She didn't die! And she has a big dinosaur load of of creatocrap.
Showing posts with label Mrs. Chatman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mrs. Chatman. Show all posts
Sunday, March 09, 2014
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Jeannie Chatman, Special Blogger
Young Earth Creationist Jeannie Chatman, Special Blogger to the Daily Guide, provided some motive and amusement when she regurgitated a load of YEC nonsense. I rebuked her here several times. In fact, her overall public record helped me to start Big Daddy is Dead.
I have checked periodically for the last 9 months, and her public output has stopped at the Daily Guide. At the same time I have not seen an obituary notice. Hopefully she is reconsidering her support for a young earth.
I have checked periodically for the last 9 months, and her public output has stopped at the Daily Guide. At the same time I have not seen an obituary notice. Hopefully she is reconsidering her support for a young earth.
Friday, January 04, 2013
Ms. Chatman goes balistically stupid
She watched the propaganda film, "Expelled." And because we know Ms. Chatman so well, her tiny brain predictably exploded.
For the reality based world's opinions on "Expelled," see Expelled Exposed. And, I egotistically hope you enjoy my article on Expelled for the National Center for Science Education, Why Re-Invent the Crystal?
For the reality based world's opinions on "Expelled," see Expelled Exposed. And, I egotistically hope you enjoy my article on Expelled for the National Center for Science Education, Why Re-Invent the Crystal?
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The opening lines from Mrs. Chatman's latest screed...
There is a great deal of controversy over how old the earth is. Darwinian evolution has a theory that the earth is millions and billions of years old. Is there proof that the earth is that old? NO! However, there is a multi-faceted theory, supported by many unproven assumptions. All the assumptions of an old earth support the theory that there is no Intelligent Designer or Creator. Old earth theories teach that all things just accidentally occurred over billions of years.
had passed by without drawing my attention. They are the common creato rant that I have seen so often that it just slides by, and away. But, there are six full sentences and six falsehoods. That score is good even for a creationist.
1) There is no controversy about the age of the Earth in science. There is a political movement called creationism that has created a political controversy. These are two very different things. For example, while there isn't any doubt among scientists about the age of the Earth/Moon system (4.5 billion years), a major Republican politician named Marco Rubio was just exposed as too afraid of his radical religious rightwing to tell the truth. How could such a coward ever honestly represent the United States against foreign enemies?
2) Then "Darwinian theory" has little or nothing to say about geology, and the age of the Earth. Darwin was publicly of the opinion that geology and the fossil record were too fragmented to be useful. When Lord Kelvin insisted that the Earth was no more than 100 million years old, Darwin agreed. It didn't matter how long evolution had taken- it had happened in what ever time was available.
3) Next, Mrs. Chatman denies there is "proof that the earth is that old." I am not a post-modernest "truth is all just what you believe kind'a guy." Nor do I subscribe to that idea that "nothing can be really known." We do have sufficient evidence that the Earth/Moon system resulted from the collision of two planetesimals just over 4.5 billion years ago that the counter claim must be able to overturn physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology. This must be done without any reference to biblical passages, as Mrs. Chatman is pretending she is motivated by facts, not emotion, dreams, hallucinations, or revelations.
4) The "unproven assumptions" that Mrs. Chatman, and her YEC associates most object to are those which irrefutably demonstrated the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. These are the many radiometric dating methods. The single most important question is "Are Constants Constant?" which I answered at the linked post. The answer is yes they are constant, and have been constant for over six billion years.
5) Mrs. Chatman's hollow assertion that the science which proves the Earth is ancient require that, "there is no Intelligent Designer or Creator" is easily falsified. First there are many people who are "old earth" creationists. An American example is Huge Ross, president and CEO of "Reasons to Believe Ministry." But, an even larger population of old earth creationists are the billion Hindus around the world. Not only do they believe in an ancient earth, but they have even more gods on their side than Mrs. Chatman.
