How old is the Grand Canyon

[pink]

[G-spotter]

[sexual_chocolate]

the evolution of awareness and its attendant conceptual frameworks is an endless source of fascination for me, but who is it that is aware, and who is it that is fascinated?

could this question even be entertained without the evolution of our collective consciousness and its effects on the "individual"?

what is the "individual" in this context?

 

the sun glints on three day old snow on a neighbor's roof-line, lifting the universe out of itself

again.

[G-spotter]

[Fairweather]

Please remember that all dating techniques depend on extrapolating an observable mathematical relationship, namely that the rate of change of some isotope is proportional to the quantity of the isotope present in the sample, which leads to a model wherein the quantity of some isotope is an exponential function of time. This is verifiable within the parameters of a very limited range of known dates. To assume the model is correct for billions of years through history is a major leap of faith.

 

I'll have to read up on this. I've always taken for granted the credibility of radiocarbon dating - just as I've never doubted the accuracy of using red/blue shift to measure the movement of distant stellar objects. While I think I have a good understanding of the later, I need to read up on the former. For instance, how does a scientist date a non-organic object such as a stone tool? Organic traces found on the implement? Any good sources?

 

I am also curious about the recent efforts to measure ancient CO2 levels in ice core samples. Isn't the gas-exchange history in a 10,000 year-old bubble so random/complex as to render the tool dubious? Since this is the method currently being used to prop up the human-causation argument for global warming, I would certainly be interested in the validity and accuracy of the science. Any good sources?

 

 

Even more important; I'm still waiting to Jim to provide unbiased info to back up his original link. I don't think it exists.

[G-spotter]

Stone tools can be dated by several methods. The ones I remember off the top of my head are:

 

1) age of sediment layer the tool is found in;

2) any residues (as you mention) or lichen growing on the surface of the tool

3) cosmic rays can change the isotopic composition of the surface layer; comparing the knapped surface to the interior of the tool, or an unknapped to a knapped face, can estimate the age of the knapping;

4) for freshly extruded volcanic obsidian, the age of the rock itself may represent an upper bound

 

Using these and other methods, several independent estimates of age can be made, and the overlap in estimates is usually the best constraint as to actual age.

[pope]

Again - two propositions that cannot be proven with absolute certainty are not equally likely to be accurate.

I think you meant to say "two conflicting propositions", but you're missing my entire point. You describe mechanisms by which simple forms of matter and "life" may combine and/or mutate, and then you offer fossil evidence that simple forms of life and proteins have been around for 3 billion years. From here you conclude that (1) these simple forms, through billions of years of mutation and adaptation, eventually evolved into human and other forms of life and (2) that the process was and is completely independent of some kind of cosmic, creative force or purpose (call it God or whatever you want). My point is that conclusion (1) is a theory that attempts to explain the very small amount of information we have about early life and how its evolution into modern life transpired. Conclusion (2) is not an automatic assumption of conclusion (1), even if it were shown to be true. It may very well be that evolution was and is the mechanism of creation, or it may be that in your hopes to disprove the latter by establishing the former, you have hastily decided to accept this theory as truth.

 

Often the goals of science are noble. Through the history of science, however, you may note numerous examples of intellectual inertia resulting from emotional investment in current theories. For example, J. Harlan Bretz's suggestion of catastrophic events producing the geomorphic features of our state's channeled scablands was repeatedly dismissed because it didn't agree with the uniformitarian notion of infinitesimally small changes over millions/billions of years producing all of today's geomorphological structures. Essentially, the suggestion of a catastrophic event sounded too much like Noah's flood and was met with tremendous resistance.

 

You wouldn't accept this line of reasoning in any other sphere, so why do you insist that it's acceptable here? If $10,000 dissapears from your home, and determining what happened to it with absolute certainty proves to be impossible, and the police told you that magical dissapearance was just as likely as theft, would you accept this explanation? Why not?

No, and I wouldn’t believe that the money, being composed of complex carbon chains, were able to grow flippers or feet in the middle of the night and just walk out.

 

What does your overstatement of the uncertainties associated with dating by radioisotopes have to do with the fundamental questions that I posed, and that you didn't even attempt to answer?

