What is Intelligent Design?

_{Jonathan Bartlett

April 6, 2015

Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It is always good to go back to basics every once in a while. This piece is a short introduction to Intelligent Design for those reading about it or studying it.

Read More.

Comments

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.Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

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.
franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

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?Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

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?franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Franklin Purposely ommited? Says who? You?Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

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.franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

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?franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

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.Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

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.)
Box_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

franklin, Keep digging your hole. I'll get back to you this afternoon.Paul Giem_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

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.Paul Giem_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

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?franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

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?Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

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?franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

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.franklin_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

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.johnnyb_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

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.Piotr_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

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.Piotr_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

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.Box_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

Dr Giem, well said. KFkairosfocus_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

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.)Paul Giem_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

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.Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

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!Andre_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

#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?Piotr_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

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?Clarice_{April 8, 2015
April
04
Apr
8
08
2015
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

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.Paul Giem_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

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.PaV_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

Franklin I want to bring this to your attention. The source you cited is bias.... Why? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating-creationists.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.Andre_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

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.franklin_{April 7, 2015
April
04
Apr
7
07
2015
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply