels not explainable by sample chemistry. These samples are mostly coals and biological carbonates, both of which are prone to in situ contamination.

    That is to say, not all of the carbon-14 can be accounted for by laboratory contamination, and that specifically, in the case of Baumgardner et al.,

    Unlike the literature values, Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.

    So even though you would like to explain Baumgardner et al.’s data as laboratory contamination, the source you cited, Dr Bertsche, does not. (You may turn out to be right in the end and he wrong, but it is not that unreasonable to follow him rather than you.)

  78. 78
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    Let me fall on my knees and worship Mr. PHD…… If you had to use your own reasoning about expertise and their value then you would have to discard Darwin completely he was a theologian not a biologist with a PHD.

    Numbnut.

  79. 79
    franklin says:

    box

    That is to say, not all of the carbon-14 can be accounted for by laboratory contamination, and that specifically, in the case of Baumgardner et al.,

    yes and as he states in situ contamination is a very viable alternative based on known mechanisms of in situ contamination, e.g., carbonates exchange CO2 in current atmosphere (which introduces C14 into the sample).

    Question is how are you going to disavow these known mechanisms of contamination?

    box

    Unlike the literature values, Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.

    box

    So even though you would like to explain Baumgardner et al.’s data as laboratory contamination, the source you cited, Dr Bertsche, does not. (You may turn out to be right in the end and he wrong, but it is not that unreasonable to follow him rather than you.)

    that is not true. The source I cited clearly outlines the likelihood of lab-intorduction of C14 contamination into the samples. It is something that ALWAYS happens during sample prep for AMS C14 analysis and is the reason why sample process controls are not an optional item but are essential obtaining trustworthy data. Anything short of that produces values that are bogus and any conclusion derived from such faulty data is equally bogus.

    As well the technician analyzing the samples suspected in situ contamination as a source of added C14. Not a big surprise to anyone familiar with the field of AMS C14 analysis.

    Andre

    Let me fall on my knees and worship Mr. PHD

    If you wish to do so far be it for me to object! He is quite familiar with the methodological problems associated with AMS C14 analytical procedures and is qualified to judge the RATE project results and conclusions.

    Andre

    If you had to use your own reasoning about expertise and their value then you would have to discard Darwin completely he was a theologian not a biologist with a PHD

    Which of course completely avoids the question posed to you (not surprising by the way) but in case you missed it here it is again:

    Ok, then what does your common sense tell you about a presentation of data that purposely omits essential control samples in their data collection?

  80. 80
    franklin says:

    Paul Giem

    Keep digging your hole. I’ll get back to you this afternoon.

    I can hardly wait for your public defense of a study which does not include proper analytical controls in the field of AMS C14 analytical chemistry.

  81. 81
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    Purposely ommited? Says who? You?

  82. 82
    franklin says:

    Andre

    Purposely ommited? Says who? You?

    Paul giem for one. Paul (in thread linked above) claims to have been an advisor to the RATE project readily admits that the RATE project team decided not to use (and pay for) sample process controls. He even admits that this was a mistake (which is why I’m anxious to hear him defend this acknowledge mistake once again).

    So no need to take my word for it ask Paul Giem about it and see what he has to say or read the linked thread and see where and what he states about the absence of sample process controls.

    So care to try a stab at answering the question now?

    Ok, then what does your common sense tell you about a presentation of data that purposely omits essential control samples in their data collection?

  83. 83
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    Paul Giem can answer for himself but here is the question why your beef with one person if the group decided to? The fact that they admitted their error is also good by me. Can’t say the same for people like Larry Moran, PZ Myers and UD’s favorite son Nick Matzke. So what is your beef really?

    And if Paul Giem was dishonest and God does exist then let God deal with him. But if there is no God and Paul Giem did this to increase fitness then who are you to judge him? Survival of the fittest don’t care about the truth why do you?

  84. 84
    franklin says:

    Andre

    Paul Giem can answer for himself

    No doubt but the question was posed to you and your failure/inability/unwillingness to answer it is obvious. It was a question based on your ‘common sense’. I am left with the impression that it wasn’t much help in this instance.

    Andre

    The fact that they admitted their error is also good by me.

    How does that affect the quality and reliability of the data is the questions. What does your ‘common sense’ tell you about an analytical procedure that does utilize proper controls?

    Andre

    And if Paul Giem was dishonest

    Why are you suspecting Paul Giem to be dishonest?

    Andre

    Survival of the fittest don’t care about the truth why do you?

    do you read your post(s) before you submit them?

    Andre

    So what is your beef really?</blockquote.

    Call it an aversion to crappy analytical procedures.

  85. 85
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    I am not siding with anyone and I’m also not condemning anyone I answered you already when I said more information is needed but you’re frothing so badly at the mouth from this apparant hatred you have that it is affecting either your eyes or your heart.

    I said more non bias data is needed and I already admitted that YEC makes me uncomfortable did I not? Now go wipe out your eyes and soothe your heart.

  86. 86
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    Before you spill some of that frothing on my screen apologies….

    Fitness cares not for truth….

    You can stop foaming now tiger.

  87. 87
    franklin says:

    Andre

    I am not siding with anyone and I’m also not condemning anyone

    My question is a very generic question that applies to any analytical chemistry method. How would the lack of proper analytical controls affect any quantitative chemical analysis?

    Andfre

    I answered you already when I said more information is needed

    the read the RATE manuscripts where they clearly outline the omission of analytical controls (to characterize contamination) and instead decided to use control values generated years in the past.. The RATE manuscripts document all of this which is no doubt they chose not to try and publish in any reputable journal realizing that it was a fatal flaw and would generate instant rejection.

    Andre

    I said more non bias data is needed

    the read the published literature surrounding AMS C14 analysis and see if anywhere in there is an advocacy for not including sample process controls.

    Andre

    I said more non bias data is needed

    such as?

  88. 88
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    I’m going to do a though experiment. What if the earth is only 6000 years old but the materials used are much older. How does carbon dating work for you then how can any measure of the age of the earth be reliable? Now do the reverse the earth is old but all material is only 6000 years old.

    Give it a thought.

    Nobody can reliably date any of this and you know it as well as I do

  89. 89
    Piotr says:

    The 14C/C ratio, measured as percent modern carbon (pMC) is what the labs actually measure, and the standard deviations are actually measured in those terms. The radiocarbon date can be calculated by the formula
    Date = 5568 years * log2 (100% / pMC),
    which can be done on most i-phones now. Dates may be more familiar to you, but the pMC is more basic, and they are easily interconvertable.

