It is a little known fact that scientists who argue that the paleontological record of life is hundreds of millions of years old, when confronted with astrophysical facts, must eventually rely heavily on the hypothesis of finely tuned, large scale global warming. The problem is known as the Faith Young Sun Paradox. A few claim they have solved the paradox, but many remain skeptical of the solutions. But one fact remains, it is an acknowledged scientific paradox. And beyond this paradox, the question of Solar System evolution on the whole has some theological implications.
Astrophysicists concluded that when the sun was young, it was not as bright as it is now. As the sun ages it creates more and more heat, eventually incinerating the Earth before the sun eventually burns out. This is due to the change in products and reactants in the nuclear fusion process that powers the sun. This nuclear evolution of the sun will drive the evolution of the solar system, unless Jesus returns…
As a brief aside, my favorite agnostic/atheist philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, made this observation that mentioned the evolution of the solar system:
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief…all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
Ironically Russell’s words inspired my re-acceptance of Christianity after I nearly left the faith in 2001-2003. There seemed little ultimate personal benefit over infinite timescales if there were no God. If I were to find personal benefit on infinite timescales, it would have to be something God himself provided, and thus from that time forward I sought to find evidence to support creation, Noah’s flood, and the historicity of the gospels.
To that end, any anomaly that challenges evolutionary theory caught my attention. One of them was the Faith Young Sun Paradox.
The faint young Sun paradox describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth’s history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch. The issue was raised by astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972. Explanations of this paradox have taken into account greenhouse effects, astrophysical influences, or a combination of the two.
The unresolved question is how a climate suitable for life was maintained on Earth over the long timescale despite the variable solar output and wide range of terrestrial conditions.[2]
If the Earth were an ice ball, there would be no Cambrian explosion. If the Earth were an ice ball, the shiny white ice ball Earth would likely reflect sunlight back into space and keep it an ice ball to this day. To solve the problem of how the Earth did not remain frozen during the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian, advocates of the billion-year-old fossil record invoke global warming!
Not only are there serious empirical and theoretical problems to solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox, but even assuming there is a solution to the paradox through global warming, it would be nothing short of miraculous.
The sun’s heat output is constantly increasing over time, and the necessary greenhouse effect would have to be finely tuned to spontaneously diminish itself to keep the Earth from incinerating as the sun got hotter. So this glorious global warming must walk a tight rope of fine tuning with no intelligent direction to prevent the Earth from either turning into an ice ball or becoming an incinerator.
Emeritus professor of Astronomy, University North Carolina, Danny Faulkner:
For instance, the current makeup of Earth’s atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth’s atmosphere in concert with the Sun. One could call this the Goldilocks syndrome, an obvious comparison to the children’s tale of the three bears.
….
The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere’s evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.Of course, there is a third possibility. Perhaps the Earth/Sun system is not billions of years old…
So even assuming the glories of global warming solve the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it would do so in a way that is indistinguishable from a miracle. Like so many things, the Faint Young Sun Paradox adds to the view that we live on a privileged planet in a privileged universe. At some point privileged observations are statistically indistinguishable from miracles.
You’ve obviously never had him change the wording of your posts without attribution on blogs he where he had moderator powers. Had him delete points he couldn’t address and had him add words which make it seem you agree with his anti-science claims. Sal never stooped as low as Joe G in making physical threats but his slimy “invisible editing” was almost as bad IMHO.
The impression Sal gave was he wanted to get in the “professional Creationist” business. Like Meyer and Wells he realized there’s still easy money to be made fleecing the true believers. As already pointed out his purpose on C/E boards wasn’t to discuss or learn science. It was to hone the YECkery to make it harder to refute when Sal’s book or DVD finally came out.
If he makes it really hard to refute, it will be a short book.
vjtorley,
As a matter of further perspective: it is possible to date ash and lava from within and above fossiliferous strata. It does not support the ‘signal, not noise’ contention.
Exactly. Someone else here pointed out that we probably shouldn’t be helping him.
It would be a shame if his book were immediately followed by one documenting the history of his scam, including some of the unflattering comments he’s made about Christianity.
Salvador Cordova, the anti-YEC YEC, anti-ID IDist, and anti-Christian Christian.
