|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why amazed Big Sister? In evolution neoteny is one of the most powerful phenomena, when a larval life form reproduces prematurely, before metamorphosis to adult. We are dreaming dreams beyond metamorphosis from below. What is our imago form? Our violent larval fantasies of God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in his commanding the slaughter of every Amalekite man, woman and child.
You see that in Jesus.
So this is the real issue? a genocidal God?
Consider reasons why might God have done this and does he have a right to?
Well he does; he is God. end of story. Do you have the right to poison a wasps' nest in your garden?
Leaving that aside, consider the history of these Amalekites and that they particularly were used by Satan to disrupt he Exodus and consequently through Moses, God pronounced a judgement on them. He would have war on Amelek through all generations. So we have in Samuel's decree the exercise of a judicial judgement by God against Amelek.
So your God believes in brutally slaughtering babes in arms because of who their ancestors were?
Fuck that shit. Fuck it to hell and beyond. Because one thing I will not do is pretend to swallow that sort of evil to get on the right side of your genocidal murderous God.
Take your meds Karl. If it was a person we were talking about I'd agree with you; but consider where does that kind of attitude get you? God is not genocidal. 'Man,' if he did the same thing would be. That kind of category error somehow seeks to judge God on our terms and we simply are not in the position of knowledge or power to do it.
[ 03. December 2014, 21:44: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
simile is a subset of metaphor.
No, it's not.
You can usually restate a simile without the simile or comparison and still be meaningful. With a metaphor, it's not always straightforward to restate literally.
So pedantic. Essentially and for practical purposes, metaphor is a direct comparison in which one element of the comparison is used to elucidate meaning. eg a tempestuous exchange (acrimonious.)Simile is the same thing only the comparison is indirect using 'like' or 'as.'eg a storm like atmosphere round the dinner table.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So how are we then to love our enemy Jamat Karl? As inimical as his God.
Whom I have shared.
“I do believe, induced by potent circumstances, that thou art mine enemy” Catherine of Aragon to Wolsey in Shakespeare's Henry VIII
Why do you need to ask? Of course we must love each other and also do good to those who do us disparagement. It is the great skill of survival not to let oneself be overcome with bitterness.
However, God I am convinced, MUST have reasons for his OT judicial judgements. His decrees are not for us to judge but to accept the paradox that alongside them he finds a way to confront all individuals with his love.
He does judge nations because, I think, of the Satanic powers that motivate them hence the Amelekites but seeks to reach individuals. If there is one thing that prevents this it is our pride and if there is another, it is our hardness of heart. Jesus was always most grieved for the Pharisees because they rejected the plain evidence and proof of his Messiahship.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And in his commanding the slaughter of every Amalekite man, woman and child.
You see that in Jesus.
So this is the real issue? a genocidal God?
Consider reasons why might God have done this and does he have a right to?
Well he does; he is God. end of story. Do you have the right to poison a wasps' nest in your garden?
Leaving that aside, consider the history of these Amalekites and that they particularly were used by Satan to disrupt he Exodus and consequently through Moses, God pronounced a judgement on them. He would have war on Amelek through all generations. So we have in Samuel's decree the exercise of a judicial judgement by God against Amelek.
So your God believes in brutally slaughtering babes in arms because of who their ancestors were?
Fuck that shit. Fuck it to hell and beyond. Because one thing I will not do is pretend to swallow that sort of evil to get on the right side of your genocidal murderous God.
Take your meds Karl. If it was a person we were talking about I'd agree with you; but consider where does that kind of attitude get you? God is not genocidal. 'Man,' if he did the same thing would be. That kind of category error somehow seeks to judge God on our terms and we simply are not in the position of knowledge or power to do it.
hosting
Whilst it is allowed to attack the argument and not the person even in very robust terms of calling an argument shit or saying 'fuck it to hell'. It is absolutely not allowed, Jamat, to use direct and stigmatising personal insults such as 'take your meds' to other named posters and this is a breach of C3
quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.
This argument has been teetering along the edge of C4 for some time and all posters now need to either drop the increasingly personal tone or to take it to Hell.
quote:
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.
Think carefully about whether your problem is really with an argument or with another poster and their posting habits - if the latter then please start a thread in hell and do not get personal here.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Thank you Louise
I apologise to Karl. No personal slur was intended.
Jamat
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Thank you Jamat!
By the way we have also strayed rather far from Mr Darwin and evolution - so I've bumped up the Biblical Inerrancy thread so people can see what's been said in the past and take any discussion of Old Testament massacres and their bearing on inerrancy (or not) to that thread.
thanks all!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
[ 03. December 2014, 22:49: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
post moved to other thread.
[ 03. December 2014, 23:20: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I used to be convinced too Jamat.
Now I'm convinced we only see God in Jesus.
And that we see ourselves struggling from Bronze age mud and blood and shit and smoke toward the light in the OT.
Evolving yet incapable of transcending our time.
As now. As you demonstrate. Our times are different. Not by much. I've lived through yours.
Samuel was a great man of God. He could not have been greater. And he could not transcend his time. He KNEW that he was being faithful to God in murdering every man woman and child of his enemies. And he was. But not in the sense he thought.
My plea, good enemy mine, was not to yourself, but to Karl.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Picking up a tangent from the Biblical Inerrancy thread, and bringing it back here:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What is the literal story of evolution metaphorical of?
Well Martin, IMV if there is a literal story of evolution there can be no literal story of salvation in Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What is the literal story of evolution metaphorical of?
Well Martin, IMV if there is a literal story of evolution there can be no literal story of salvation in Christ.
Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if we evolved surely?! If we evolved then we didn't sin originally. It's not our fault. It's no ones fault. So we don't need Jesus. But we do, so we didn't evolve.
Logic init.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if we evolved surely?! If we evolved then we didn't sin originally. It's not our fault. It's no ones fault. So we don't need Jesus. But we do, so we didn't evolve.
Logic init.
There you go. Also if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection. (Don't worry Martin,your irony is not in vain.)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if we evolved surely?! If we evolved then we didn't sin originally. It's not our fault. It's no ones fault. So we don't need Jesus. But we do, so we didn't evolve.
Logic init.
There you go. Also if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection. (Don't worry Martin,your irony is not in vain.)
NO shocker, but your words do indicate a lack of understanding of the mechanics of natural selection and the dynamics of human interactions.
Many traits considered "bad" are actually advantageous.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Also if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection.
You seem to be missing several significant points. Some of them might be:
1) Even assuming "stubbornness, pride and cruelty" are traits we inherit through evolution (that's an assumption in itself), it is well known that evolution can produce negative traits. An extended period of evolution under a particular environment can create traits that aid survival there, but in a different environment are negative. An example would be the genes that cause sickle-cell anaemia, this condition is a negative trait but the same genes give malaria resistance which is positive.
2) We know of plenty of examples where development leads to previously useful traits no longer being good and useful. As infants we wore nappies, it was good and useful that we did so avoiding nasty messes for our parents to clear up. We're called to be adults, to put away the things of childhood, sin would be a refusal to grow up and put away those childish traits. Or, to pick up another analogy, in sin we're like lumps of mud in crude human-like form, God wants to breath into us to make us truly human beings.
3) We know plenty of examples where development produces unwanted traits. When adults need to wear nappies we consider that this is a sign of something being wrong, an illness of some sort. As we age we develop arthritis, dicky hearts, cancers ... all of which we consider to be illnesses in need of treatment. Could it not be that evolution, on it's own, when intelligence evolves inevitably introduces some moral illnesses? What we then need is a doctor to heal us.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Shall we tell Jamat about emergence?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
You guys kill me!(paraphrased from Catcher in the Rye.) Now there's a good example of cultural evolution and resistance to it. Thanks for the info download.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wilful ignorance is no defense.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
From biblical inerrancy.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jamat quote:
... if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection.
Do you get even the theory of natural selection?