    The table gives the pMC values but since we are close to the maximum age limit (the very highest values in the table correspond to a conventional date of about 40,000 BP), proper controls are really important. Were process blanks used in measuring the pMC, or was some “standard background” value assumed? The difference is important for very old samples, where differences between very small numbers are measured. Total error estimation is not a straightforward calculation (unless the only contribution taken into account is the standard deviation of Poisson statistics), and different laboratories handle it differently. It’s always nicer to see properly cited results (including a BP date with an error term for +/-sigma, which will be strongly asymmetrical for old samples). The laboratory reference number should be given whenever the result is quoted, by the way.

    In any case the table suggests ages in the range of 40,000-74,000 BP, that is close to, at, or beyond the upper limit of the radiocarbon method (= “practically infinite”). Certainly nothing remotely compatible with the traditional (short) Biblical chronology. When done correctly, similar measurements (testing the reliability and limitations of the technique) yield results like these:

    https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/3802/3227

    No big surprises there, I’m afraid.

  90. 90
    franklin says:

    Andre

    Before you spill some of that frothing on my screen apologies….

    Your projection is duly noted!

  91. 91
    Piotr says:

    Andre:

    I’m going to do a tough experiment. What if the earth is only 6000 years old but the materials used are much older. How does carbon dating work for you then?

    Tough indeed. Radiocarbon dating measures the age of organic carbon. You’d have to assume that many remains of living things (including humans and traces of their activity, e.g. charcoal from human-made fires) are much older than the Earth.

  92. 92
    franklin says:

    Piotr

    ough indeed. Radiocarbon dating measures the age of organic carbon. You’d have to assume that many remains of living things (including humans and traces of their activity, e.g. charcoal from human-made fires) are much older than the Earth.

    Indeed! t seems that Andre should have put some thought into his thought experiment before posting it.

  93. 93
    kairosfocus says:

    AS, I would not advise publishing an email address, as I said to JB earlier. KF

  94. 94
    lack of Focus says:

    KF, why shouldn’t AS provide an email address?

  95. 95
    Cross says:

    lack of Focus @ 97

    There is software that mines email addresses from sites, you open yourself up to a lot of spam or worse.

    Some tips to hiding your address:

    “To “fool” email harvesters, a simple method is to convert the symbols in an email address to words (typically parenthesized). For example, steve@mac.com becomes steve (at) mac (dot) com. Since this is not recognized as a valid email format, harvesters tend to ignore it.”

    Cheers

  96. 96
    kairosfocus says:

    Cross, right. Cf 44 above. KF

  97. 97
    Cross says:

    kairosfocus @ 99

    Sorry, missed that post. As an IT guy most of my day is dealing with the result of spam and infected PC’s.

    Cheers

  98. 98
    Paul Giem says:

    franklin,

    We’ve been through this before. Your chief point seems to be that proper controls were not used, and so Baumgardner’s data were worthless. I pointed out that

    While I agree that the data were less than ideal, especially in light of the fact that they could be expected to be controversial, I do think they are worth something.

    You obviously disagree. The question is, is there a more authoritative source that can solve this problem? According to your #76, there just might be. You appear to respect the authority of Dr. Kirk Bertsche, as in both #58 and #76 you say,

    Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche’s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design.

    (your emphasis both times), and you quote the abstract of his paper. Let’s look at that abstract. I won’t quote every word, but you can point out if I missed anything important. (I will omit your bolding).

    Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work.

    The first sentence is one that I would agree with. Apparently Bertsche thinks that Baumgardner et al. are trying to do something worthwhile. If I read correctly, he just doesn’t believe they have succeeded.

    The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry.

    Note what is not said: The RATE coal samples were probably not explainable by contamination by sample chemistry; that is, the carbon-14 measurements in those samples were real.

    Lest one think that I am overreading the situation, one can look at the article, where Bertsche says,

    While this conclusion explains the higher values for the biological samples in general, it does not account for all the details. Some biological samples do have radiocarbon levels not explainable by sample chemistry. These samples are mostly coals and biological carbonates, both of which are prone to in situ contamination.

    and a little later

    Unlike the literature values, Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.

    (Thanks, Box (#79) for bringing those quotes forward.)

    So Bertsche admits that what is measured is really in the coal samples, in direct support of the measurements themselves, and in direct contradiction to your thesis that the data are worthless. That being the case, he has only 3 options:
    1. Attribute the carbon-14 found to contamination before the samples were obtained,
    2. Attribute it to nuclear synthesis in situ, or
    3. Attribute it to residual carbon, thus agreeing with a young age.
    He went with door #1. Note that he does not give any evidence for this. He simply considers nuclear synthesis inadequate, and doesn’t believe in short age, leaving his only option contamination before the samples got to the lab. He doesn’t really have any positive evidence for this.

    While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to“intrinsic radiocarbon” raises more questions than it answers.

    I agree that it raises more questions, but I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. That means we have more to research.

    “Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory.

    I have to laugh. Basically if it doesn’t fit into one of Bertsche’s theories, then it is radiocarbon-of-the-gaps. Never mind that this particular gap was predicted based on a positive theory. This is a little like arguing against germ theory by arguing that surrendering to that theory is a puerperal fever of the gaps. Semmelweis didn’t have positive evidence for his theory, but he was right. In fact, every scientific theory can be characterized by its detractors as a theory of the gaps. Give it up!

    As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon” will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

    The first sentence is vaporware; a promissory note that has no evidence to back it up. The second sentence may or may not be true, although one can surmise that in any borderline situation Bertsche will skew the interpretation of the evidence his way. The “absolutely no evidence” canard has been discussed on this blog before.

    The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible … level of 14C”

    This is one area where I mostly agree with Bertsche; much of the data is not provably different from zero, and I think that although Baumgardner et al. may prove to be right in the end, there is not enough data to prove they are right now. I would tend to make the weaker claim that carbon-14 levels in some fossil material are provably different from zero.

    I believe that while Baumgardner et al. may have overstated their case, and while you may be right about the lack of an ideal situation here, I agree with Bertsche (your authority) that the coal data are not negligible, or the result of laboratory contamination.

    But as I noted above, we’ve been through this before. Why do you want to make the same refuted claims again, as if the subject were fresh?

    Stay tuned for part 2.

  99. 99
    Paul Giem says:

    Sorry, I inadvertently omitted the references:

    “franklin,

    “We’ve been through this before.

