I'm very angry about my last thread being closed. I wasn't trying to insult Digital_Savior, I honestly wanted to see the scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design. Thusly, I'm reposting WITHOUT her name in the title.

quote:

I am wondering what scientific evidence shows proof for Intelligent Design/Creationism. And how this proof outweighs the few scientific reasonings behind evolution.

[This message has been edited by Karik (edited 08-02-2005).]

I really don't understand how you can use a 'designer' as a mechanism when there's no evidence for one.

I wasn't accusing you a insulting her.

But, anyways, in the future, if you have a specific question for a specific member, ask them in e-mail. This is an open forum.

Cheers,

Lost

The only thing it relies on is faulty science and the question "we're so perfect, how could we have evolved from pond scum?".

Fuck me sideways. I really wanted to see some answers for this.

bumb

quote:Originally posted by Dehymenizer:

The only thing it relies on is faulty science and the question "we're so perfect, how could we have evolved from pond scum?".

becuase we're not perfect ya jackass second of alll how could gold come from dirt how can coffee com from beans and how can white bread come from wheat? huh? huh? SARCASM ALERT you atheists disgust me with your "laws of physics" and unwillingness to accept my dim generallities as conclusive evidence of my arguement

quote:Originally posted by Karik:

I'm very angry about my last thread being closed. I wasn't trying to insult Digital_Savior, I honestly wanted to see the scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design. Thusly, I'm reposting WITHOUT her name in the title.





oh noes!

my faith has been crushed by the piercing logic of this teenager.

mine eyes have seen the glory!

you are wasting your time.

When Lost Cause closed the thread, I suggested we move the debate to the Mad Scientist forum and use an old thread of mine that I had created, which dealt with something similar:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html

DS has posted there now, and apparently will post the information there; though I'm not sure now given this new thread.

So basically, if you're in any way interested in evidence for Intelligent Design, and any refutations of that evidence, pay attention here, and the thread in Mad Scientists (link provided above), since we're not sure were the IDers are going to post in.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-02-2005).]

http://tinyurl.com/7l4u4

This link is food for thought. I think both sides of the debate should read this.

Below, i've copied a small part of it, that if i could, i would highlight or 'bold tag' it

"My point is that if we Christians really understood that all evidence is actually interpreted on the basis of certain presuppositions, then we wouldn’t be in the least bit intimidated by the evolutionists’ supposed ‘evidence.’ We should instead be looking at the evolutionist’s (or old-earther’s) interpretation of the evidence, and how the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and be confirmed by testable and repeatable science."

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

http://tinyurl.com/7l4u4

This link is food for thought. I think both sides of the debate should read this.

Below, i've copied a small part of it, that if i could, i would highlight or 'bold tag' it

"My point is that if we Christians really understood that all evidence is actually interpreted on the basis of certain presuppositions, then we wouldn**8217;t be in the least bit intimidated by the evolutionists**8217; supposed **8216;evidence.**8217; We should instead be looking at the evolutionist**8217;s (or old-earther**8217;s) interpretation of the evidence, and how the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and be confirmed by testable and repeatable science."

My goodness! That has to be ye smartest thing I've read in ages. Not the over-all idea, but the basic drive behind it: Everyone accepts or denies ANYTHING on a basis of previous concepts, suppositions, and beliefs. That's the main reason I'm forgiving of people...they only have so much control over themselves, the rest is hard-wired. Oddly enough though, that's the basic knowledge required to brainwash someone...

Xtreem I love it, nice find. I also think everyone should read The Anti-Process (http://tinyurl.com/5kvmb) to learn why arguing is futile with some people.

Xtreem:

Some good info in the article, also bad.

Yes, everyone has presuppositions about everything they do. You throw a ball to someone and your brain presupposes that gravity will stay the same and acts the same on your friends side of the field. You presuppose this because you have tested it over and over and over again. Science makes similar presuppositions.

The problem comes when the presuppositions are not based on tested methods but on faith. "The bible is literal and accurate in it's creation tale" is faith. AiG mistakes preconcieved conclusion with presupposition.