6) Finally, the only people who think that a scientific perspective is that all events "just accidentally occurred" are people without the least understanding of science. What is the single outstanding feature of all science? The thing that sets science apart from all other activities by humans?
Science makes predictions. And if those predictions do not come true, then that scientific theory is subject to serious revision, if not rejection. This is the total, 180 degree difference from "just accidentally occurred." Only an idiot would claim science relies merely on accidents. (Although, accidents do happen).
Saturday, November 24, 2012
I had decided to limit the time I waste on Mrs. Chatman's foolishness. She seems to have no readers other than a few pro-science readers like myself. Her nonsense turns up in my news feed since I have it look for anything with "creationism" and a half-dozen other buzz words. So, I wanted to pick just one of the last 5 of her "evidences" to debunk. It was too hard to chose.
Item #5 of her "evidences" was about radiocarbon dating. There are five gross errors, and three minor errors. There was only one lonely true statement she made, radiocarbon is made in the upper atmosphere from nitrogen, and decays back to nitrogen. There is a qualification to even that: minor amounts of C14 are generated from neutron capture. I didn't even count this as an error.
Here is her claim:
Her first gross error is particularly amusing because it was accidentally a true statement: "Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old? NO!"
Radiocarbon dating is theoretically limited to about 100,000 years. Technical limitations in our field conditions, and laboratory instruments reduce this to commonly reported dates between 50 and 60 thousands of years. So, even if we had perfect field conditions, and perfect laboratory measurement, we could only "prove" that the Earth was more than 100,000 years old- just 1/10 of a million. Even when Mrs. Chatman is right, she is wrong. Nobody ever has used radiocarbon dating to "prove the earth is millions of years old." That would be stupid.
Back in 1948 when the radiocarbon dating method was first proposed, the assumption was made by Willard Frank Libby that the production of C14 in the upper atmosphere would reach a break-even point with the decay of C14 back to nitrogen. This would have made radiocarbon dating a very tidy, and easy method to apply. However, nature is rarely tidy. Our sun is a variable star, so that the amount of solar radiation producing C14 in the upper atmosphere is also variable. This does lead to the first minor error, that 21 pounds of C14 are produced annually. The production of C14 is variable over the millennia. Then, there are physical, geochemical events that can store carbon, and release carbon. These can effect the available mix of C12, and C14 particularly in marine animals. This can under some conditions substantively change the radiocarbon age of an object. This was discovered in the 1960s, and the first calibrations were being published in the early 1970s. This means that for over 50 years we have known that the "equilibrium" of atmospheric C14 was meaningless. I wish creationists like Mrs. Chatman could catch-up with the rest of us.
The first calibrations were made by counting tree-rings, and taking measure of the amount of C14 in the wood of known age. Over the many years of work, we have a very solid calibration from dendrochronology for the last 12,000 years. The most recent calibration published just this month was "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kyr B.P." (Science 19 October 2012: 370-374. [DOI:10.1126/science.1226660} This research used the annually deposited algal, and sediment layers (varves) in a Japanese lake. Other calibrations have used trapped carbon in ice caps, and marine sediments, and cross-correlation with Uranium/Thorium decay. The measurement errors have been reduced to less than 5% of the age of the material.
Here is the single most stupid thing Mrs. Chatman wrote since I first encountered her many stupid claims, "The sun's radiation hits the earth during the day." The sun's radiation hits the earth somewhere all the time except for the tiny fraction of time our sun is eclipsed by the moon. Upper atmosphere circulation effectively mixes gasses including carbon dioxide loaded with C14. There isn't anything I can say that can make it any better.