  100. 100
    franklin says:

    PG

    While I agree that the data were less than ideal, especially in light of the fact that they could be expected to be controversial, I do think they are worth something.

    the data are worthless precisely because we have no idea what the final values for the data would be since the proper controls are lacking for this run of samples. Anything of value is purely speculative on your part.

    PG<blockquote.While I agree that the data were less than ideal, especially in light of the fact that they could be expected to be controversial, I do think they are worth something.

    the data would be accepted nowhere in the field of AMS C14 analytical chemistry.

    PG<blockquote.The first sentence is one that I would agree with. Apparently Bertsche thinks that Baumgardner et al. are trying to do something worthwhile. If I read correctly, he just doesn’t believe they have succeeded.

    I would agree as well with the first sentence and attempting to do science is fine but when it is pointed out that you’ve fallen on your face because of shoddy work you just don’t continue to forge ahead but rather backtrack and get it right. Just because you paid to have some samples run does not mean they have any value to science. I also would agree that they have not succeeded in any form.

    PG

    Note what is not said: The RATE coal samples were probably not explainable by contamination by sample chemistry; that is, the carbon-14 measurements in those samples were real.

    Tjhere is no doubt some sample chemistry contamination but the main point is we have no idea what the extent of this contamination is in these samples. Of course all numbers generated in AMS C14 analysis are real the question is how were they generated. In this case we have not only Kirk’s opinion but the technician analyzing the sample believing that the values represent in situ contamination which may come from multiple sources.

    PG

    So Bertsche admits that what is measured is really in the coal samples, in direct support of the measurements themselves, and in direct contradiction to your thesis that the data are worthless.

    nowhere does Kirk state that supports the measurements at all and he gives a detailed account of the problems associated with the analysis of the coal samples and explains why the data are better explained by contamination….through known and recognized mechanisms. He does think he data are worthless for the reasons he outlines in his article.

    PG<blockquote.1. Attribute the carbon-14 found to contamination before the samples were obtained,
    2. Attribute it to nuclear synthesis in situ, or
    3. Attribute it to residual carbon, thus agreeing with a young age.</blockquote.

    your 1 and 2 are identical and 2 is just one method of in situ contamination among many. There is no support at all for any 'intrinsic C14' presence in the samples analyzed. There is, however, a host of reasons to suspect shoddy work with the resultant data that was generated being worthless.

    PG

    I agree that it raises more questions, but I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. That means we have more to research.

    The principle question raised is ‘Why would anyone ever try to get away with such shenanigans in an analytical chemistry method’? Yes, the samples need to be re-analyzed using proper analytical techniques….start over and try to get it right this time!

    PG

    The first sentence is vaporware; a promissory note that has no evidence to back it up.

    There is an abundance of data to support that premise.

    PG

    The second sentence may or may not be true, although one can surmise that in any borderline situation Bertsche will skew the interpretation of the evidence his way.

    We have no idea if the RATE data is borderline or not. To classify it as such would require that the analytical procedures be followed and inclusive of contamination characterization. Paul, you I, or anyone else can say what the ‘true’ values would have been since the decision to omit sample process controls negate that determination.

    PG

    This is one area where I mostly agree with Bertsche; much of the data is not provably different from zero, and I think that although Baumgardner et al. may prove to be right in the end, there is not enough data to prove they are right now.

    yes that is what the data and flawed methodology suggest. There is no data to suggest the Baumgardner et. al. are even in the ballpark.

    PG

    I believe that while Baumgardner et al. may have overstated their case, and while you may be right about the lack of an ideal situation </blockquote.

    I may be right about this not being an ideal situation….how disengenuous of you given your previous admissions on the flaws in the RATE project study.. There is no question that the lack of proper controls is 'not an ideal situation'.

    PG

    I agree with Bertsche (your authority) that the coal data are not negligible, or the result of laboratory contamination.

    But you disregard the possibility of in situ contamination? How do you do justify that stance?

    PG

    But as I noted above, we’ve been through this before. Why do you want to make the same refuted claims again, as if the subject were fresh?

    Yes we have been through this before but if you have read the thread you’ll see I did not bring the topic up. You haven’t refuted anything I have stated but you have lent support for my statements of flawed data collection on the RATE project’s part.

  101. 101
    Querius says:

    There’s a type of rationalization that obliterates dissonant data in the following manner regardless of the area of inquiry. It goes like this:

    1. Employ a method that’s widely recognized as valid.
    2. Encounter some anomalous data.
    3. Look for plausible explanations to stave off critics.
    4. Devise a test for a condition that results in similar anomalous data.
    5. Attribute this condition to your anomalous data. For example, the samples musta been contaminated!

    This process not only provides a convenient way out of embarrassments, but can also be extended to change data on the strength of choosing which of several conditions to apply. With this method, data can be groomed, sculpted, and molded to one’s theories. Who cares, just as long as it’s not discovered for a long time, and it’s for a noble cause. Right?

    -Q

  102. 102
    Piotr says:

    Querius,

    1. Employ a method that’s widely recognized as valid.

    Recognised as valid because it has been tested. We know its limits and possible sources of error, so that care can be taken to rule out flawed data.

    2. Encounter some anomalous data.
    3. Look for plausible explanations to stave off critics.

    If the data are properly monitored for quality and still anomalous, they will for a serious explanation. If the procedure doesn’t guarantee that the data are not garbage, who cares if they are anomalous?

    Michelson & Morley’s “anomalous data” contributed to overturning 19th-century physics because the experiment was extremely careful and could be replicated many times with increasing sensitivity, giving the same results. A sloppy study doesn’t call for much rethinking (except on the authors’ part, if they want to try again with more attention to detail).

    4. Devise a test for a condition that results in similar anomalous data.
    5. Attribute this condition to your anomalous data. For example, the samples musta been contaminated!

    See the description of any serious test of radiocarbon dating to learn what controls are used and what precautions are routinely taken. It’s the authors’ duty to demonstrate that contamination was ruled out, not the critics’ duty to prove the opposite.

  103. 103
    Box says:

    There’s a type of rationalization that endows a possibility with the power to refute.

    Bertsche: Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

    Several eyewitnesses place my client at the scene of the crime, however there is (as per usual) the possibility that they are all mistaken.
    Therefor your Honor, there is absolutely no evidence against my client.

  104. 104
    Querius says:

    Yes, Piotr. Michaelson and Morley disproved the existence of an hypothesized “ether,” a virtually undetectable and unknown substance that permeates space. Sorta like dark matter. Do you believe in dark matter?