In a setting where a group (or species) is either under threat or is having to compete for resources, food, etc, with another group or species, then stubbornness is one of the key qualities that is needed: the ability to persist in attempts to secure the scarce, fought-over commodity is going to be vastly preferable to any sense of fairness or willingness to concede to others.
Similarly, pride can also be put to good use in the pursuit of a hard to achieve goal.
As for cruelty, in situations where it may come down to kill-or-be-killed, individuals who are prepared to exert physical pressure, cruelty, perhaps death, are far better equipped to survive than those more inclined to support fair-shares-for-all.
No. He can't possibly.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Linking disbelief in evolution with salvation and Christ is quite a fragile position it seems to me. It implies that in that purgatory thread on what evidence would make one doubt the resurrection, the answer would be "solid scientific evidence of evolution". In which case I can understand the need to argue it through quite vigorously.
Jamat, it's an interesting question how you would advise a scientist like me who confronts the biological evidence of evolution every day in their work and has little room for doubt that something very like evolution took place.
It seems to me there are three options; a) lose faith in salvation b) develop a world view that allows for both evolution and Christ or c) not bother to reason it through, simply concluding that both are facts and that certain apparent contradictions remain.
I've opted for c).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I got into a conversation about creationism with yet another person on Thursday - where the argument was that evolution is no longer happening, mutations might be, but evolution isn't. We got chatting a bit further - and this guy hadn't realised that the evidence for evolution didn't just come from the fossil record but also from DNA and other sources too, so that it isn't just a construction from one dimension, but an understanding built up from a number of different strands. He's obviously reading books on creationism and the need to protect the Bible - and we chatted a bit about biblical belief being metaphorical and wider than just literal until Usher put dates into the record and came up with the 6000 years of creation Also that there were scientists such as John Polkinghorne who balance science and theology.
Fascinating to meet yet another intelligent person with no understanding of the science and a need to believe in a literal Bible
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Does he classify the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria as "mutation"? It's not like evolution can't be seen in relatively small time periods.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Mutation is evolution.* you area better person than I, Ck. I've not the patience to deal with such people.
* For those wishing to learn. Warning! keep a firm grip on your souls, the link contains Science!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"That's mutation not evolution" is a variation on the false division between "microevolution" and "macroevolution".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
True. But given the comment reported by CK I would guess "that's mutation not evolution" is a result of a misunderstanding of both mutation and evolution.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Remember, you Godless atheists, that mutation can go beyond the 'kind' barrier. You cannot mutate a moth to a birch tree, no matter how much soot.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Remember, you Godless atheists, that mutation can go beyond the 'kind' barrier. You cannot mutate a moth to a birch tree, no matter how much soot.
But the common ancestor of both did evolve through one line of descent to a birch tree and through another to a moth. Admittedly the common ancestor was a unicellular eukaryote.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
True. But given the comment reported by CK I would guess "that's mutation not evolution" is a result of a misunderstanding of both mutation and evolution.
At least that leaves one out of three to work on.
Martin, did you forget the sarcastic font and also miss out a "can't"? I can't make sense of you otherwise.
[ 16. December 2014, 04:45: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I got that reference, I still think there's a negative missing in one or other clause and some sarcasm punctuation missing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry: CANNOT go beyond the 'kind' barrier.
Which is the kind of garbage I used to believe.
Satire more than sarcasm surely?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Thought so. That's a fine line, and I think satire would require a bit more work for my money.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then flesh tearing it is.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Picking up a tangent that had evolved ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) on the Biblical Inerrancy thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
There is no scientific basis for saying that the rocks lie. I couldn't care less on who believes what, that is no authority for me unless it is based on science.
You are reposing a lot of trust in Science then. Science is limited knowledge, a moving target. Your own precious evolutionary assumptions viz, that macro evolution occurred, are not proven, and untestable. Dinos are..how old? Why did Mary Schweitzer fine real blood in a T Rex bone? Dating methods? Why such variations and just using the dates that suit our assumptions? Scientists are humans who tenaciously cling to careers.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd add, btw, on the subject of Dinosaur blood, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer , that she didn't find blood in dinosaur bones. She found the remains of blood cells - proteins. This was surprising, but it wasn't (a) impossible according to the age of the animal, nor (b) blood, not, indeed (c) evidence against the commonly accepted period during which T. rex lived.