🙂
Patrick,
Helping to raise education standards from the execrable to the dubious is its own reward.
There are many anti-Christian Christians. In fact, there are enough of them to elect the anti-Christ as president.
Morgan was pretty good, he won the Nobel Prize, but he wasn’t a Darwinist, but a mutationist.
Isn’t that a distinction without a difference to you? Neither of those positions involves a deity doing anything. There’s no comfort for you there.
My response was moved to guano that showed he made a erroneous remark. The post was within the rules, I attacked the comment, not the commenter.
stcordova,
Sal, there’s no problem in copy-pasting the substantive content minus the offending bits.
stcordova,
He was critical of Darwinian theory early, but not later.
He was only ‘not-a-Darwinist’ in that he did not accept Darwin’s version of inheritance. No-one does, which is one reason no-one but Creationists ever applies that term.
Ok,
I posted the rebuttal to Bertche’s evaluation of Taylor an Southon 2007 experiments, and BK conflated the discussion of Taylor of Southon 2007 with RATE group experiments.
For the reader’s benefit, let’s track the evolution BK responses.
I quoted Baumgardner’s rebuttal of Bertche right here, notice the bolded statement:
In response, BK said:
BK was clearly referring to RATE experiments conducted by Baumgardner and the YECs, not the Taylor and Southon 2007 experiments. So he criticized the Taylor and Southon 2007 experiments as if they were the YEC RATE experiments by saying: “Their data is bogus“. But Taylor and Southon 2007 are gold standard experiments, they are not the YEC RATE experiments.
Then BK claims Berche refuted Baumgardner’s analysis of Taylor and Southon 2007. To which Baumgardner pointed out Berche made numerous errors:
That was not Baumgarder’s data, that was Baumgardner’s comment on Taylor and Southon data. Baumgardner pointed out Berche misrepresented Taylor and Southon’s remarks, and hence BK’s claim:
was wrong. His “pertinent conclusions” were based on Berche’s misrepresentations, cherry picked data, distortions.
When BK got called on his “pertinent conclusion”, he complained the RATE experiments were sloppy, but the experiment in question was Taylor and Southon 2007, not the RATE experiments.
I didn’t complain, Sal, I pointed out the obvious shortcomings in their work that rendered their conclusions worthless.
I also posted the portion of Bertsche’s response that you failed to include that addressed the issue Baumgardner tried, but failed, to refute.
Are you going to attempt an answer to the question(s) I posed to you, Sal?
I kinda expected the anti-christ to be more intelligent. And suave.
From your comment:
Given the repetition, that’s easily interpreted as “comment by a tard” (leaving aside the fact that some people are offended by that word). Please address the comment, not the commenter.
I read your comment and I see no refutation of the numerous flaws that have been pointed out with your understanding of C14 dating.
What, specifically, would it take for you to recognize that your argument is flawed? Please be as succinct as possible.
If by “their” you refer to the RATE group, the RATE group’s experiments have no immediate bearing on Taylor and Southon 2007 nor Bertche’s errant evaluation of Taylor and Southon 2007. You’re making non-sequiturs. You’re non-sequiturs are of no value to this discussion. You can’t even get straight which experiment is being immediately discussed.
The interpretation is by the reader, not by me. I didn’t make BK’s comments, I’m only pointing out his mistakes.
That’s a leading question, like “have you stopped beating your puppy.” What would it take for you to recognize BK is mistaken? Please be as succinct as possible.
Those are not at all comparable. I’m asking what, specifically, you base your argument on so that we can all understand the evidence and logic that underlie your view. That will focus the discussion and, hopefully, allow us to achieve Elizabeth’s goal of finding the root cause of our disagreements.
If you could directly address his argument without copious cut-and-paste and demonstrate some understanding of both the limitations of C14 dating and how it is cross validated with other techniques, that would go a long way. As it stands you seem to be perpetrating a version of the Gish Gallop.