That’s not overstatement. Anybody who survived stats 101 knows that interpolating data is generally safe but extrapolating data is foolish. “Hey, we observed this isotope in the lab decay so that dM/dt = k*M, and this implies that M(t)=C*e^(kt). All of the predictions of this model hold true for more than 5 months of laboratory studies……and therefore, we know the model holds for the last three billion years.” Nobody can verify that kind of shizzle.

 

Even if the margin of error involved in fixing the age of the earth with radioisotopes was plus-or-minus three billion years…..

That’s what bothers me. You’d buy the theory even if that kind of slop existed.

Firstly what, in your mind, are the essential characteristics of life?

 

Secondly, at at which point did the being that you have postulated no longer have to actively manipulate matter in order to create or sustain life? Since matter assembles into atoms, which can combine in definite proportions to form compounds, which can themselves form higher-order structures in the absence of any devine intervention whatsoever, what specific actions were necessary to bridge the gap between these inherent properties of matter and the properties that you assert are the specific domain of life as you've defined it.

 

Finally, having defined what "life" means in concrete terms, specify until what stage in the origin of life it was necessary for the being you posit to physically manipulate matter, and explain how it is that life can continue in the absence of that direct manipulation of matter if such an intervention in the physical universe was a necessary step in the origin of life.

Firstly, the notion that ancient fossil evidence shows primitive life forms which eventually evolved into the life forms we know today is a theory that may very well be true. It is, however, just a theory, an attempt to explain limited fossil evidence and our origin. You suggest that such evolution could occur independent of divine intervention, since matter forms atoms and atoms form molecules “in the absence of any devine [sic] intervention whatsoever.” How do you know this? How do you know that the very physical laws that dictate atomic structure and molecular combinations aren’t the work of a grand architect? You can assume such things just organized themselves. Einstein strived in his physics research ultimately “to know the mind of God”, suggesting he was wise enough to know that simply quantifying matter, energy and force and discovering natural laws doesn’t preclude the possibility of God’s existence or influence.

 

If you even attempt seriously think about these questions, much less construct answers that are informed by the state of contemporary scientific knowledge, I think you'll find that the line between "life" and "non-life" is less clear than you've imagined, and the necessity and scope of the magical causation that you're clinging to as an explanatory device in the void created by personal incredulity and incomprehension becomes less and less clear.

I’m fascinated by “non-life” as well, and where you wish to draw the line between and living and nonliving things is not so important to me. I remain open to the possibility that something greater than we are is responsible for creating the universe. I don’t pretend to know with certainty, I just think it’s fascinating to contemplate, and I think buying into the notion of a godless universe requires (from me anyway) a tremendous amount of faith.

 

[G-spotter]

Nobody can verify that the speed of light has remained constant over the entire lifespan of the universe, either, but this is best explored in an independent paper rather than being discussed as a potential source of error in an astronomical study of quasars, for instance. Likewise with discussion of hypothetical changes in the decay rate of isotopes wth respect to estimating geological age. Such speculation adds nothing.

[kevbone]

the evolution of awareness and its attendant conceptual frameworks is an endless source of fascination for me, but who is it that is aware, and who is it that is fascinated?

could this question even be entertained without the evolution of our collective consciousness and its effects on the "individual"?

what is the "individual" in this context?

 

the sun glints on three day old snow on a neighbor's roof-line, lifting the universe out of itself

again.

 

 

SC baby!

 

[Fairweather]

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

 

 

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

 

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment

 

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

 

 

 

The real issue here is not God v science. The real issue is the authenticity of Jim's assertion. He has posted a single link to a blog/journal maintained by a highly biased group of public employees/environmentalists. If the charges are true, they are a serious case of unwarranted meddling by the Bush Administration. But at this point, I have no reason to believe the charges are anything more than the very same anecdotal bullshit Jim and Mattp so often accuse talk radio of perpetuating.

 

Show me more, Jim. Maybe I'll share your outrage. But until then, I think you're just sucking koolaid - again.

 

 

In this exhibit, we have The (Largemouth) Bass - we'll call "Jim" - preparing to bite down on the lure - otherwise known as "unsubstantiated internet blog story".

 

 

I'm still not sure how many fish an angler can catch with a single lure, but it looks like a productive day already!

[tvashtarkatena]

I am also curious about the recent efforts to measure ancient CO2 levels in ice core samples. Isn't the gas-exchange history in a 10,000 year-old bubble so random/complex as to render the tool dubious?

