tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post8035278199297931267..comments2022-12-11T02:07:29.510-08:00Comments on Magisterial Fundies: Mary's Bones Part V: How Did Those 24,000 Carbon Year Bones Get Inside Those 80,000,000 Radiometric Year Rocks?Rick DeLanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-58715705188092750852013-03-05T20:14:04.957-08:002013-03-05T20:14:04.957-08:00My friend, I invite you to notice that tissues deg...My friend, I invite you to notice that tissues degrade because of a thing called entropy.<br /><br />Then go back and read the linked study, which sets upper limits on the time frames over which collagen can be preserved against this entropic degradation.<br /><br />You will notice that the resulting figure is drastically too short for your long ago dino bones.<br /><br />All the best.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-33540559172473891092013-03-05T20:12:37.301-08:002013-03-05T20:12:37.301-08:00"You have not refuted the age of the earth.&q..."You have not refuted the age of the earth."<br /><br />>> Refuted it? You have not established any age of the earth in the first place.<br /><br />"You have failed to address either the stellar evolution model or the multiple radioisotope dating methods that all agree."<br /><br />>> To the contrary, I have addressed both. "All agree" is not a category of scientific verification.<br /><br />Experimental confirmation is a category of scientific verification.<br /><br />You have not experimentally verified either the age of the Earth, or the age of the cosmos.<br /><br /><br />"Instead, you propose an unfalsifiable belief that can explain every possible observation: God did it."<br /><br />>> It is quite true that God did it (creation), since the cosmos certainly cannot have brought itself into existence, and hence the cosmos cannot be attributed any natural cause.<br /><br />This has nothing at all to do with the age of the Earth, or of the cosmos.<br /><br />A:This is my last comment. The discussion has been resolved. You reject science because of a book.<br /><br />Thanks for your clarity.<br /><br />>> Yer welcome.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-44769022119741408532013-03-05T20:10:02.035-08:002013-03-05T20:10:02.035-08:00"Given a belief that can explain all possible..."Given a belief that can explain all possible observations, nothing has ever been falsified."<br /><br />>> Yawn. Been over this several times already.<br /><br />That which is insusceptible of experimental falsification, is not a scientific proposition.<br /><br />Get it?<br /><br />"Any theory may be true. Falsification then has no place in science."<br /><br />>> If it ain't falsifiable, It ain't science.<br /><br />Get it?<br /><br />"Love and justice cannot explain all possible observations, and so they are not rejected out of hand."<br /><br />>> Neither are they susceptible of scientific experimental quantification. So they are both real, and non-scientific.<br /><br />Get it?<br /><br />A: I reject beliefs that explain all possible observation. <br /><br />>> The you reject natural selection.<br /><br />A: I can then do science.<br /><br />>> Yes, once you dump the tautology, you can then get back to doing science.<br /><br />A: I do not know what you do.<br /><br />>> At this point, mostly attempt to clean up after your self-contradictions.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-8568303493242089852013-03-05T18:15:30.944-08:002013-03-05T18:15:30.944-08:00You have not refuted the age of the earth. You hav...You have not refuted the age of the earth. You have failed to address either the stellar evolution model or the multiple radioisotope dating methods that all agree. Instead, you propose an unfalsifiable belief that can explain every possible observation: God did it.<br /><br />This is my last comment. The discussion has been resolved. You reject science because of a book.<br /><br />Thanks for your clarity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-49752347999563904932013-03-05T18:07:33.133-08:002013-03-05T18:07:33.133-08:00Given a belief that can explain all possible obser...Given a belief that can explain all possible observations, nothing has ever been falsified. Any theory may be true. Falsification then has no place in science.<br /><br />Love and justice cannot explain all possible observations, and so they are not rejected out of hand.<br /><br />I reject beliefs that explain all possible observation. I can then do science.<br /><br />I do not know what you do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-13759019033158497262013-03-05T18:03:12.192-08:002013-03-05T18:03:12.192-08:00Yes, they are determined from pure thermodynamic (...<i>Yes, they are determined from pure thermodynamic (entropy) principles.</i><br /><br />If this is the case, then they will have shown that a system that degrades more slowly decreases its entropy. Any system that degrades at any rate increases in entropy. The authors would therefore be demonstrably wrong.