From the origin Taylor and Southon 2007 paper:
Contrast what Taylor and Southon 2007 actually say compared with what Bertche claims they say:
Bertche can’t even quote the paper accurately! And BK upholds Bertche’s claims as authoritative because Bertche’s and authority, but disregard’s Bertche mischaracterizing the author’s own words that explicitly say:
And Patrick then swallows BK’s boasting uncritically. Will BK back down, will Patrick back down?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X07002443
I provided the relevant quotes to help the readers. You could of course freaking read the actually Taylor and Southon papers on the experiment and see they say:
But the original paper shows Bertche was misrepresenting Taylor and Souton, in fact they say practically the opposite:
BK quotes Bertche who can’t even properly read and report what Taylor and Southon said, and then he claims I’m flailing and not refuting his points. The paper’s own words show Bertche is claiming something Taylor and Southon never said, in fact quite the opposite.
BK then tries to say he refuted Bertche’s misrepresentations because the RATE group’s experiment was sloppy. The RATE groups experiment wasn’t even what was being discussed and weren’t even a part of Taylor and Southon’s 2007 paper, and hence irrelevant, and hence shows BK made a non-sequitur to assert that the quality of the RATE work somehow vindicates Bertche’s misrepresentations.
Patrick then tries to pile on by backing BK and claiming BK was shredding my arguments. BK can’t even get his citations straight as to which paper connects to which experiment. Too funny.
I’ll leave BK to address that — it’s only a tiny portion of his refutation of your position. Until you take into account the limitations of C14 dating, the use of other radioisotopes better suited to older material, and your unfortunate tendency to “treat the noise as the signal” (as note pithily by another participant here), you’re just spouting sciencey sounding apologetics.
Yeah BK address that. Try to get your citations straight first. HAHAHA!
Have you figured out yet that the Taylor and Southon 2007 experiment wasn’t conducted by the YECs of the RATE team? So why do you keep criticizing the RATE team work to try to refute Taylor and Southon 2007?
Sal, that sentence is found at the end of the ‘introduction’ section of the paper and the entire sentence is:
Taylor and Southon are not even speaking about their C-14 results from diamond but are speaking of ‘graphitized’ samples (from the Ceylon graphite) and not of their diamond results where they did not ‘graphitize’ those samples. This is the ‘routine’ background they are referring to. You are now quote-mining in a feel attempt to justify your unjustifiable position. Again Taylor and Southon are clearly referencing the results for other labs on the Ceylon Graphite samples which were graphitized in this study.
You have little (no) standing to make any claims of Bertsche not being able to quote the paper accurately given your egregious quote-mine above.
The authors also are willing to accept 9in regard to their diamond samples) this as a potential source of the high current readings where they state:
Which is identical to what Bertsche offers up as a potential source of the higher current values.
LOL!
Let the reader see for himself the whole paragraph in question and see if they agree with BK’s interpretation.
So the question is what are Taylor and Southon referring to when they say:
“14C from the actual sample is probably the dominant component of the “routine” background.”
Is the “actual sample” the diamonds or the Ceylon graphite that is used for comparison?
They were pointing out the contribution of charge exchange and scattering is negligible because larger machines which can eliminate the effect have comparable results.
Hence BK is wrong to say the “actual sample” refers to Ceylon graphite. It refers to the diamonds.
Really? Seems they carried out the experiments themselves for the Ceylon Graphite since they measured the Ceylon graphite at the same time, not other labs:
By the way, have you figured out yet Taylor and Southon 2007 isn’t a YEC RATE experiment. So your erred in your comment here, which I pointed out repeatedly.
Since, my prior characterization is offensive to some, I will say your comment is worthy of a Darwin award:
Uh, BK, have you figured out that the Taylor and Southon’s 2007 paper wasn’t reporting on a RATE experiment, therefore you’re just shouting down an argument that wasn’t even being made.
Yes, larger machines at other labs confirmed they came up with comparable results for their Ceylon graphite where they obtained apparent ages of 58.4-70.1 ka, years BP with a mean of 65.6 from their data set. This is the characterization of the ‘routine’ background for these samples.
nope, they are justifying their control sample data with that of other labs…..the places where those larger machines reside.
Of course they did and reported that their results are comparable values that other labs (the bigger machine homes). Why else mention the larger machines except to justify their control data, i.e., Ceylon graphite which was graphitized for this study as well as at the other labs…the larger machines did not analyze any diamonds which was the focus of their study. It is a common method of reporting to compare like data with like data from other labs. It justifies that the UCI data generated ‘routine’ background values for the control samples, i.e., Ceylon graphite. It is entirely clear that this is what Taylor and Southon are referencing when discussing sources of background noise in 14C analysis. They are not as sloppy as you believe to think that they would spring some conclusions about diamonds prior to presenting the data collected on the diamonds. .