Ignore evidence

"Then, beginning with the big picture of history from the Bible, look at the same facts through these biblical glasses and interpret them differently."

The meat of AiG, and I would suggest you read both the Morton's Demon and the Anti process papers linked in the other thread (in mad science). AiG is basically advocating against them in this sentence.

We know based on AiG's practices and statements they are willing to "interpret" evidence into nothingness and ignore it if it doesn't match their current conclusion.

Same Evidence

I have seen many challenges to this and although they claim it's the "same evidence" I have heard very few creationists able to "re-interpet" large pieces of evidence for evolution.

Hypocrisy.

It should be said AiG's "Do not use" list is not as noble as they make it out to be. You will notice few AiG mistakes on the list. Most are arguments used by other creationist groups (more specifically two creationist groups). The list is more about political infighting between creationists.

Ironically AiG's pages and even a link in that article fall into the traps they warn others about. Old evidence that is false, misleading or was jumped on too quickly fill the FAQ pages of AiG, yet are no where on the list.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Below, i've copied a small part of it, that if i could, i would highlight or 'bold tag' it





UBB code guide:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/ubbcode.html

If you all don't mind, I will post my responses in here.

I will just be forthcoming and admit that there are too many people in MS, and I would get my butt handed to me.

I probably will here, too...but I will give it a shot anyway. Science is not my strong suit..

Anyway, Xtreem, to try and fit the Bible into the evolutionary box is kind of like being a Unitarian.

If ANY science points one way or another, we MUST look in the direction it is pointing. We cannot say, "I will manipulate this to prove my point."

I think this is what evolutionist's think Creationist's do, and vice a versa.

I do my best to try and avoid that, and I will continue to.

I agree Digital_Savior, instead of everyone trying to prove the other wrong it would be healthier to work together to understand things. That said, I've been reading some very interesting stuff in The in-depth journal of CREATION. One paper entitled "The origin of language and communication" concludes that only humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication and is used as verification of God as designer. Quoting Noam Chomsky, "The rate of vocabulary acquisition is so high at certain stages in life...concludes that in some manner the conceptual system with whcih lexical items are connected is already in place," they use this to support their argument for intelligent design. Although this is very attractive it should not eliminate further discussion. Is it a question of why or how?

Linguistics is tricky and a lot of Noam Chomsky's ideas are controversial. Yeah there are some mechanisms in place, but they aren't understood. Linguistics is FAR too broad and deep to grasp any of the implications in a quote like that. I've only taken one course in linguistics, so I know the limits of my knowledge there. It's crazy. However, there are rationalists and empiricists in linguistics, just like in philosophy. Chomsky is on one side, and there are many others who would oppose his ideas and go so far as to say he's wrong in many areas for a number of reasons. Just some food for thought.

So, let me start here...

Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified (#386)

by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Abstract - The results of this test were astounding. As can be readily seen in figure 1, whereas seven of the samples averaged around 30 Po radiohalos each, the two samples straddling the staurolite isograd contained 177 and 147 Po radiohalos respectively. This is exactly as predicted.

One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research.1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days! There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). So radioisotope "ages" for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today's rates, are grossly in error, and these rocks would thus have formed during the Flood year only 4500 years ago. A hydrothermal fluid (hot water) transport model was thus proposed which explained how the Po was separated from its parent 238U and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the Po radiohalos.3-5

Another outcome of this research was the discovery of plentiful Po radio-halos in metamorphic rocks.6 Such a finding was predicted, because hydrothermal fluids are generated in water-saturated sedimentary rocks as they become deeply buried, helping to transform them into regional metamorphic complexes.7-9 Thus it was argued that the same hydrothermal fluid transport model could likewise explain the formation of Po radiohalos in those regional metamorphic rocks where an adequate supply of U-decay products occurred.10

In continued research, a test of this Po radiohalos formation model in metamorphic rocks was proposed. Sandstones often contain some zircon grains, derived from erosion of, for example, granitic rocks and deposited in water-transported sandy sediments. Chemical weathering of such source rocks plus abrasion of grains during water transport destroys all biotite grains, so none are ever present in sandstones. However, when sandstones are metamorphosed, the resultant schists and gneisses usually contain biotite grains, which could thus have only formed via mineral reactions during the metamorphism. Such mineral reactions have been studied in laboratory experiments and in them water is often a by-product.11 At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes such water would become hydrothermal fluids capable of transporting any U-decay products from nearby zircon grains and depositing Po in biotite flakes to form Po radiohalos.