    People who actually perform C-14 tests carefully “calibrate” their results based on other data. I understand that C-14 used irresponsibly can sometimes produce highly embarrassing results:

    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

    The work on finding (or massaging) data in support of anthropogenic global warming is an even better example!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....-ever.html

    Science is in the best of hands! Gosh, maybe I should consider opening a Data Massage Parlor for unruly evidence. I just need to find a good name for it and I can get Rich! 😉

    -Q

  105. 105
    Mung says:

    franklin:

    the data are worthless precisely because we have no idea what the final values for the data would be

    lol

  106. 106
    kbertsche says:

    I am inclined to agree with Andre’s opinion of TalkOrigins (TO):

    Franklin

    I want to bring this to your attention. The source you cited is bias….

    Why?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq…..nists.html

    A supposed scientific website giving you pointers on how to debate Creationists. What’s up with that mate?

    Your source can be dismissed as nonsense.

    My analysis of RATE’s radiocarbon claims was first submitted to the ASA website (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/educat.....bon-kb.htm), since I am an ASA member (as is Bill Dembski, BTW). It was then submitted to RTB’s website (http://www.reasons.org/article.....tamination), since I am an RTB apologist and an officer in the San Jose RTB chapter. A few months later I agreed to submit it to TO after repeated requests and encouragement to do so by a TO member. At the time, the one rebuttal of RATE’s radiocarbon claims on TO was weak and misdirected. I thought that my paper may be helpful to TO readers, even though I definitely do not share the agenda of most contributors to TO.

    I encourage all of you who are interested in RATE’s radiocarbon claims to read my paper carefully. A very careful, very detail-oriented friend (a strong YEC, by the way) helped me edit and re-edit it. I tried to be as objective as possible in this paper, to leave out any ad-hominem attacks or speculations, and to focus on discussing the data. The result is fairly carefully worded but is somewhat densely written. I’d be glad to try to clarify or explain my claims or my wording if necessary. (However, I won’t have much time to post here, so don’t interpret a slow response from me as meaning that I can’t answer your questions.)

    –Kirk Bertsche

  107. 107
    Querius says:

    Kirk,

    I tried to be as objective as possible in this paper, to leave out any ad-hominem attacks or speculations, and to focus on discussing the data.

    Thank you. It sounds like this will result in a meaningful exchange of ideas and issues. I’ll read it tomorrow.

    -Q

  108. 108
    Piotr says:

    Querius

    Yes, Piotr. Michaelson and Morley disproved the existence of an hypothesized “ether,” a virtually undetectable and unknown substance that permeates space. Sorta like dark matter. Do you believe in dark matter?

    Don’t be silly, Querius: dark matter is a mystery and the luminiferous aether was a mystery, so maybe they are the same mystery? The whole point about the aether is that it had well-defined postulated properties, so that the aether theory made falsifiable predictions (and was experimentally falsified). No such medium exists, and if something else permeates the Universe, it’s other stuff. BTW, neither the aether nor dark matter is supposed to be “undetectable”. It may not be directly observable, but that’s a different property.

  109. 109
    Querius says:

    Piotr,

    Yes, I’m having a little fun, but you’re missing my point. Had Michaelson and Morley been presented with the theory of dark matter instead, what would their experiment have demonstrated?

    That’s why I asked you whether you believe in dark matter. 😉

    -Q

  110. 110
    kbertsche says:

    Paul, you wrote:

    So Bertsche admits that what is measured is really in the coal samples, in direct support of the measurements themselves, and in direct contradiction to your thesis that the data are worthless. That being the case, he has only 3 options:
    1. Attribute the carbon-14 found to contamination before the samples were obtained,
    2. Attribute it to nuclear synthesis in situ, or
    3. Attribute it to residual carbon, thus agreeing with a young age.
    He went with door #1. Note that he does not give any evidence for this. He simply considers nuclear synthesis inadequate, and doesn’t believe in short age, leaving his only option contamination before the samples got to the lab. He doesn’t really have any positive evidence for this.

    I thought that I explained this in my paper, but perhaps my explanation was unclear. I probably explained it a bit better in an interview that I did for Stephen Meyers of IBSS, which you can find near the bottom of this page: (http://www.bibleandscience.com.....fearth.htm)

    The RATE coal data shows a large range of radiocarbon concentrations, with nearly a factor of five variation from the highest to the lowest. Each measurement has a fairly small error bar, such that the highest and lowest values do not overlap. This means that the variation in radiocarbon concentrations is real.

    What could cause such a large, apparently random variation in concentrations? This is quite consistent with contamination. Contamination normally affects samples semi-randomly; some samples are hardly affected at all, while other samples have much higher contamination. But a large, apparently random variation is NOT what one would expect from “intrinsic radiocarbon”. We would expect “intrinsic radiocarbon” to give about the same concentration for each sample, within error bars. Thus I conclude that RATE’s own data suggests that their coal samples were contaminated with foreign radiocarbon.

    –Kirk Bertsche

  111. 111
    kbertsche says:

    In my paper I wrote:

    As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon” will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

    To which Paul Giem responded:

    The first sentence is vaporware; a promissory note that has no evidence to back it up. The second sentence may or may not be true, although one can surmise that in any borderline situation Bertsche will skew the interpretation of the evidence his way. The “absolutely no evidence” canard has been discussed on this blog before.

    My first sentence follows from my view that RATE is proposing a “radiocarbon of the gaps” theory, where anomalously high radiocarbon measurements are attributed to “intrinsic radiocarbon”, rather than trying to understand what physical process caused the anomaly. And in analogy to a “God of the gaps” who shrinks as science expands, I believe that this “radiocarbon of the gaps” will shrink as radiocarbon contamination mechanisms become better understood. You may read my first sentence as my own opinion or prediction, if you wish.

    But I want to explain my second sentence, which you may be misinterpreting. For most radiocarbon measurements, we don’t have any “excess” radiocarbon that we need to explain. Everything is consistent with known, characterized instrument backgrounds and process contamination. Thus most measurements don’t provide evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon. Shell, coal, and bone are more problematic, but even many of these samples have no excess radiocarbon to explain, and no evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon.

    My point is that MOST radiocarbon measurements provide NO evidence for RATE’s hypothesized “intrinsic radiocarbon”. If the “intrinsic radiocarbon” hypothesis were true, I would expect it to show a roughly constant radiocarbon background level for all samples. But this is not what we see.