What it was, however was evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as the sequenced proteins showed close links to those of extant birds.
That some creationist liars have chosen to try to tell you that Schweitzer's work somehow is a problem for mainstream science speaks volumes. You've been lied to by your creationist sources again Jamat - and if memory serves this is why you got your arse handed to you on a plate last time - you tried raising hoary old creationist canards. Why do you not see the pattern here? The lying professional Creationism machine is a lying bunch of lying liars who lie. Consistently, Repeatedly. Depressingly.
They repeat lies even when told they're lies. Repeatedly. I ran into that when after a conversation at an AiG event in Edinburgh one of the speakers asked me to review an article he'd written on carbon dating for their journal. There was an absolutely enormous error in it that totally invalidated the main point being made - he was claiming that measurements of background for AMS 14C analysis showed that the earth is no more than 80,000 years old - based on the convention in the radiocarbon community to give 14C concentrations as a radio-carbon age (and, backgrounds for good AMS facilities work out at around a radio-carbon age of 80,000 years). That is, these measurements aren't of the age of the fossil carbon (coal) being measured but of the performance of the instrument. Despite an extensive exchange of emails on the subject the author still published his article without any reference at all to the points I had made. The journal never published the letter I sent them either. I never bothered to do that again.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Do you mean that the C14 in the environment of (and including?) the AMS, without sample, gives a baseline background of 80,000 years?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Erm. How is getting real dinosaur blood from specimens from the Age of the Dinosaurs (as opposed to the Age of the Birds) even possible? Didn't everything turn into fossil minerals? And do fossil minerals contain proteins?
I'm Confused. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erm. How is getting real dinosaur blood from specimens from the Age of the Dinosaurs (as opposed to the Age of the Birds) even possible? Didn't everything turn into fossil minerals? And do fossil minerals contain proteins?
I'm Confused.
Normally yes. But under the right conditions, some material can survive. If you follow my link, there's a hypothesis that it's connected with iron. Blood however does not survive; that's the lie Jamat was sold. Remains of red blood cells apparently did.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I saw this movie. Not interested in a remake.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Scroll down to my Science. link.
It's all about iron.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Do you mean that the C14 in the environment of (and including?) the AMS, without sample, gives a baseline background of 80,000 years?
The processing and measurement of a sample will introduce a very small amount of modern carbon into the measurement. The glass work for sample preparation is purged (usually with nitrogen) to remove contemporary atmosphere, as is the beam line of the accelerator. But, there will always be a very small residual amount of lab atmosphere in the equipment which will contain a very small amount of 14C. So, labs routinely prepare blanks to run with their samples, taking small quantities of coal and processing them through the same preparation lines as the samples. The best labs can't get the contaminant levels below the equivalent of 80,000 years or so - which in practice results in 14C ages over 40,000 years having substantial uncertainties. But, no one expects radiogenic dating to be very accurate 10 half lives into the decay.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thanks Alan. I wish I had another lifetime or ten. And another 10 IQ points. Not a lot to ask for.
10 half lives resulting in 1000 times as less starting isotope I can see. So what's the +/- error per half life? If that's a meaningful question?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
10 half lives resulting in 1000 times as less starting isotope I can see. So what's the +/- error per half life? If that's a meaningful question?
The measurement uncertainty derives from three elements - the background, the standard and the sample. I've mentioned the background. The standard is a reference material of known 14C concentration run to measure the efficiency of the system. For each of these three measurements you will have an uncertainty that will be the square root of the number of atoms detected - so, if you detect 100 atoms you have 100 ± 10 atoms (10% uncertainty), but naturally you really want to count a lot more atoms than that. How many will be a function of how long you measure for, and the sample size (which for AMS is fixed - though you can run several aliquots from the same sample) - that basically means spend more money. But there are diminishing returns, measure 4 samples and you only halve the uncertainty.