 

Ice is air tight. An air bubble trapped in this medium provides an accurate, uncontaminated sample of the atmosphere at that time. Ice cores provide an unbroken record of climate dating back well over half a million years.

 

A similar methodology is also used to determine the origin of Martian meteorites by matching the gas bubbles trapped in the meteorite with gas samples analyzed by the various Mars landers.

Edited January 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[kevbone]

Speculation meet thread, thread meet speculation.

[tvashtarkatena]

Did you miss your play date with Seahawk again today?

Edited January 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Show me more, Jim. Maybe I'll share your outrage. But until then, I think you're just sucking koolaid - again.

 

You can check this article in the NY Times Jan 5th.

 

Parks Agency Leaves Controversial Book on Shelf

 

January 5, 2007, Friday

By CORNELIA DEAN (NYT); National Desk

Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 14, Column 2, 561 words

 

Also if you just actually read the article on the PEER website they have a link to the FOIA request reply from Interior that states they have no information, meaning they have not conducted any internal review of the policy. It's not so hard if you just read it.

[foraker]

Show me more, Jim. Maybe I'll share your outrage. But until then, I think you're just sucking koolaid - again.

 

You can check this article in the NY Times Jan 5th.

 

Parks Agency Leaves Controversial Book on Shelf

 

January 5, 2007, Friday

By CORNELIA DEAN (NYT); National Desk

Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 14, Column 2, 561 words

 

Also if you just actually read the article on the PEER website they have a link to the FOIA request reply from Interior that states they have no information, meaning they have not conducted any internal review of the policy. It's not so hard if you just read it.

 

It was also reported in Nature, the LA Times, etc.

[Seahawks]

Fine, but if you believe that the progess of science can someday prove that life and humans did in fact begin on this planet independent of a creator, I say you exhibit an extraordinary quantity of faith.

 

As I've already clearly stated, my prediction that we will someday be able to create life from scratch, which, being a prediction, is not conveyed with 100% certainty, is just that. No dictionary in the world would equate that with religious faith, or absolute, certain belief in something without observable evidence, and, after all, we are bound to argue in our native tongue. I would suggest you look up the the definition of 'faith', in a religious sense (yes, it has other non religious definitions which are not equivalent). I don't really feel the need to hold your hand on this one.

Firstly, you have to believe that science will be able to ignite that spark, to produce life "from scratch", as you say.

There is no magic spark. It is a continuum. Simple, self replicating entities are nothing more than micromachines (look at them under a microscope, and you'll see what I mean). If you assemble the machine, it works. No divine 'jump start' or 'spark' required. It doesn't matter whether man or nature does the assembly. The object in question doesn't care.

 

A virus is a relatively simple molecular package with a shape that fits with certain cellular membranes that allows it to inject its relatively simple genetic material into the cell to coopt the cell's more complex reproductive machinery to manufacture more viruses. Assemble the virus, and it works, because whatever energy is required for it to function is embodied in its molecular bonds; the same kinds of molecular bonds found in rocks, ice, and other inanimate materials. Is a virus alive? Kind of, but not really. It's organic, but it doesn't respirate, eat, or metabolize. It's nothing more than a crystal which, unlike 'more alive' organisms, could lie dormant under the right conditions pretty much indefinitely without any inputs, (just like a rock) and become viable again once exposed to the proper host. It's more inert Lego building block than organism. And there are simpler self replicating organic systems than viruses. More complex organisms, such as cells, operate using the same kinds of molecular bonds; aborbing, releasing energy to fabricate or destroy more molecules. What 'spark' are we talking about, exactly?

 

Finally, if and when science does observe this event, you will need to accept (or demonstrate) that such a low-probability event would be likely to occur without some kind of divine impetus.

If and when man makes life, that in itself will prove, by definition, that this 'low probability' event has a probability greater than zero.

And if you are correct, I guess you and I are just cogs in the evolutionary wheel, a stepping stone to future forms of life. That's OK if you're content with that line of thinking. I personally hope there is something more.

 

I do believe that, except that we aren't necessarily stepping stones to anything; it is much more likely (given the finite histories of past species) that we are just another evolutionary dead end, slated for extinction. You may find this depressing, but I find it keeps my ego in check. Also, I tend to focus more on the time scale of my own life, rather than what will occur millions of years from now. Unless we migrate to other star systems, a formidable task in the extreme, our final end is a certainty.

 

Just to wrankle some feathers, I don't think you will be creating it from scratch.