    –Kirk Bertsche

  112. 112
    Andre says:

    Dr Kirk Bertsche

    Thank you for acknowledging my point. I hope you don’t take it personally when I talk about the importance of not just believing what any expert has to say unless there is some external and hopefully non-bias verification of what was said.

    Regards

    Andre

  113. 113
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    I am inclined to agree with Andre’s opinion of TalkOrigins (TO):

    I hope that since it is on record from Dr Kirk Bertsche himself that your cite is bogus on the grounds of its biased nature, you will hopefully in future refrain from using Talk Origins as a trusted source of information.

    I also won’t mind an apology but it is certainly not required.

  114. 114
    Piotr says:

    Yes, I’m having a little fun, but you’re missing my point. Had Michaelson and Morley been presented with the theory of dark matter instead, what would their experiment have demonstrated?

    It’s a different sutuation altogether. The aether was the postulated mechanical medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Its existence was predicted by the then-prevailing theory of electromagnetism, and the purpose of the experiment was to detect its presence.

    Dark matter was not expected theoretically; it was detected experimentally, and remains unexplained. There are several competing hypotheses as to its nature, but there’s too little evidence to choose among them, and no solid “dark matter theory”. Quite possibly there are more than one kinds of dark matter.

    That’s why I asked you whether you believe in dark matter. 😉

    There are good reasons to accept its existence. It has mass and interacts gravitationally with baryonic matter. I can’t say I “believe” in any particular explanation what it is. I’ll wait for more data.

  115. 115
    franklin says:

    Andre

    I hope that since it is on record from Dr Kirk Bertsche himself that your cite is bogus on the grounds of its biased nature, you will hopefully in future refrain from using Talk Origins as a trusted source of information.

    That is really funny and made my day, Andre.

    In order for what you state to be true Dr Kirk Bertsche would have to think that a citation of his article is bogus. From what he states he doesn’t believe that at all and nor should he. In this regard TO has proven to be a very reliable source of information given what Dr Kirk Bertsche has posted.

    Andre

    I also won’t mind an apology but it is certainly not required.

    that is even funnier than the first part of your post. What am I to apologize for? An accurate portrayal of The RATE project’s data and interpretations perhaps?

    Andre, you do realize that Dr Kirk Bertsche has reenforced every point I made about the RATE project’s data pertaining to what it does and does not show? He (Dr Kirk Bertsche) also underscores the shoddy nature of the RATE project’s data and interpretations which I pointed out as well.

    Perhaps the intellectually honest thing to do on your part is to acknowledge (with an apology as well) that what I posted was an accurate portrayal of the topic, i.e., RATE project C14 data.

  116. 116
    Querius says:

    Piotr,

    Yes, I’m familiar with Michaelson Morley.

    Dark matter was not expected theoretically; it was detected experimentally

    Oh really? And what experiment was that?

    But you’re still missing my point, which was what if Michaelson Morley tried to detect dark matter with their famous experiment?

    Ok, I’ll give you a hint. They would have concluded that dark matter doesn’t exist.

    -Q

  117. 117
    Querius says:

    Kirk,

    I read your carefully written paper, which was indeed devoid of all ad hominems as you promised, the half-life of which is apparently only a few days! 😉

    It seemed to me that you present a reasonable hypothesis, that the RATE samples were all contaminated. That’s fine, but to test your hypothesis, I would think it would be reasonable that you repeat some of all of the RATE tests with what you would consider to be uncontaminated samples, demonstrating with your results that there’s a high likelihood that C-14 was introduced by one of the mechanisms you described.

    Simply obtaining certain results doesn’t demonstrate that the samples were necessarily contaminated.

    -Q

  118. 118
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    If a source that is biased is used for a citation. It can be dismissed. Do you know how things work? Even if a conclusion is correct but the premises are not the argument is invalid. Your source is not neutral therefore even if its conclusions maybe correct it can still be dismissed. I thought you knew how logic, reasoning, philosophy and science works. Clearly not.

    Dr kirk agreed with me the source is biased. It is on record chump.

  119. 119
    franklin says:

    Andre

    If a source that is biased is used for a citation. It can be dismissed.

    Andre, the source for informational purposes that I linked to was Dr. Kirk Bertsche that was HOSTED on a site you consider biased. is it your position that if I had linked to the either of the two other sites that HOSTED Kirk Bertsche article it then would have been acceptable to you? Of course you realize that the other two sites are arguably biased as well.

    Andre

    Do you know how things work?,

    Yes, Andre, I know how things work. I have published several articles in journals that are highly respected in their field. How about you? then again this is a blog where it is more of a conversational/discussion venue in case you didn’t realize this aspect of the exchange.

    Andre

    Your source is not neutral therefore even if its conclusions maybe correct it can still be dismissed.

    So you are dismissing Dr. Kirk Bertsche work/article out of hand simply because it has been HOSTED on a website you consider biased. That is sad.

    Andre

    I thought you knew how logic, reasoning, philosophy and science works.

    I suggest you work on the reasoning part a bit more.

    Andre

    Dr kirk agreed with me the source is biased. It is on record chump.,

    Yet his work is hosted on that website. does that, in your eyes, condemn his work as being biased?

    I like it when you feel the uncontrollable need that results in you resorting to calling folks names….it is telling! time for a rethink and please do better.

  120. 120
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    This is not about Dr Kirk’s work its is about your source Talk Origins not being a reliable source and like wikipedia can not be trusted for citation.

    The source is suspect so the conclusion must be treated so even if it may be true.

    And a tjop is a tjop. …..

  121. 121
    franklin says:

    Andre

    This is not about Dr Kirk’s work its is about your source Talk Origins not being a reliable source and like wikipedia can not be trusted for citation.

    this is all about Dr. Kirk’s research, and its credibility, as it pertains to this discussion! Unless you are willing to commit to Dr. Kirk’s work being bias and easily dismissed simply because of where it has been HOSTED your rhetoric is on empty.

    Are you also saying that Dr. Kirk’s work cannot be trusted as well? On what bases do you make this conclusion?

    If you don’t consider Dr. Kirk’s work to be biased and untrustworthy then the To site has provided reliable information despite your biases against the TO website HOSTING his article.

    an apology would be welcome anytime.

  122. 122
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    There is no cure for stupidity. Even if Dr Kirk posted bona Vida evidence of God on TO it would be dismissed because the cite TO is agenda driven. If it was a legitimate scientific source with reliable information why does it have a page with tips on how to debate creationists?