Generally the background and standard will be measured lots of times - both to reduce the contribution from these to the overall uncertainty and to confirm the system is performing as it should (increase in background means you have a new contaminant somewhere, decrease in standard means you're losing sample somewhere).
At 10 half lives, you will as noted reduce the counts by a factor of 1024 (to be precise). That will result in a 30 fold increase in uncertainty - so if you measure a new sample to 1% precision, your 50,000 year old sample (assuming all else is equal) would have a 30% uncertainty. Ignoring the influence of the background uncertainty, which will increase the overall value (insignificant for younger samples, getting much more important for older ones). The 80,000 years will be the radiocarbon age at which point the sample counts are within uncertainty of the background for a normal analysis - if you want to pay the money you may be able to push the age back a few millenia.
The point the guy I was corresponding with never got was why labs think this is an important number. "Why do they publish this in the peer reviewed literature?" was the question he kept asking - totally failing to understand that it's a simple measure of the quality of analysis, the lack of contaminants in processing and measurement efficiency, and labs want this published so they can say "we're better than anyone else" and get people to pay to have their samples analysed there - not the most objective and impartial of reasons, but the bills need to be paid somehow.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Scroll down to my Science. link.
It's all about iron.
Oh. Thanks.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Just to move away from the technical stuff for a second - the reason they don't disbelieve lies even when they're told lies must be confirmation bias. Easier to latch onto any crumb of evidence that might support your position than to engage with the complexity of an argument which is against it.
So in Alan's example, easier to believe that Alan is wrong because his answer isn't in the acceptable form than to believe that the foundational belief needs revision.
I don't think many think that they're actually spreading lies, they've just convinced themselves that things can only work within their very narrow framework and reject anything which doesn't conform to it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thanks again Alan.
mr cheesy, they might be mad, but they aren't bad!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think many think that they're actually spreading lies, they've just convinced themselves that things can only work within their very narrow framework and reject anything which doesn't conform to it.
There's more to it than that. It's about belonging. If you belong to a group whose identity is partly tied up in denying evolution, then coming to believe evolution puts you outside of the group. If this group is your entire social circle, that's just too scary. That can drive a hell of a lot of confirmation bias.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, their faith is not strong enough to stand up to challenge.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think many think that they're actually spreading lies, they've just convinced themselves that things can only work within their very narrow framework and reject anything which doesn't conform to it.
There's more to it than that. It's about belonging. If you belong to a group whose identity is partly tied up in denying evolution, then coming to believe evolution puts you outside of the group. If this group is your entire social circle, that's just too scary. That can drive a hell of a lot of confirmation bias.
From my experience, for many their identity is not "partly tied up in denying evolution", but entirely tied up in denying evolution. I attended a meeting where Ken Ham was the main speaker, and for several minutes of his talk he had a slide up showing a cartoon of a church built on top of a large rock labelled "Creation" with a set of catapults labelled "Science" lobbing rocks at that foundation. And, he spent his time talking about how Creation was the foundation upon which the Christian faith is founded, and without that the whole of our faith is worthless and collapses which is why "the enemy" uses science to try to undermine the foundation of our faith.
I so wished the worship time had included singing "The Churches One Foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord" just for the irony factor.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is the 30 fold increase in uncertainty due to the 10 half life reduction by 1024 the square root of which is 32?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, though I approximated.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Understood, as had I with 2^10 previously.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
The battle between religion and science is entirely ideological and mostly orthogonal. What polemicists generally mean by "science" is the metaphysical assumption that we exist in a purposeless universe with immutable laws that emerged from nowhere for unknown reasons, and in which we are biological robots at the whim of genetics erroneously imagining that we are conscious. Or as the late Terence McKenna put it, "give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest".
It's a position built on a mountain of assumptions, and tells people they are unreliable witnesses (unless they're in a laboratory) and should only trust a priesthood of materialists in their assessment of the abstract platonic reality in which we imagine we exist. It's fundamentalism the equal of any screwball religious sect, but presented by in a suitably patrician tone people lap it up because it saves thinking about the issue.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