 

Can Random Molecular Interactions Create Life?

Many evolutionists are persuaded that the 15 billion years they assume for the age of the cosmos is an abundance of time for random interactions of atoms and molecules to generate life. A simple arithmetic lesson reveals this to be no more than an irrational fantasy.

This arithmetic lesson is similar to calculating the odds of winning the lottery. The number of possible lottery combinations corresponds to the total number of protein structures (of an appropriate size range) that are possible to assemble from standard building blocks. The winning tickets correspond to the tiny sets of such proteins with the correct special properties from which a living organism, say a simple bacterium, can be successfully built. The maximum number of lottery tickets a person can buy corresponds to the maximum number of protein molecules that could have ever existed in the history of the cosmos.

Let us first establish a reasonable upper limit on the number of molecules that could ever have been formed anywhere in the universe during its entire history. Taking 1080 as a generous estimate for the total number of atoms in the cosmos [2], 1012 for a generous upper bound for the average number of interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 1018 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the age of the universe, we get 10110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interatomic interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each interatomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history.

Now let us contemplate what is involved in demanding that a purely random process find a minimal set of about one thousand protein molecules needed for the most primitive form of life. To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that final magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred or so that are not. Let us also ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavorable chemical reaction kinetics involved in forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible non-living chemical environment.

Let us merely focus on the task of obtaining a suitable sequence of amino acids that yields a 3D protein structure with some minimal degree of essential functionality. Various theoretical and experimental evidence indicates that in some average sense about half of the amino acid sites must be specified exactly [3]. For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then on the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities.

In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity. This line of argument applies, of course, not only to the issue of biogenesis but also to the issue of how a new gene/protein might arise in any sort of macroevolution process.

One retired Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow, a chemist, wanted to quibble that this argument was flawed because I did not account for details of chemical reaction kinetics. My intention was deliberately to choose a reaction rate so gigantic (one million million reactions per atom per second on average) that all such considerations would become utterly irrelevant. How could a reasonable person trained in chemistry or physics imagine there could be a way to assemble polypeptides on the order of hundreds of amino acid units in length, to allow them to fold into their three-dimensional structures, and then to express their unique properties, all within a small fraction of one picosecond!? Prior metaphysical commitments forced him to such irrationality.

Another scientist, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, asserted that I had misapplied the rules of probability in my analysis. If my example were correct, he suggested, it "would turn the scientific world upside down." I responded that the science community has been confronted with this basic argument in the past but has simply engaged in mass denial. Fred Hoyle, the eminent British cosmologist, published similar calculations two decades ago [4]. Most scientists just put their hands over their ears and refused to listen.

In reality this analysis is so simple and direct it does not require any special intelligence, ingenuity, or advanced science education to understand or even originate. In my case, all I did was to estimate a generous upper bound on the maximum number of chemical reactions -- of any kind -- that could have ever occurred in the entire history of the cosmos and then compare this number with the number of trials needed to find a single life protein with a minimal level of functionality from among the possible candidates. I showed the latter number was orders and orders larger than the former. I assumed only that the candidates were equally likely. My argument was just that plain. I did not misapply the laws of probability. I applied them as physicists normally do in their every day work.

Why could this physicist not grasp such trivial logic? I strongly believe it was because of his tenacious commitment to atheism that he was willing to be dishonest in his science. At the time of this editorial exchange, he was also leading a campaign before the state legislature to attempt to force this fraud on every public school student in our state.

[joblo7]

we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!!

[Seahawks]

we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!!

 

That's all you got after reading that???? idiot.

[Dechristo]

we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!!

 

nice display of your skills of critical thinking in your rebuttal, V7

[joblo7]

fuck you too!!

[joblo7]

we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!!

 

That's all you got after reading that???? idiot.

 

THINK mother mocker THINK!!! cut and paste long shit dont mean shit!!!!!

[Dechristo]

I'm wet with anticipation

[joblo7]

dont get in the way

[joblo7]

motherfucker thinks using other people's brain makes him clever!! stfu

[Seahawks]

we dont give a fuck what you think!!! cause you dont know how to !!!!

 

That's all you got after reading that???? idiot.

 

THINK mother mocker THINK!!! cut and paste long shit dont mean shit!!!!!

 

Little pissed becuase everything you thought in life isn't true?? Or the only way you have to defend your position? Louder and more annoying?