The thick Thunderhead Sandstone (Upper Precambrian Great Smoky Group) in the Great Smoky Mountains along the Tennessee/North Carolina border was deformed and regionally metamorphosed during formation of the Appalachian Highlands, beginning in the so-called Devonian (that is, early in the Flood year).12-14 With increasing temperatures and pressures from northwest to southeast, the regional metamorphism produced in these sandstone layers a series of chemically and mineralogically distinct zones of schists and gneisses.15 These zones are named according to the first appearance of the distinctive metamorphic minerals which characterize them as the intensity of the metamorphism increased laterally—the biotite, garnet, staurolite, and kyanite zones. The boundaries between these zones, called isograds, are where mineral reactions have produced the new minerals because of the progressively higher temperatures and pressures.

When originally deposited, the Thunderhead Sandstone contained occasional zircon grains, but no biotite flakes. This metamorphosed sandstone, however, now contains both biotite flakes and zircon grains throughout all these metamorphic zones. Because they still contain minor amounts of U, the zircons would thus have been a source of 238U decay products including Po. Therefore, if hydrothermal fluids had been generated by the metamorphism, according to the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation, those hydrothermal fluids should have transported the Po diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite flakes, where it should have formed Po radiohalos.

In the metamorphosed Thunderhead Sandstone it was found that at the staurolite isograd, the boundary between the garnet and staurolite zones, the mineral chlorite disappears from the rocks and muscovite decreases sharply, whereas staurolite appears and biotite becomes more abundant. This can be explained by the mineral reaction:

54 muscovite + 31 chlorite —> 54 biotite + 24 staurolite +152 quartz + 224 water which has been confirmed experimentally.16-17 The generation of this water by this reaction at the prevailing high temperatures determined experimentally would thus have resulted in relatively large volumes of hydrothermal fluids in the rocks surrounding this isograd. These would have been ideal conditions for the generation of Po radiohalos in these metamorphosed sandstones, if Po radiohalo formation does indeed occur as described by the hydrothermal fluid transport model.

Therefore, as a test of the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation, nine samples of the metamorphosed Thunderhead Sandstone were collected from road-cut outcrops along U.S. Highway 441 between Cherokee, North Carolina, and Gatlinburg, Tennessee, forming a traverse through the biotite, garnet, staurolite, and kyanite zones of the regional metamorphism as already described.18 The biotite flakes were separated from these samples and scanned under a microscope for radiohalos, using standardized techniques.19-20 The total number of Po radiohalos found in each sample was then plotted against each sample's relative position along the traverse through the metamorphic zones (figure 1 http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2467 ).

The results of this test were astounding. As can be readily seen in figure 1, whereas seven of the samples averaged around 30 Po radiohalos each, the two samples straddling the staurolite isograd contained 177 and 147 Po radiohalos respectively. This is exactly as predicted. Uranium-bearing zircon grains and biotite flakes are present in the metamorphosed sandstones in all samples along the traverse, so during the metamorphism the minor water originally in the sandstones when deposited has generated some Po radiohalos. However, where the mineral reaction around the staurolite isograd has produced a lot of hot water, large numbers of Po radiohalos have formed.

The hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalos formation has thus been tested and verified. Neither the Po nor the biotite flakes were primordial. The biotite flakes were formed in the sandstone only during the metamorphism early in the Flood year, and the Po was derived from 238U decay in the zircon grains. And where extra water was generated during the metamorphic processes, many more Po radiohalos were formed. This successful verification only serves to spur on continuing research, because the time scale implications for the formation of the Po radiohalos and these metamorphic rocks are only consistent with a global Flood on a young earth.

(References given on the link above)

************************************************** ***********

Can I please just ask that we don't have a link war ? I can't ever respond to 50 links "refuting" the stuff I post in support of Creation, and you know it.