<br /><br />The presence of soft tissue in a 60 million year old dino bone does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. If the authors of that paper claim otherwise, then the authors are wrong.<br /><br />The authors do not seem to make such a claim in their paper. Only you make that claim.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-53380163366991848582013-03-05T17:57:56.141-08:002013-03-05T17:57:56.141-08:00"No observation can falsify a belief that exp..."No observation can falsify a belief that explains every possible observation."<br /><br />>> Exactly as I said. So why did you claim, above, that "15 minute old us and < 4 billion year old earth have been ruled out by observation"?<br /><br />You continue to contradict yourself on this point.<br /><br /><br />"Sensible people reject these beliefs out of hand."<br /><br />>> What beliefs? Those that cannot be experimentally tested? Absurd. We believe in love, justice, happiness, truth, beauty....none mofm these can be subjected to scientific experiement, and yet all exist.<br /><br />Only a truly pathetic fool would reject these out of hand.<br /><br /><br />"Once these explanations are rejected, many observations falsify the earth being less than 15 minutes old. I see many things that are older than 15 minutes."<br /><br />>> Nothing can *falsify*- in the experimental sense- the notion that we all popped into existence fifteen minutes ago with our memories intact.<br /><br />But it is not a scientific proposition.<br /><br />Would you care to debate it on metaphysical grounds?<br /><br />It can be completely falsified there.<br /><br />A: Observations also falsify the earth being less than 4 billion years old, or more than 6 billion years old.<br /><br />>> This has been refuted above, multiple times, and simply repeating yourself is not advancing the discussion.<br /><br />All of your purported "proofs" for the age of the Earth have been shown to rely upon suppositions which, themselves, have not been experimentally demonstrated.<br /><br />I invite you to advance any new ideas you jight have, please don;t keep repeating the old ones.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-48478726849203181432013-03-05T17:46:59.855-08:002013-03-05T17:46:59.855-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-6974123778758520872013-03-05T17:45:56.671-08:002013-03-05T17:45:56.671-08:00No observation can falsify a belief that explains ...No observation can falsify a belief that explains every possible observation. Sensible people reject these beliefs out of hand.<br /><br />Once these explanations are rejected, many observations falsify the earth being less than 15 minutes old. I see many things that are older than 15 minutes.<br /><br />Observations also falsify the earth being less than 4 billion years old, or more than 6 billion years old.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-31964507750567708082013-03-05T17:37:43.769-08:002013-03-05T17:37:43.769-08:00Now you are contradicting yourself.
You earlier a...Now you are contradicting yourself.<br /><br />You earlier acknowledged that no observation could falsify the proposition that we all popped into existence fifteen minutes ago with intact memories.<br /><br />This is correct.<br /><br />Nothing can falsify such a proposition.<br /><br />Now you say it can be observationally falsified.<br /><br />How?Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-8554113153399622572013-03-05T17:36:43.454-08:002013-03-05T17:36:43.454-08:00Yes, they are determined from pure thermodynamic (...Yes, they are determined from pure thermodynamic (entropy) principles.<br /><br />And yes, it is exactly the Second Law of Thermodynamics which yields the upper ages calculated in the paper linked.<br /><br />Upper limits which, by the way, are at least a full order of magnitude less than what we observe in the dino bones.<br /><br />Ergo, we have a serious problem for the evolutionary, long ages timeline.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-56340354312464900692013-03-05T17:33:32.083-08:002013-03-05T17:33:32.083-08:00Both cases: 15 minute old us and < 4 billion ye...Both cases: 15 minute old us and < 4 billion year old earth have been ruled out by observation. They may be true religious beliefs. They are possible only outside of science. Therefore I treat both cases as impossible.<br /><br />I choose to base my beliefs on science as much as possible, and on holy books as little as possible.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-40968029675358421032013-03-05T17:23:16.317-08:002013-03-05T17:23:16.317-08:00"Maybe we were made 15 minutes ago with our m..."Maybe we were made 15 minutes ago with our memories intact."<br /><br />>> But there would be no experiment which could disprove such an assumption, therefore it is not a scientific hypothesis.<br /><br /><br /> Current observations do not rule out this possibility. <br /><br />>> They merely rule out the possibility of falsifying it experimentally; that is, they rule it out as a scientific hypothesis.