[SilenceInMotion]

Originally Posted by voltaire

I never hear theistic evolutionist ponder on possible ways that God was intervening in the process of evolution. I have heard such though from IDers. One fellow on another forum went into great deal about how LUCA was front loaded in such a way as to guarantee the evolution of eukyarotes and other things.

It goes a lot further back then life itself. Theisitc evolution is not just about life, but the evolution of the universe as well.

In the beginning, God said "Let there be light" (Big Bang). On the fourth day, God made the sun and stars (much time following the Big Bang, material began to compact into stars).

It goes on and on, until eventually the Earth was made, and life was created from the 'dust of the Earth' just as ambiogenesis theorizes.

Theistic evolution is in ancient Scripture for those with the willingness to discern it, which means that 'desert nomads' beat modern scientists to the punch by thousands of years.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Memento Mori

That's like saying because you don't hear the ways God intervenes in gravity, it's opponents must be right.

I have no idea what you just said.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by voltaire

I never hear theistic evolutionist ponder on possible ways that God was intervening in the process of evolution. I have heard such though from IDers. One fellow on another forum went into great deal about how LUCA was front loaded in such a way as to guarantee the evolution of eukyarotes and other things.

I don't ponder ways that God might have intervened in the process of evolution. I don't make any assumptions about the way God created. I let the empirical evidence suggest how He created.

You say that this other fellow proposed that LUCA was front loaded in such a way as to guarantee the evolution of eukaryotes and other things. How is that any different than proposing that the natural world itself was front loaded in such a way?

[SilenceInMotion]

Originally Posted by voltaire

I never hear theistic evolutionist ponder on possible ways that God was intervening in the process of evolution. I have heard such though from IDers. One fellow on another forum went into great deal about how LUCA was front loaded in such a way as to guarantee the evolution of eukyarotes and other things.

The fatal flaw in the argument of standalone processes of the universe such as gravity or evolution is that what real reason should God intervene? They work. God produced a reality that doesn't need constant maintenance, it is simply fulfilled by His will.

God broke the laws of nature when He split the Red Sea to help the Levites escape from the Egyptians. But, why should God stop an orbit of a planet? Why should the laws of nature be consistently disrupted?

Therefore, it is simply a non-issue.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by noguru

I don't ponder ways that God might have intervened in the process of evolution. I don't make any assumptions about the way God created. I let the empirical evidence suggest how He created.

You say that this other fellow proposed that LUCA was front loaded in such a way as to guarantee the evolution of eukaryotes and other things. How is that any different than proposing that the natural world itself was front loaded in such a way?

You can front load the big bang in order to create the stars and galaxies and elements we have, but no amount of front loading at the very beginning of the big bang will have any effect on biological evolution. The elements we have and the laws of physics and chemistry do not guarantee that evolution will proceed as it does today.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by SilenceInMotion

The fatal flaw in the argument of standalone processes of the universe such as gravity or evolution is that what real reason should God intervene? They work.

But, do they work by pure accident or by design? That is the crucial question.

[The Barbarian]

The fatal flaw in the argument of standalone processes of the universe such as gravity or evolution is that what real reason should God intervene? They work. God produced a reality that doesn't need constant maintenance, it is simply fulfilled by His will.

God broke the laws of nature when He split the Red Sea to help the Levites escape from the Egyptians. But, why should God stop an orbit of a planet? Why should the laws of nature be consistently disrupted?

Therefore, it is simply a non-issue.

Quite so. Why is it to hard to accept that He created the world to do what He wanted it to do?

God doesn't do miracles because He must. He does them to teach us something.

And as St. Thomas Aquinas noted, God can use chance just as easily as He can use necessity to do His will.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by voltaire

You can front load the big bang in order to create the stars and galaxies and elements we have, but no amount of front loading at the very beginning of the big bang will have any effect on biological evolution. The elements we have and the laws of physics and chemistry do not guarantee that evolution will proceed as it does today.

How do you determine your conclusion here?

[The Barbarian]

But, do they work by pure accident or by design? That is the crucial question.

If everything was pure accident, we couldn't even survive. Evolution, for example. Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't by accident.

You can front load the big bang in order to create the stars and galaxies and elements we have, but no amount of front loading at the very beginning of the big bang will have any effect on biological evolution. The elements we have and the laws of physics and chemistry do not guarantee that evolution will proceed as it does today.

Reply to Objection 1. The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinias Summa Theologica Question 22, The Providence of God

[noguru]

Originally Posted by voltaire

But, do they work by pure accident or by design? That is the crucial question.

How does one run a test to determine that either way? Though I have to agree with Barbarian that nature as a whole is not "pure" accident. All the evidence we have leads to the conclusion that nature is stochastic. That is there are variables which are predictable as well as variables that are not predictable. Damian use to argue that it was the "unpredictable" side of nature that was his evidence for faith.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by noguru

They have empirical evidence and sound logical analyses to support the model they use for these calculations.

Where are yours?