Cut and paste the pertinent data, with a link so we can go to it if we see the need.

Well, I see you didn't actually bother to read Rust's refutation in Mad Science (this was addressed). How sad. Rust, have fun. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

What the fuck? Don't leave me here doing all the dirty work.

DS, Beta is completely correct. This was already refuted in the very link he said we should all read before starting the debate. You're using an article that has already been refuted, so this is just making me work twice, which is unreasonable. So I'm going to provide the link to the thread again (which he had already provided to you before) so that you can read exactly what was refuted, and so that you can see that the issue of radiohalos was dealt with.

I see no reason why I should bother providing the links again, and copying and posting the relevant text in this case, if you didn't bother to read the thread.

So, this is the thread where the issue was dealt with:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I see no reason why I should bother providing the links again, and copying and posting the relevant text in this case, if you didn't bother to read the thread.



Here, for simplicity:

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Claim: 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE380.html

Claim: 2. Too few supernova remnants.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html

Claim: Comets disintegrate too quickly.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#comets

Claim: Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#erosion

Claim: Not enough sodium in the sea.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

Claim: The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#magnetic

Claim: 7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD510.html

Claim: Biological material decays too fast.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

Claim: Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#polonium

Claim: Too much helium in minerals.

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

Hilarity (creationists claiming the opposite, that there is too little helium!): http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html

Claim: Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

Claim: Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Refutation:

Even if we take the creationist account, there have been billions of human deaths, not to mention billions of deaths from other animals. Are creationists claiming they can point out every single remain from every single animal that has ever existed? No. Bones are buried. They are destroyed. The fact that we don't have every single remain of every single homo sapien is not an argument against evolution.

Claim: Agriculture is too recent

Refutation:

This argument doesn't even make sense. 10,000 years is too recent... but less than 6,000 years (which is what creationism would necessitate) is not too recent?

Claim: History is too short.

Refutation:

They refute themselves. As they say, Prehistoric man made cave paintings and kept information on lunar cycles. That's history. That we do not call it "recorded history" is not because it doesn't depict something that has happened in the past, but simply because it is not done so in a written language.

______________________________________________

Claim: Uplift of Today's Mountains:

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis/ http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis-overthrust.html

Claim: Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology



Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

Claim: New Rate Data Support a Young World

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Claim: Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/creation.html

Claim: Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html



I believe that is all the claim/refutation already pre made in the other thread. Since Digital decided to only post in this one, I hoped to....consolidate.



I'm still interested in real evidence of intelligent design.

I think it was Rust that posted this:

quote:Claim: Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/creation.html

First, i still say that rocks are boring.. so after reading (only about half of) the talkorigins link (and almost falling asleep), i decided to check if there was anything interesting in the csun.edu link.

I found this: http://tinyurl.com/cb5zk

Although i agree with the guy with the Th.D, it was quite enlightening to me, to see the point of view of the geologist (Lorence Collins) that believes in the Christian God, while still believing in 'long-age'.

One thing that i found of particular interest, that Collins says, is, "On the other hand, your method of interpreting the Bible forces you always to have the right literal answer with no alternative solution. There is no correction possible because your interpretation of the Bible has to be scientifically accurate forever. That belief in such accuracy defies intelligence, but I understand your need to have this kind of faith."

And (on a slightly different note, although it could be taken as a direct response to the above quote), i found this comment by the theologian to be right on the mark:

" You have decided to judge the Bible by the record while I have decided to judge the record by the Bible. I believe that if the writers of the Old Testament did write under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as numerous Bible passages claim, then the Genesis account of creation was also written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Since God was present during creation and was personally responsible for it, then I trust His record of what happened as He was the only observer."

I've bolded the reason that i believe in that literal interpretation of the Bible.

And because i believe in a literal interpretation, it is this reason that i believe in Special Creation, about 6000 years ago.

Since you guys decided to purposely ignore what I already said (which you accuse me of), I will post it again.

I am not going to read 50 links in "refutation". I can't, and won't.

Just because YOUR article claims to refute this scientific evidence doesn't mean you understand why it does, or IF it really does.