Mrs. Chatman wrote that the half-life of C14 was known as, "... C-14 molecules have a life of 5,730 years, and the remaining half will decay after another 5,730 years." We have one minor error, and one gross error in these few words. Above average even for a creationist. The minor error (and I am being charitable) is that there are "C-14 molecules." C-14 is an isotope, and atom of carbon with an excess of neutrons making it radioactive. It is not a "molecule." The gross error is about what a half-life is. If we start with some amount of a radioactive isotope, X, the amount left after one half-life will be X/2. After a second half-life there will be X/4, or one half of that from before. Then after the next interval, there will be X/8 or one half of X/4.
And finally, we have the true but misunderstood statement that, "Tests reveal that there is more C-14 now than there was 40 years ago." There is a considerable excess of C14 over the amount generated by solar radiation currently circulating in biosphere. It was produced by the insanity of open atmospheric atomic weapons exploded between 1945 and 1963 when they were limited by international treaty (France continued until 1974 China continued until 1980). Increasing amounts of ancient C14 depleted carbon released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and by volcanic eruptions has not significantly diluted the atomic test C14 signal. The last gross error associated with Mrs. Chatman's lack of science reading skills is that this excess could possibly be confused as something that "proves that the earth is not even 30,000 years old."
Item #5 of her "evidences" was about radiocarbon dating. There are five gross errors, and three minor errors. There was only one lonely true statement she made, radiocarbon is made in the upper atmosphere from nitrogen, and decays back to nitrogen. There is a qualification to even that: minor amounts of C14 are generated from neutron capture. I didn't even count this as an error.
Here is her claim:
5. Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old? NO! The sun's radiation hits the earth during the day. That energy is able to convert 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. The radio active carbon 14 eventually decays and turns back into nitrogen. Laboratory tests have shown that about half the C-14 molecules have a life of 5,730 years, and the remaining half will decay after another 5,730 years. Tests reveal that there is more C-14 now than there was 40 years ago. This proves that the earth is not even 30,000 years old and its atmosphere has not reached its equilibrium yet.
Her first gross error is particularly amusing because it was accidentally a true statement: "Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old? NO!"
Radiocarbon dating is theoretically limited to about 100,000 years. Technical limitations in our field conditions, and laboratory instruments reduce this to commonly reported dates between 50 and 60 thousands of years. So, even if we had perfect field conditions, and perfect laboratory measurement, we could only "prove" that the Earth was more than 100,000 years old- just 1/10 of a million. Even when Mrs. Chatman is right, she is wrong. Nobody ever has used radiocarbon dating to "prove the earth is millions of years old." That would be stupid.
Back in 1948 when the radiocarbon dating method was first proposed, the assumption was made by Willard Frank Libby that the production of C14 in the upper atmosphere would reach a break-even point with the decay of C14 back to nitrogen. This would have made radiocarbon dating a very tidy, and easy method to apply. However, nature is rarely tidy. Our sun is a variable star, so that the amount of solar radiation producing C14 in the upper atmosphere is also variable. This does lead to the first minor error, that 21 pounds of C14 are produced annually. The production of C14 is variable over the millennia. Then, there are physical, geochemical events that can store carbon, and release carbon. These can effect the available mix of C12, and C14 particularly in marine animals. This can under some conditions substantively change the radiocarbon age of an object. This was discovered in the 1960s, and the first calibrations were being published in the early 1970s. This means that for over 50 years we have known that the "equilibrium" of atmospheric C14 was meaningless. I wish creationists like Mrs. Chatman could catch-up with the rest of us.
The first calibrations were made by counting tree-rings, and taking measure of the amount of C14 in the wood of known age. Over the many years of work, we have a very solid calibration from dendrochronology for the last 12,000 years. The most recent calibration published just this month was "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kyr B.P." (Science 19 October 2012: 370-374. [DOI:10.1126/science.1226660} This research used the annually deposited algal, and sediment layers (varves) in a Japanese lake. Other calibrations have used trapped carbon in ice caps, and marine sediments, and cross-correlation with Uranium/Thorium decay. The measurement errors have been reduced to less than 5% of the age of the material.