If you think you have empirical evidence and sound logical analyses that can overturn the current model used, then you best get that out for peer review. Judging from your track record, I would say your belief in your ability is based on delusion. But you can convince me otherwise by overturning the model used by professionals.

Negative Exponential -- Model Rate of Cooling

If a heated object is allowed to cool, the rate of cooling at any instant is proportional to the difference between the object's temperature and the ambient (room) temperature. In other words, an object cools faster at first, while it is hot, and the rate of cooling slows down as the temperature of the object approaches the ambient temperature. The function that relates the object's temperature to time is a negative exponential function of the form:



http://www.nlreg.com/cooling.htm

GROWTH, DECAY, AND COOLING

Exponential Decay: Exponential decay occurs when the rate of loss of something is proportional to the amount present. One example of exponential decay is radioactive decay: the number of atoms of a radioactive substance that "decay" (split into nonradioactive atoms and release particles) during a short time is proportional to the number of radioactive atoms present. Exponential decay also models how quickly some medicines are absorbed from the bloodstream and even how quickly you forget calculus. Exponential decay calculations are similar to those for growth, but the value of k is negative and we talk about "half–life", the time for half of the material to decay or be
absorbed, instead of the doubling time.

Carbon–14 Dating: If the half life of a substance is known and we know how much of the substance is present in a sample now, we can determine how much was present at some past time or determine how long ago the sample contained a particular amount of the substance. Radioactive carbon–14 with a half–life ofabout 5700 years is used in this way to estimate how long ago plants and animals lived. When a plant is alive it continually exchanges carbon–14and ordinary carbon with the atmosphere so the ratio of carbon–14 to nonradioactive carbon stays relatively constant. But once the plant dies, this exchange stops. The ordinary carbon remains in the material, but the carbon–14 decays so the ratio of carbon–14 to ordinary carbon decreases at a known rate. By measuring the ratio of carbon–14 to ordinary carbon in a sample of plant tissue, scientists can determine how long ago the plant died and obtain an estimate for the age of the sample.

http://scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/dh/ccal/CC6.3.pdf

THE COOLING RATES OF PAHOEHOE FLOWS : THE IMPORTANCE OF LAVA POROSITY

Many theoretical models have been put forward to account for the cooling history of a lava flow, however only limited detailed field data exist to validate these models. To model accurately the cooling of lava flows, data are required, not only on the heat loss mechanisms, but also on the surface skin development and the causes of differing cooling rates. This paper argues that the cause of such variations in the cooling rates are attributed, primarily, to the vesicle content and
degassing history of the lava...

From the time of lobe extrusion to the time where the surface cooled
to 600°C, the lava was incandescent and heat was lost predominantly by radiation, and therefore the relationship between temperature and time is exponential.

See charts

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1994011809.pdf

If cooling of lava is exponential, and if cooling and solidifying is related to radioactive decay rate, then the decay rate is not constant.

"Potassium–argon dating or K–Ar dating is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archaeology. It is based on measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium (K) into argon (Ar). Potassium is a common element found in many materials, such as micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites. In these materials, the decay product 40Ar is able to escape the liquid (molten) rock, but starts to accumulate when the rock solidifies (recrystallizes)."--Wiki

The rate at which argon (40Ar) is able to escape the molten rock, lava, slows down as the lava "cools" and "hardens" (recrysallizes). Liquids cool exponentially, that is the rate of cooling is greater at the beginning of the process and gradually slows down so it's only reasonable to say the rate at which argon escapes is also exponential, faster at the beginning and slower at the end.

--Dave

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by noguru

If your beliefs are based upon your incompetence, then this should surely be addressed. If a person believes that they can smoke crack, and not be a problem to themselves and others. The only way to demonstrate their delusion is to point out how such a belief is both the cause and the result of the incompetence. And I do get some of the same types of resistance from crack heads about criticizing them as I get from you.

"It's not me, it's everything/everyone out there."

"You should not be criticizing me, because you/others have faults also."

"I can believe what I want to believe about the material world, despite the empirical evidence."

It goes on an on. And many people are great at rationalizing their own delusions.

Can you give me an example of your claim that you can criticize the person without also criticizing their belief?

Are you saying we should never criticize other people's beliefs?

Or are you just claiming that only your beliefs are "unassailable"?

We can criticize other's beliefs without criticizing the person. The beliefs we hold today may not be the one's we held yesterday or will still have tomorrow. Debate is meant to express and test belief's one against the other for others to hear and evaluate. I don't consider anyone incompetent because they disagree with me. Incompetence goes to the person not the belief.

--Dave

[noguru]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Negative Exponential -- Model Rate of Cooling

If a heated object is allowed to cool, the rate of cooling at any instant is proportional to the difference between the object's temperature and the ambient (room) temperature. In other words, an object cools faster at first, while it is hot, and the rate of cooling slows down as the temperature of the object approaches the ambient temperature. The function that relates the object's temperature to time is a negative exponential function of the form:



http://www.nlreg.com/cooling.htm

GROWTH, DECAY, AND COOLING

Exponential Decay: Exponential decay occurs when the rate of loss of something is proportional to the amount present. One example of exponential decay is radioactive decay: the number of atoms of a radioactive substance that "decay" (split into nonradioactive atoms and release particles) during a short time is proportional to the number of radioactive atoms present. Exponential decay also models how quickly some medicines are absorbed from the bloodstream and even how quickly you forget calculus. Exponential decay calculations are similar to those for growth, but the value of k is negative and we talk about "half–life", the time for half of the material to decay or be
absorbed, instead of the doubling time.