    Do you get it? I suppose not because even after Dr Kirk agreed with me you’re still harping…. It came from the horse’s mouth so to speak and yet…. Here is Franklin trying to defend the indefensible! The source of your cite is the problem do you get it?

  123. 123
    franklin says:

    Andre

    There is no cure for stupidity.

    I know that is why I feel for you with every post you make….but I still give you a chance.

    Andre

    Even if Dr Kirk posted bona Vida evidence of God on TO it would be dismissed because the cite TO is agenda driven.

    Nothing like throwing the baby out with the bathwater! the other two websites HOSTING Dr. Kirk's article are agenda driven. are we to also dismiss Dr. Kirk's work simply because he has had his article HOSTED on three different websites that are all agenda driven?

    Andre

    If it was a legitimate scientific source with reliable information why does it have a page with tips on how to debate creationists?

    Why not? Creationists are always harping on scientists to debate them so why should others not share their experience and give advice? Do you think that creationists don’t get advice on how to debate with scientists?

    Andre

    The source of your cite is the problem do you get it?

    The source of my cite is Dr. Kirk himself. Don’t you get it?

  124. 124
    kbertsche says:

    It seemed to me that you present a reasonable hypothesis, that the RATE samples were all contaminated. That’s fine, but to test your hypothesis, I would think it would be reasonable that you repeat some of all of the RATE tests with what you would consider to be uncontaminated samples, demonstrating with your results that there’s a high likelihood that C-14 was introduced by one of the mechanisms you described.

    As mentioned in my paper, this has already been done by Grootes (my reference 27?). Using specialized techniques, he pushed the background back to 75,000 years and measured anthracite coal at background (i.e. no measurable radiocarbon).

  125. 125
    Andre says:

    And it is exactly why the other 2 agenda driven sources can also be dismissed. I’m a christian and yet you will never see me cite anything from a christian source because I know it’s biased.

  126. 126
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    I did not accept Christ as valid because the bible told me so. There are numerous citations of Christ the bi le being one source but I know the Bible has a form of bias so what to do? There are many citations of Christ outside the bible. His enemies who unlike materialists don’t deny him and of course those impartial to him. The best advice Darwin has ever given us is this;

    “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.”

    Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species

    Again, no matter how true a conclusion is if the source is suspect it can be dismissed.

  127. 127
    franklin says:

    Andre

    And it is exactly why the other 2 agenda driven sources can also be dismissed. I’m a christian and yet you will never see me cite anything from a christian source because I know it’s biased.

    Using, what seems to be, your standards for credibility you (nor anyone else) will ever be able to cite anything from anywhere since all sources can be considered biased in one fashion or another.

    If what I stated is false provide a source that you believe to be a credible source of information and we can see if it has any bias that can be attributed to it. give us your grade A number 1 source.

  128. 128
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    Just so we are on the same page I am not YEC. I hold that the universe is old. With that in mind YEC does makes me very uncomfortable but I know that the age of the universe can not be reliably measured same as materials on earth. Carbon dating is a contentious issue and I don’t think anyone has a true handle or advantage over each other. Much more data is needed. If the universe is ever confirmed as really old then hey cool. If however it turns out to be young I’ll be open to that outcome not attached to it.

    Make no mistake Dr Kirk’s could be 100% right but if you ask him I’m sure he will confess that not with any certainty. Science does not have any certainty it is always open for correction and improvement.

  129. 129
    Andre says:

    Franklin

    You are wrong not all sources are biased.

  130. 130
    franklin says:

    Andre

    You are wrong not all sources are biased.

    Says who?

    but If that is the case you will have no problem providing a source that you consider to be non-biased. Would you do that for us?

    thanks in advance!

  131. 131
    Querius says:

    Kirk,

    First off, I can appreciate the extreme difficulty of detecting small amounts of C-14 and the potential for various sources of contamination as well as the problems with uniformitarian assumptions. But Grootes’ 1978 publication obviously was not a response to the RATE project, nor was Groote using AMS (with which you’re obviously familiar) for the paper that you cited.

    Creationist, Paul Giem also considers some of the contamination issues in a 2001 paper, http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm.

    And of course, John Baumgardner addresses the possibility of contamination directly in 2007 here:
    https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/

    All this makes me feel like either I’m in a time warp or, more likely, there’s been considerable debate since then. So, I don’t understand why you cited Groote’s 1978 results rather than more recent results.

    I’m also not convinced that refrigerators (etc.), though notorious in many ways, are of necessity involved in the hypothesized contamination. Please understand that I’m not saying your hypothesis isn’t worthy of pursuit, I’m saying that it is, but I’d assume modern technology would be used to test it.

    -Q

  132. 132
    Piotr says:

    Querius

    Oh really? And what experiment was that?

    CMB experiments (especially WMAP). Will you quibble about terminology? Carefully planned precision mesurements whose aim is to test cosmological hypotheses are as valuable a source of information as lab experiments. What matters is that the presence of dark matter was detected in them. If you have a better explanation of the WMAP data, go ahead.

    But you’re still missing my point, which was what if Michaelson Morley tried to detect dark matter with their famous experiment?

    Ok, I’ll give you a hint. They would have concluded that dark matter doesn’t exist.

    Nonsense. Their experiment was not designed for such a purpose. If dark matter exists, it can’t be detected by looking for the predicted effects of “the aether” (as the hypothetical medium of electromagnetic waves). Dark matter is not the aether and is not expected to slow down or accelerate light.

  133. 133
    kbertsche says:

    Queries wrote:

    First off, I can appreciate the extreme difficulty of detecting small amounts of C-14 and the potential for various sources of contamination as well as the problems with uniformitarian assumptions. But Grootes’ 1978 publication obviously was not a response to the RATE project, nor was Groote using AMS (with which you’re obviously familiar) for the paper that you cited.

    Creationist, Paul Giem also considers some of the contamination issues in a 2001 paper, http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm.

    And of course, John Baumgardner addresses the possibility of contamination directly in 2007 here:
    https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/

    All this makes me feel like either I’m in a time warp or, more likely, there’s been considerable debate since then. So, I don’t understand why you cited Groote’s 1978 results rather than more recent results.

    I’m also not convinced that refrigerators (etc.), though notorious in many ways, are of necessity involved in the hypothesized contamination. Please understand that I’m not saying your hypothesis isn’t worthy of pursuit, I’m saying that it is, but I’d assume modern technology would be used to test it.

    1. I quote Grootes’ results because they offer definitive evidence that at least some coal exists which does NOT contain any unexplained radiocarbon excess. They fact that he did this many years ago, not in response to RATE claims, makes his evidence even stronger. Do you have a disagreement with his measurements? Do you think his results would be different if repeated today?