<br /><br />A: It would then be interesting to ask what our A lives would have been like if we were older than 15 minutes.<br /><br />>> Our lives would be exactly as they are now. There would be no difference at all. One could advance the metaphysical hypothesis that we all came into existence 15 minutes ago, and the rest of us could recognize that, since there could be no conceivable experimental basis for falsifying such an hypothesis, it is therefore *not* a scientific hypothesis.<br /><br />A: Maybe the sun is only 1000 years old. It is interesting to ask what its existence would have been like if it were older than 1000 years.<br /><br />>> It is true that we do not possess experimental proof for the age of the Sun.<br /><br />A: With current solar metallicity, temperature and mass, the age of the sun can be determined.<br /><br />>> No. One can advance an hypothesis of its age, based on various assumptions. One cannot experimentally demonstrate those assumptions to be true; that is, it is impossible to dismiss alternative hypotheses, based strictly on experimental grounds.<br /><br />A: The Big Bang is not a necessary assumption. <br /><br />>> We agree.<br /><br />A:<br />God could have made the protostar, baby sun, and let it evolve.<br /><br />>> We agree. God could also have made the Sun in its present condition, and let it devolve :-)Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-5754155503201393412013-03-05T17:17:42.995-08:002013-03-05T17:17:42.995-08:00The upper limits are not determined from pure ther...The upper limits are not determined from pure thermodynamic principles.<br /><br />It may be unlikely for tissue to be preserved for millions of years. It does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-42879630530287813942013-03-05T17:15:14.610-08:002013-03-05T17:15:14.610-08:00Maybe we were made 15 minutes ago with our memorie...Maybe we were made 15 minutes ago with our memories intact. Current observations do not rule out this possibility. It would then be interesting to ask what our lives would have been like if we were older than 15 minutes.<br /><br />Maybe the sun is only 1000 years old. It is interesting to ask what its existence would have been like if it were older than 1000 years.<br /><br />With current solar metallicity, temperature and mass, the age of the sun can be determined. The Big Bang is not a necessary assumption. God could have made the protostar, baby sun, and let it evolve.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-63285665932770326602013-03-05T17:11:57.437-08:002013-03-05T17:11:57.437-08:00Actually, you are wrong.
The scientists in the li...Actually, you are wrong.<br /><br />The scientists in the linked paper above have provided *upper limit* preservation ages, even under ideal laboratory conditions, that are well over an order of magnitude less than the purported ages of the soft-tissue bearing Cretaceous dino bones.<br /><br />So your above assertion, while admissible as an article of faith, is contrary to the scientific evidence.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-85981920743541592962013-03-05T17:09:37.328-08:002013-03-05T17:09:37.328-08:00The dinosaur bone is not a closed system. Even if ...The dinosaur bone is not a closed system. Even if the bone were a closed system, the deterioration could happen slower than the paper suggests without the second law of thermodynamics being violated.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-51269220828486511522013-03-05T17:09:07.631-08:002013-03-05T17:09:07.631-08:00Stellar evolution *assumes* that the elements in t...Stellar evolution *assumes* that the elements in the star came into existence via a Big Bang, mediated via Pop III stars.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, the stars were created in the condition we presently observe them, all assumptions concerning their age, would simply be artifacts of the metaphysical assumption of the Big Bang.<br /><br />Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-26867918218090791572013-03-05T17:06:12.903-08:002013-03-05T17:06:12.903-08:00I suggest you go back and read the paper again, an...I suggest you go back and read the paper again, and notice that each time the words "degradation", "loss", "deterioration", etc. are employed, they are referring to a process which is known as "entropy", which process is described as the outcome of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.<br /><br />Hope this helps.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-66458274648912780852013-03-05T17:06:01.878-08:002013-03-05T17:06:01.878-08:00Stellar evolution does not require the big bang. S...Stellar evolution does not require the big bang. Stellar evolution models generally require a metallicity, mass and effective temperature. Basic physics is applied and the age of the object is determined.<br /><br />Big bang is not necessary to constrain the age of the sun.