Carbon–14 Dating: If the half life of a substance is known and we know how much of the substance is present in a sample now, we can determine how much was present at some past time or determine how long ago the sample contained a particular amount of the substance. Radioactive carbon–14 with a half–life ofabout 5700 years is used in this way to estimate how long ago plants and animals lived. When a plant is alive it continually exchanges carbon–14and ordinary carbon with the atmosphere so the ratio of carbon–14 to nonradioactive carbon stays relatively constant. But once the plant dies, this exchange stops. The ordinary carbon remains in the material, but the carbon–14 decays so the ratio of carbon–14 to ordinary carbon decreases at a known rate. By measuring the ratio of carbon–14 to ordinary carbon in a sample of plant tissue, scientists can determine how long ago the plant died and obtain an estimate for the age of the sample.

http://scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/dh/ccal/CC6.3.pdf

THE COOLING RATES OF PAHOEHOE FLOWS : THE IMPORTANCE OF LAVA POROSITY

Many theoretical models have been put forward to account for the cooling history of a lava flow, however only limited detailed field data exist to validate these models. To model accurately the cooling of lava flows, data are required, not only on the heat loss mechanisms, but also on the surface skin development and the causes of differing cooling rates. This paper argues that the cause of such variations in the cooling rates are attributed, primarily, to the vesicle content and
degassing history of the lava...

From the time of lobe extrusion to the time where the surface cooled
to 600°C, the lava was incandescent and heat was lost predominantly by radiation, and therefore the relationship between temperature and time is exponential.

See charts

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1994011809.pdf

If cooling of lava is exponential, and if cooling and solidifying is related to radioactive decay rate, then the decay rate is not constant.

"Potassium–argon dating or K–Ar dating is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archaeology. It is based on measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium (K) into argon (Ar). Potassium is a common element found in many materials, such as micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites. In these materials, the decay product 40Ar is able to escape the liquid (molten) rock, but starts to accumulate when the rock solidifies (recrystallizes)."--Wiki

The rate at which argon (40Ar) is able to escape the molten rock, lava, slows down as the lava "cools" and "hardens" (recrysallizes). Liquids cool exponentially, that is the rate of cooling is greater at the beginning of the process and gradually slows down so it's only reasonable to say the rate at which argon escapes is also exponential, faster at the beginning and slower at the end.

--Dave

So you think because of these publications that are at least 18 years old we should discard all radiometric dating?

Do you think these problems have not been addressed already by people in this field?

Do you think this is positive evidence for your YEC model?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

We can criticize other's beliefs without criticizing the person. The beliefs we hold today may not be the one's we held yesterday or will still have tomorrow. Debate is meant to express and test belief's one against the other for others to hear and evaluate. I don't consider anyone incompetent because they disagree with me. Incompetence goes to the person not the belief.

--Dave

If a person's beliefs are tightly tied to that person's character, and that character and resulting belief leads to incompetence, then that needs to be addressed.

I do not consider you incompetent because we disagree, and I have repeated this many times. It is the strategy you use in maintaining that disagreement that is problematic. I do not insult you because it pleases me to do so. I insult you because I hold accurate reporting of reality in higher regard than a person's beliefs that are not aligned with objective reality. I have no problem with YECs who honestly admit why they accept the YEC model over the one offered in mainstream science.

You continually claim strict adherence to a specific wooden literal interpretation of Genesis, claim that it can be no other way, and yet you continue to try to use science to support that belief. That is dishonest given the reality of the state of science today. But the more distressing strategy of yours is that when your incompetence in one area is disclosed, you jump to the next topic on your list, without admitting your error.

And it is quite clear that your incompetence resounds throughout most aspects of science. That is probably because of your strict adherence to a specific interpretation of Genesis. If you ever choose to admit this reality, I will no longer claim you are incompetent.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Just in case anyone missed it:

Because they appear functionless but take up valuable chromosomal space, these noncoding sequences have been considered useless and have been termed junk DNA or selfish DNA. Recent studies, however, lend strong support to the possibility that the seemingly useless repetitive DNA may actually play a number of important genetic roles, from providing a substrate on which new genes can evolve to maintaining chromosome structure and participating in some sort of genetic control. Consequently, it is now out of fashion among geneticists to refer to these parts of the genome as junk DNA, but rather as DNA of unknown function.

Bryan D. Ness and Jeffrey A. Knight The Encyclopedia of Genetics

This is a good example of taking what is unknowable, unverifiable, and unprovable and turning it into support for what is already presupposed and unproven science fiction--evolution.

--Dave