    2. Yes, Paul Giem and John Baumgardner both tend to minimize the severity of process background. They both understand the theory of radiocarbon dating, but neither of them have actual hands-on experience in a radiocarbon lab.
    Take a careful look at Paul Giem’s paper which you referenced. Under his heading “CONTAMINATION DURING SAMPLE PROCESSING EXPLAINS SOME, BUT PROBABLY NOT ALL, THE RESULTS” he wrote:

    Contamination during sample processing is the most frequent explanation of carbon-14 in samples expected to be “dead” by long-age theories. There is good evidence that contamination during sample processing often occurs, and that some of the carbon-14 found in these samples may be accounted for on this basis. …. Van der Borg et al. (1997) noted graphite to have 0.04±0.02 pmc when measured without reprocessing, and 0.18 pmc when tested after recycling. Arnold et al. (1987) reported a graphite having 0.089±0.017 pmc without recycling, and 0.34±0.11 pmc after recycling …

    Giem has noted something quite important here, but I’m not sure that he or Baumgardner have appreciated its implications. The lower values from both Van der Borg and Arnold were of graphite which had been physically cleaned and measured directly, with no chemical processing. “Reprocessing” or “recycling” means that the graphite had been subjected to the normal chemical processing which wood and other samples normally see (conversion to CO2 or methane followed by reduction to graphite). After this processing the radiocarbon concentrations were higher by 0.14 and 0.25 pmc; this is due to the chemical processing. Sample processing typically adds a “process background” somewhere in this range, as explained in my paper.
    Note that most of the measurements that Giem and Baumgardner identify as anomalously high have been chemically processed and are in this same range of values (0.14-0.25 pmc). But per Van der Borg and Arnold this is not anomalous at all; it is exactly what one would expect from normal chemical pre-processing of radiocarbon samples.
    3. Regarding contamination of refrigerators, grinders, and other lab equipment: I would have shared your skepticism before working in a radiocarbon lab myself. The theory of radiocarbon dating is pretty straightforward, but knowing the theory doesn’t give a true appreciation for how important or unimportant the various details are. There’s nothing like hands-on experience to give a proper appreciation of contamination and background issues.

    4. Some of you may not want to believe what I say because I am not YEC. If so, I suggest that you get the opinion of Gerald Aardsma on some of these issues. So far as I know, he is the only YEC who has actual hands-on experience in a leading radiocarbon lab. I disagree with him on the age of the earth, but I think he has a very good hands-on appreciation of radiocarbon dating.

  134. 134
    Querius says:

    Piotr claimed,

    CMB experiments (especially WMAP). Will you quibble about terminology? Carefully planned precision mesurements whose aim is to test cosmological hypotheses are as valuable a source of information as lab experiments.

    Oh, I see. You’re conflating actual experiments with theories based on observations. They’re not the same thing, and it’s more than just quibbling over terminology.

    Dark matter was not expected theoretically; it was detected experimentally

    Baloney! Vera Rubin is credited with pioneering work on angular momentum and galaxy rotation curves, although a Swiss-American Astronomer named Fritz Zwicky first noticed the “missing mass” in 1933. The missing mass does not emit light, so it was dubbed “dark matter” as a convenience to describe a hypothetical halo of matter around rotating galaxies. Incidentally, Dr. Rubin herself prefers an explanation that doesn’t require a new substance on the grounds of parsimony. Some researchers have recently claimed that dark matter does emit a small amount of light, observable as an additional glow around galaxies while others speculate that dark matter are actually micro black holes (http://www.space.com/25691-dar.....atoms.html).

    At any rate, your original objections were to my observation about the existence of scientific rationalization. You responded by providing an example where scientific rationalization did not occur. This was not my point, but I thought I’d have some fun and try to get you to think by pointing out that an experiment that failed to detect “luminiferous aether” might not not mean that there wasn’t some other form of “aether” that was present. Dark matter, CMB radiation, and vacuum fluctuations/virtual particles (which do interact with light) came to mind.

    Coincidentally Vera Rubin switched her research to galaxy rotation problem precisely because her ideas about the clumping of galaxies were not well-received at that time, and no doubt she was concerned about her career being ruined as a result (being particularly vulnerable as a woman in what was considered a man’s field).

    -Q

  135. 135
    Querius says:

    Kirk,

    Thanks for the additional explanation.

    1. No, I’m just puzzled why you would cite an earlier experiment rather than one using current technology, which is presumably better, given the difficulty of measurement of such small amounts of C-14. Has such an experiment not been performed with AMS or is something wrong with AMS?

    2. A discussion or debate with Diem or Baumgardner directly would be more productive. Have you discussed your objections with them?

    3. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised given how few C-14 atoms being measured.

    4. Ouch. No, I don’t think this is a matter of belief or anything to do with you personally, but rather questions about the methods and precautions used, which I think is fair.

    -Q

  136. 136
    kbertsche says:

    Querius:

    2. A discussion or debate with Diem or Baumgardner directly would be more productive. Have you discussed your objections with them?

    I had a brief exchange with John Baumgardner a few years ago on TheologyWeb in response to a very preliminary version of my paper. The YEC friend who edited my paper has forwarded Baumgardner my marked-up copy of his RATE contribution and has tried to facilitate a discussion with him, but to no avail.

    If someone at UD wants to facilitate a discussion between Baumgardner and me, I would be open to this.

  137. 137
    franklin says:

    Querius

    I don’t think this is a matter of belief or anything to do with you personally, but rather questions about the methods and precautions used, which I think is fair.

    there really isn’t much to discuss with Giem and Baumgardner unless they go back to the lab and conduct the measurements with all the proper and essential controls in place. As it stands now the data represent only the shoddy work of the RATE project from which no conclusions can be drawn other than the clear-cut pattern of sample process contamination.

    The Baumgardner response to Dr. Bertsche is little more than a series of ad hominem attacks against Dr. Bertsche. Baumgardenr certainly provides nothing of substance to support his position.

  138. 138
    Querius says:

    Kirk,

    The YEC friend who edited my paper has forwarded Baumgardner my marked-up copy of his RATE contribution and has tried to facilitate a discussion with him, but to no avail.

    I’m truly sorry to hear this.

    If someone at UD wants to facilitate a discussion between Baumgardner and me, I would be open to this.

    That would be wonderful!