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-23828728883985118782013-03-05T17:02:58.711-08:002013-03-05T17:02:58.711-08:00Since all of your stellar evolution models are bas...Since all of your stellar evolution models are based upon a Big Bang, from which inflation proceeds (not a shred of a hint about the particle physics identity of the inflation), from which Pop III stars appear (not a hint of evidence for any Pop III stars), as a result of gravitational formation under the influence of dark matter (not a shred of a hint of evidence for dark matter)........<br /><br />We see that your models depend upon vast assumptions for which no evidence is presented.<br /><br />We are not in any way bound to accept such chains of supposition in the absence of experimentally verifiable evidence.<br /><br />Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-69417391986535821692013-03-05T17:00:56.977-08:002013-03-05T17:00:56.977-08:00The table you suggest lists activation energies, t...The table you suggest lists activation energies, temperatures and detection limits. It does not discuss entropy or any other thermodynamic variables.<br /><br />The paper itself does not mention the second law of thermodynamics.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-65377227617152762382013-03-05T16:55:57.325-08:002013-03-05T16:55:57.325-08:00Your previous statement did not mention current st...Your previous statement did not mention current stellar evolution models or current stellar measurements. <br /><br />The abundances of heavy elements in the sun can be determined observationally. Observations of many thousands of stars at different ages allow us to constrain the age of the sun. The sun is not older than 5 billion years. It is not younger than 4 billion years.<br /><br />You have not addressed the numerous dating methods that all agree.<br /><br />Maybe the dino is 24000 years old. Maybe C14 dating cannot be used to determine the age of dinosaur tissue. Both explanations account for the current measurements. Neither requires adjusting the age of the earth.<br /><br />This is science. Open your eyes. Let your assumptions be challenged. Don't ignore the red dots.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05734332478502379413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-8398003145417073882013-03-05T16:50:16.679-08:002013-03-05T16:50:16.679-08:00Actually, they do.
See http://www.biochemist.org/...Actually, they do.<br /><br />See http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf<br /><br />Table, second page.<br /><br />Cheers!Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-28289115389094944232013-03-05T16:47:20.044-08:002013-03-05T16:47:20.044-08:00"Population III stars should not be able to b..."Population III stars should not be able to be seen yet. They are a prediction for future observations. "<br /><br /><br />>> Ha! That is hilarious. It is indeed handy to be able to predict the future, when explaining the past, while having not the slightest bit of evidence in the present.<br /><br />But it sure as heck isn't science.<br /><br />A: Population III stars are part of an origin theory for current stars, and not an explanation for how current stars age. Their existence or non-existence does not affect current stellar evolution models or current measurements.<br /><br />>> Alas, A, without Pop III stars your BB theory has no way to account for the existence of any element heavier than helium.<br /><br />Since we see elements heavier than helium, but we do not see Pop III stars, there is of course no scientific proof for any age of the universe purported to be based upon your model.<br /><br />The situation drastically worsens even from this woeful situation once we grasp how drastically wrong the GR gravity theories are at scales larger than a stellar cluster.<br /><br />The entire standard model is a baroque, rapidly-escalating Rube Goldberg contraption of epicycle upon epicycle.<br /><br />Hypothetically, C14 will date dino bones accurately. Bones were C14 dated to 24000 years. Either the hypothesis that C14 will date dino bones accurately is falsified, or the dino is 24000 years old.<br /><br />A: Radioisotope dating and stellar measurements determine the age of the earth cannot be over 5 billion years or under 4 billion years. Future results will establish better limits. No result with C14 can imply an age > 5 billion years or < 4 billion years. It is impossible.<br /><br />>> Since your radiosotope dating is based upon an assumed derivation of heavier elements via Pop III stars, and your stellar measurements likewise depend upon that epicycle- which is not observed- we are not in any wayu bound to accept your metaphysical creation myth as scientific.<br /><br />It isn't.<br /><br />Science involves experimentally falsifiable hypotheses.<br /><br />Obviously, if one can invent inflation, Pop III stars, and 96% of the universe out of mathematical fictions dark matter and dark energy, one is not discussing an experimentally falsifiable theory- one is dealing with a metaphysical creation story.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.com