<blockquote cite=”comment-160632″>
Care to take on the question I posed to you above?
the argument you are trying to make is that there is intrinsic radiocarbon in diamonds, marble, and other samples recognized to be 14C=free. You’ve yet to refute any of the arguments presented and instead forge ahead with further mistakes in your attempt to justify your YEC position. It is nothing different than Baumgardner et. al., are guilty of doing. As has already been pointed out you are trying to muck about in the recognized noise of the analytical procedure in an attempt to make a felonious case for ‘intrinsic radiocarbon’.
Care to take on the question I posed to you above?
it goes to the heart of your argument.
Doesn’t matter because even if it were Ceylon graphite (which you are mistaken about), it doesn’t help your claim.
Let the reader see this about Ceylon graphite:
Ceylon is in Sri Lanka. Now why graphite from Sri Lanka?
Now when did this Ceylon graphite supposedly originate? Hmm:
PreCambiran, like before 500 million years ago. So you want to argue
“14C from the actual [Cylon, pre-Cambrian, over 500 milliion year old] sample is probably the dominant component of the “routine” background.”
Too funny. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot even worser.
But let the readers vote what “actual sample” means.
If Patrick says he doesn’t know if the passage is talking about diamonds or Ceylon graphite, then he’s in no position to be saying you’ve shredded my arguments.
But in all that is moot because I showed you the common view is Ceylon graphite is pre-Cambrian, more than 500 million years old.
pot. kettle. black.
Since Patrick asserts that BK shredded my arguments, and that I should admit defeat, I should point out that before Patrick made his vicotry dance, I cited this link to YEC John Baumgardner’s comments:
That is YEC Baumgardner referring not the work of his YET RATE team, but the work of secular experiments by Taylor and Southon, 2007.
I provided the citation to Taylor and Southon, 2007. Did Patrick bother even reading the Taylor and Southon 2007 paper and read that phrase “14C from the actual sample is probably the dominant component of the ‘routine’ background.”? Did he just reflexively just agree with BK?
C’mon Patrick, be honest with the readers. Tell them whether you even bothered to read, much less consider this statement by Taylor and Southon:
Far be it for you to admit you didn’t even bother considering the literature I provided. If I quote it explicitly, you might complain its spam. If I provide the links and citations, you might complain it’s too much for you too read, then you whine that it’s my fault for not being succinct. What you can’t complain is that I didn’t back up my claims. Your only excuse is you didn’t want to look for yourself, you just uncritically and unskeptically and reflexively agree with guys like BK. So much for critical thinking.
If you don’t want to think and explore, that’s up to you. But if that’s the case, your judgement on these topics isn’t worth much to anyone except yourself and your fans.
So, please tell the reader that when you declared that BK shredded my arguments whether:
you already had read Taylor and Southon’s 2007 paper
saw either Baumgardner quoting them or actually seeing the quote or both below:
Be honest Patrick, tell the truth. Did you read those statements or not before you declared BK shredded my arguments, and therefore I should admit defeat. Surely you don’t want to admit you were just uncritically siding with BK. 🙂
Why, I wonder to myself, would created minerals (eg diamonds) have any C14 in them? Did the act of Creation generate energetic neutrons? Has there been any control for radiation from other, non-Biblical sources?
I’m currently trying to tell the time from the rate of accumulation of ocean sediment. It’s painstaking work, due to the microscopic changes, but I reckon it’s somewhere between half past two yesterday and four thirty next Friday, plus or minus 10 years.
There’s a freaking big clock on the wall, but I don’t trust that.
What does it mean to “graphetize” a sample?
To settle whether the authors are talking about diamonds, or ceylon graphite, why not write to them and ask? Annoyingly the section, despite foot-stomping by both of you, reads to me quite ambigously. So rather than juggle interpretations, get it settled.
Mysterious ways and all.
You wouldn’t think that carbon, of which life is composed, should including a life-damaging radioactive isotope. But it is just so that God’s mysterious ways includes it.
Because evolutionism sucks!
Glen Davidson
It’s only right twice a day, so why would you trust it?