I gave one example, now please debate it. Posting links with titles like, "Radiohalos: Refuted" does nothing to enhance this debate, nor does it explain anything to me.

Dumping an entire almanac of information on my screen isn't productive, and I won't play that game.

Take what YOU believe to be refutation from YOUR link, and post it in an intelligent format, that can deal point by point with the information I posted, showing how it refutes it, please.

Otherwise, this is stupid and pointless (and all it tells me is that you are riding on the coattails of TalkOrigins, and not your own understanding of scientific refutation provided).

I am not riding on the coattails of ICR.org. I fully understand the data posted, and can debate it effectively, if needed (hopefully). I refuse to have a link war, AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID.

Fine. I just assumed I would let you have fun with her first.

Calm down.

DS, you took how many days to copy and paste an article to this thread and now you are complaining that people copy and pasted links? Pasting the article vs the link is almost like posting a long url vs a tiny url one is just longer than the other. You have yet to show you understand what you posted. Give me a break and Stop whining.

Not Evidence for ID.

First of all, it should be said this isn't evidence for an intelligent designer. If anything this is closer to evidence of a young earth but not quite. If true it would be evidence that the rocks the halos exist in were formed quickly but not evidence that an intelligent designer was behind it.

Radon vs Polonium Halos.

It is virtually impossible to distinguish radon halos from polonium halos. This provides a huge stumbling block for the po-halo hypothesis. Radon is an inert gas with a longer half life than most polonium (about 4 days). Giving it time to migrate to another area before it comes to rest and decays forming a halo. This matches with the fact many halos are found around uranium which produces the radon, and they are found along cracks and other areas where a gas could flow to.

Without being able to tell the difference, it pretty much defeats most of the po-halo claims.

Evidence for the flood.

As said, radon is a gas. So until they can determine po-halos vs Rn-halo, the idea of a water transport model for the polonium is moot, as radon doesn't need a transport model.

Faster decay.

Since the Uranium-radon halo creation is an ongoing process, if radon is the cause of the halos, current decay rates match perfectly fine. Uranium creates the radon which them decays leaving a halo while the uranium is also creating a halo. Only the uranium ring of the halo is long forming, many uranium decay products have short half lifes.

If decay rates have changed so much to make uranium decay in only a few days, then there should be more evidence than halos (which also have a standard explanation). We know of at least one natural nuclear reactor based on current decay rates, a change in decay rates of a huge magnitude would make that find mediocre. The evidence should almost literally be everywhere (including on the moon and in stars).

Data.

It would be nice to see some of their data but unfortunately they don't provide any in the article and I don't have access to the reference material.

Two main sources, you have already seen the links I believe,

source 1 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html)

source 2 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html)

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Fine. I just assumed I would let you have fun with her first.

Ahhh, I thought you mean you weren't going to post anymore. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

--------------

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

So, let me start here...

Could you tell me what difference there is between this and posting a link? There is none, other that you saved us a click.

This shows no clue of you either 'knowing' or 'not knowing' the subject matter, and is absolutely no different from just posting a link.

In any case, Beta69 did a good job. I'd only like to add that they deal only from Polonium deriving from Uranium-238, which is not the only isoptope which produces Polonium, and that would be found in the rock. They ignore other isotopes. For the hypothesis to be correct other Polonium isotopes (from isotopes other than Uranium-238) have to also produce radiohalos, but they don't mention them because they produce radiohalos in much lower numbers than would be expected if their argument was to follow.

Moreover, uranium and thorium decay has to do with helium levels in minerals, which has other problems for creationists as well.

And most important of all I believe, which Beta already dealt with but I feel should be reiterated: this has little to do with intelligent design. Are we arguing intelligent design or biblical creationism? They are very different hypotheses.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I'd only like to add that they deal only from Polonium deriving from Uranium-238, which is not the only isotope which produces Polonium, and that would be found in the rock.

A good point.

I thought I would add... Gentry (the original supporter of the Halo argument) admitted in court along time ago that even then many scientists believed there was a natural explanation for the Halos. It was his faith that led him to ignore possible natural explanations.

So... anyone want to provide any evidence?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So... anyone want to provide any evidence?

You're asking too much!