    In science, we’re supposed to be willing to be challenged and shot down, painful as that might be. As new things are discovered, sometimes theories can be exonerated (partly thinking of Lamarck and the inheritance of environmental adaptations), or new things discovered (thinking of the problem of biofilm in dating pre-Colombian artifacts).

    I appreciate your openness.

    -Q

  139. 139
    Querius says:

    franklin,

    there really isn’t much to discuss with Giem and Baumgardner unless they go back to the lab and conduct the measurements with all the proper and essential controls in place.

    It’s perfectly fair to question anyone’s lab techniques and controls, but I don’t think that precludes any discussion with them. That’s pretty harsh in my opinion.

    You also describe their work as “shoddy,” which seems to indicate that you’re already familiar enough with the specifics of their work to make such an accusation. Is that true?

    -Q

  140. 140
    franklin says:

    Querius

    It’s perfectly fair to question anyone’s lab techniques and controls, but I don’t think that precludes any discussion with them. That’s pretty harsh in my opinion.

    What’s to discuss with them (Baumgardner et. al.) other than how they could ever think that not including sample process controls would withstand scrutiny or condemn their data as meaningless? Harsh it might be but shoddy work is shoddy work. If I were to present my employer with data and then told them I didn’t bother with any controls and decided to use values controlling for background and other contamination that I had generated years prior I would be lucky to maintain my status of being employed with them. There is no excuse for conducting data collection in that fashion although I suspect an obvious reason (that hasn’t been addressed at UD) for doing so.

    Querius

    You also describe their work as “shoddy,” which seems to indicate that you’re already familiar enough with the specifics of their work to make such an accusation. Is that true?

    you can read my comments upthread on the topic as well as the linked to previous thread where paul Giem and I discussed the subject. But, yes, I’m familiar enough with their work to label it shoddy. How about you, Querius, what familiarity do you have with their work?

    Also no need to include ‘scare’ quotes around the word shoddy…..it is what it is.

  141. 141
    Querius says:

    franklin,

    Normally, it’s considered polite to include support for any accusations that you make regarding someone’s work because one’s opinion by itself doesn’t constitute irrefutable evidence.

    I didn’t make any accusations against their lab work, so the fact that I haven’t met them or seen their controls in the lab has no bearing.

    Going back into the voluminous threads, which I wasn’t aware of, I found this by Paul Giem:

    I am pleased to see that franklin is now recommending that the experiment should be redone. Previously it would seem that he would recommend ignoring the old data. This is progress.

    This seems to be a reasonable course of action from a position of calm reason. And perhaps you could have been a little more more honest with me in your description.

    -Q

  142. 142
    franklin says:

    Querius

    Normally, it’s considered polite to include support for any accusations that you make regarding someone’s work because one’s opinion by itself doesn’t constitute irrefutable evidence.

    Already have done that and I directed you to where you could find that information. It is not very polite to ignore what has been presented to you.

    Querius

    I didn’t make any accusations against their lab work, so the fact that I haven’t met them or seen their controls in the lab has no bearing.

    It is obvious from this comment that you haven’t even read the manuscripts in question. Once you do so we can have a conversation.

    Querius

    This seems to be a reasonable course of action from a position of calm reason. And perhaps you could have been a little more more honest with me in your description.

    If you would have read the links and my previous comments, I have always advocated that they go back and reanalyze the samples using proper methodology. That in and of itself does not mean that I accept their current data set in any form given the fatal flaws in its collection and interpretation. If you preside over poorly designed data collection and someone points out, and rightly so in this case, that the data is garbage, based on extremely poor methodology, then what follows is the suggestion that they go back to the lab and do it right this time.

    That position, however, does not negate the simple fact that their current data set is nothing but junk given their lack of proper detail in analyzing the samples in the first place. That they have not done so, and apparently refuse to do so, speaks volumes for the motivation behind this farcical piece of work that is being passed off as good science.

    you may apologize for your mischaracterization of my honesty in this regard.

  143. 143
    Querius says:

    franklin,

    Yes, I read the posts and even quoted from one of them. Nevertheless you accuse me of ignoring what you presented to me, and not reading the previous posts or following the links, which I did.

    I have always advocated that they go back and reanalyze the samples using proper methodology.

    To which Paul Giem agreed. Apparently they want to see whether the data they collected could be salvaged.

    But look what you’re continuing to write about him and Baumgardner, and then in your post to me you fail to mention that they agreed with you in writing, even hinting that they had an ulterior motive. That’s not honest.

    -Q

  144. 144
    franklin says:

    Querius

    To which Paul Giem agreed. Apparently they want to see whether the data they collected could be salvaged.

    Querius, it would really help the discussion if you would read the manuscripts as well as the linked posts. I know you claim that you have read the linked thread and comments but from what you post it appears that is not the case. For example Paul Giem is only peripherally associated with the RATE project as per hhis own admission that he made some advisory suggestions on the initial project. His acknowledging that the data is severely compromised due to the poor decision b the RATE project authors to not use accepted methodology to analyze the samples cannot be interpreted as the RATE project authors agreeing with Paul Giem and myself that the samples need to be reanalyzed properly..

    That Baumgardner et. al have made no attempt to correct their errors over the last 13 years is a good indication that they aren’t willing or have the fortitude to go back and reanalyze the samples. They have the data they want to tell the story they want to laypeople who don’t understand the intricacies of AMS C14 analysis. How many more years should we wait for them to correct their errors? 5 years? 10 years? Or should we just conclude there is no interest on their part to readdress this issue out side of ad hominem comments directed at one of their critics?

    Querius

    But look what you’re continuing to write about him and Baumgardner, and then in your post to me you fail to mention that they agreed with you in writing, even hinting that they had an ulterior motive. That’s not honest.

    Querius, you would not make such error-filled posts if you would have actually read the suggested materials or even the author list on the RATE manuscripts. Paul Giem is not directly involved in the RATE project so his agreeing that the data need to be redone is no different than my suggestion they be reanalyzed……we are both outsiders making comments about the RATE project. Your assertion that 'they' (suggesting the RATE authors) have agreed with me (in writing no less) is simply untrue. Everything I wrote on the subject is honest and easily verifiable. You comments on the other hand….not so much.

  145. 145
    Querius says:

    Kirk,

    Last night, I took the time to read John Baumgardner’s rebuttal to your objections. Sigh.

    To your credit, you kept your criticism on a scientific and professional level and did not resort to sniping or denigration. For that, I think you deserve a lot of respect.

    Thank you.

    -Q

Leave a Reply