Mung,
Did I say it was stopped?
That’s actually an excellent suggestion, but the problem is the world won’t believe me if I claim I got the letter from Taylor and Southon, not to mention I might not get a response once they figure out who I am. 2nd, I’m not so sure I’d trust someone else claiming they wrote Taylor and Southon either. I say that because Bertche totally misrepresented the issue about ion memory and other things.
From what I’ve heard, Bertche is a an Old-Earth Creationist (OEC), so I have no axe to grind with him personally. If he’s an OEC, he’s by default an IDist, and being a member of ASA (American Scientific Affiliation), he is a professing Christian. So I’m not saying he’s inherently dishonest or will be, but it seems to me his biases are getting the better of him.
You are right however, that each of us could of course write to settle the issue for ourselves, if not for others. In the interim we could study the issue and technology a little more. I could talk to some analytical chemists and geophysicists and see what they think Taylor and Southon mean.
I agree with you however, for a non-specialist, the paper can read ambigiously, but maybe not for specialists. I will point out, the “other” backgrounds they were referring to was actual lab work of other labs, not their Ceylon graphite experiments. So BK didn’t even get that part right! He conflated the work of other labs with the Taylor and Southon 2007 Ceylon graphite benchmarks that were conducted simultaneously with the diamond experiments.
But, I agree, clarity of the reading is important, and perhaps one way to get closer to the truth is to understand the analytical details and technology a little more clearly. There will be benefit in this.
That said, I must point out, something one should gather from the paper is this little tidbit:
They’ve had a persistent problem getting C14-free (“blank”) carbon. As I mentioned when I quoted the TalkOrigin website, physicists are really wanting access to tons of blank carbon to do their neutrino experiments, or whatever. The search for C14-free has deep interest for many parties, not just paleontologists!
But one can see, there seems to be enormous difficulty in finding these elusive blank carbons.
If physicists manage to make tons of C14-free carbon, then AMS machines like this can be demonstrated to not be introducing instrument error as a cause for the anomalously high C14 readings of supposedly old materials.
But as I pointed out, lets assume for argument’s sake that “actual sample” means Ceylon graphite or some geologically old graphite, it affirms again the point I’ve been making, we’re having a hard time retrieving “fossils” without C14! That still proves an important point. And this sentence should catch one’s attention:
MARBLE! As I said, this isn’t the sort of thing that should be easily contaminated, or at the very least measures could be taken to help ensure uncontaminated sections of the marble are properly extracted.
Baumgardner points out, that when larger samples are used, and hence less chance for external contamination during processing of the internal parts (a simple geometric analysis will demonstrate this), the PMC (percent modern carbon) number converge on about the same number over many trials for biological materials.
John Baumgardner’s analysis, is an excellent take down of Bertche’s writings. I post a link for the interested readers. I’ve known John in passing for years, but not too long ago, I had attended a small by-invitation-only private gathering for creationist researchers and their families, so I had a chance to interact with him personally. I sat in on conversations about some of their research. In no case do I ever get the impression, “hey, lets see how we can be sloppy and publish bad results and bamboozle people.” Additionally, among the researchers privately, not from propaganda pieces from people who are not researchers (like Kent Hovind), they are quite open about the difficulties and serious issues against YEC. They are confident however there will be an honest solution eventually. So I don’t see any systematic pre-meditated strategy to deliberately distort data. If distortions happen, it is a mistake, not something inherently dishonest.
I should point out, in contrast, I didn’t feel I was in an open climate at UD.
Baumgardner’s responses to Bertche shows his meticulous treatment of data and papers, and I should point out Baumgardner’s credentials in geology and science are equal or greater the Bertche’s.
Now because of the internet, we can actually cross check citations and have access to the original papers, and thus have conversations like the ones we are having.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/
<
blockquote>
…
Although Bertsche styles himself as an “accelerator physicist, formerly at a leading radiocarbon AMS laboratory,” it is clear from his post that, as far as radiocarbon measurement procedures and issues are concerned, he is a novice. If he were truly an insider, he would be fully aware of the history I just outlined and that fossil material throughout the Phanerozoic record routinely displays 14C levels hundreds of times above the intrinsic AMS measurement threshold. This reality is what has generated the scores of papers over the past 25 years, mostly by researchers at the AMS facilities, seeking to understand this highly unexpected state of affairs. Samples truly more than 100,000 years old should have no detectable 14C. But in reality, biological specimens generally thought to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old consistently contain levels of 14C that at face value would indicate these organisms were alive only thousands of years ago, as I have just indicated.
…
I find this snippet disturbing. You seem to be saying that non-Christians or non-IDists are inherently dishonest.
I don’t think things were created with radiation. The Proton-21 nucleosynthesis- via-electricity often creates radiation-free stable isotopes. One of the motivations of Proton-21 was nuclear remediation!
When I presented my term paper on electrical nucleosynthesis as part of a required class presentation, my professor said it was the “topic of the night.” Electro-nucleosynthesis is very interesting.
Also I should point out, the organization of galaxies is along filamentary lines, as if they were electrically synthesized. My friend and mentor from long ago, James Trefil, who is primarly a cosmologist and occasional OOL research pointed out the frustrating issue that galaxies are organized along filaments, not some homogenous distribution. Depicted below is a tesla plasma display that doesn’t look too different in quality from galactic filament distribution.
If the YECs ever find a solution to the distant starlight problem with alternate-relativity or Electromagnetics, I think it will show that electricity was important to stellar formation.
But with respect to immediate matters, I think personally that severe tectonic ability created piezo electric effects on global scale in the Quartz rocks which generated the requisite high voltages (at low currents) that electrically synthesized radio isotopes and daughter products. The nice things is some of this can be tested experimentally.
This would explain the absence of intermediate term isotopes relative to the abundance of long term isotopes like Uranium. The promising development is that work like the Proton-21 lab can actually demonstrate nucleosynthesis vs. speculations about astrophysical phenomenon like merging neutron stars. It’s an exciting time for science!
Though Allan was not enthusiastic about the paper on DNA in old fossils matching DNA in the present day, I should point out, a number of researchers are fairly adamant about the fact it is not due to contamination, not the least of which is Robert Hazen, an OOL geochemist and colleague of James Trefil at GMU. He mused how a metabolism could last for a billion years without nourishment. Go figure!
So again, I point out, the fossils show an anomaly with respect to the supposed DNA molecular clock:
So it’s not like I’ve not actually met and interacted with the guys themselves making these claims. Hazen taught at my undergrad alma mater and he seems like a competent straight up guy. And I’m the proud owner of an autographed copy of his book. 🙂 Hazen seemed originally critical of the findings, but given his book argues for 4 billion year old bacteria in meteorites, I think he’s probably had a change of heart. But that is neither here nor there. The point is, they guys who actually do the lab work are convinced the anomaly is real.
So, this was not an isolated experiment. This again is a serious anomaly that suggests the sequence divergence of life that are interpreted as phylogeny, was really a created pattern of common design in terms of designed similarity and designed diversity.
So, I’ve listed anomalies that for me gave me pause when I was an OEC and led me to the point that at the very least, the questions are open from a theoretical and empirical stand point, they are not settled science.
Let me list again the anomalies:
1 deposition and erosion rates and the patterns of the strata (more on this later).
2 C14 anomalies
3 Amino acid racemization even after correction with Arrhenius equation
4 Ancient DNA looking like modern DNA
5 DNA half-lives
6 problem of stellar nucleosynthesis in contrast with the more promising research by Proton-21 on electrical nucleosynthesis
7 faint young sun paradox
I list FYSP now in the bottom of the order thanks to Allan Miller’s input regarding the possibility of the Sun reducing its mass spontaneously.
There are other clocks I’ve not listed, but there is no immediate need to go there. Of immediate personal concern are the developments at the Proton-21 and related labs. I’m just a spectator and reporter of these developments. It should be a fun ride which ever way this plays out.
stcordova,
So, make up a ludicrous story, like usual.
Glen Davidson
He owns a very good projector.
Glen Davidson
Want to have a bet?
Yet it is from creationists we get gems like this, conclusion first, rationalizations later:
You keep bringing this up, but no references are given. What ancient DNA in particular? I’ve read about the half-life studies, but I’ve yet to see any actual so-called “ancient DNA” that contradicts the approximate half-life.
That seems to follow the evidence
How does materialism account for carbon? How does it account for the laws of physics?