Here is the single most stupid thing Mrs. Chatman wrote since I first encountered her many stupid claims, "The sun's radiation hits the earth during the day." The sun's radiation hits the earth somewhere all the time except for the tiny fraction of time our sun is eclipsed by the moon. Upper atmosphere circulation effectively mixes gasses including carbon dioxide loaded with C14. There isn't anything I can say that can make it any better.
Mrs. Chatman wrote that the half-life of C14 was known as, "... C-14 molecules have a life of 5,730 years, and the remaining half will decay after another 5,730 years." We have one minor error, and one gross error in these few words. Above average even for a creationist. The minor error (and I am being charitable) is that there are "C-14 molecules." C-14 is an isotope, and atom of carbon with an excess of neutrons making it radioactive. It is not a "molecule." The gross error is about what a half-life is. If we start with some amount of a radioactive isotope, X, the amount left after one half-life will be X/2. After a second half-life there will be X/4, or one half of that from before. Then after the next interval, there will be X/8 or one half of X/4.
And finally, we have the true but misunderstood statement that, "Tests reveal that there is more C-14 now than there was 40 years ago." There is a considerable excess of C14 over the amount generated by solar radiation currently circulating in biosphere. It was produced by the insanity of open atmospheric atomic weapons exploded between 1945 and 1963 when they were limited by international treaty (France continued until 1974 China continued until 1980). Increasing amounts of ancient C14 depleted carbon released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and by volcanic eruptions has not significantly diluted the atomic test C14 signal. The last gross error associated with Mrs. Chatman's lack of science reading skills is that this excess could possibly be confused as something that "proves that the earth is not even 30,000 years old."
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Mrs. Chatman's items #2 and 3
Mrs. Chatman makes some very weird assertions. One that is outstandingly weird is;
"2. It is not known what light really is or if it travels the same speed through out time and space."
What light is, is really well known. It has been really well known for many decades. The scientific understanding of light is called electromagnetic theory. It is a central part of physics. Electromagnetic radiation ranges from the low of radio waves to the upper extreme of high energy gamma radiation. Light, limited to what we humans can typically see, falls in the frequency range of 380 nanometres to about 740 nm. For more information about the physics of light, read up on "photons."
We are also certain that the speed of light had been constant for over 6 billion years at a minimum. This isn't from theory, but from direct measurement. See my short item "Are constants constant?"
Mrs. Chatman's argument for a 6,000 year-old Earth and Universe item #3 seems to feature a brief, and not very well stated description of some parts of general relativity. There is her confusion about the differences between relativity, and quantum mechanics. That is easily forgiven since most people (even physicists) can be confused. What is totally missing is why these are an issue relevant to young earth creationism? I wonder if she just needed some fillers to get to "10 arguments." Maybe 10 is a magic number.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Into the Cyber with Creationists
Mrs. Chatman gets her wind up and sails another essay into cyberspace.
Before I debunk her 10 "evidences" for a 6,000 year old creation, I want to note the emotionally loaded language Mrs. Chatman uses. She also makes statements simply unfounded historically. For example, the notion that the Earth could not possibly be anywhere near the biblical 6,000 years old preceded evolutionary biology by over a century, and was not first proposed by atheists. However, prior to the geological discoveries of Smith, and Hutton in the late 1700s, scientists were too afraid of religious persecution to publish their conclusions. The earliest non-biblical idea of the age of the Earth seems to have come from Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738). His ideas were only published posthumously in 1748. Both Newton, and von Leibniz thought that the Earth's original state was molten and both offered ideas of how the Earth's surface could have been molded in a plastic state. Neither men, in spite of their public renown dared publish any non-biblical estimate of the age of the Earth. The first scientist to publicly dispute any biblical age calculations while still living was Comte de Buffon (1707-1788). His experiments on the cooling time of iron spheres allowed him to conclude the Earth must have had at least taken 74,832 years to cool. In private papers not published until many years after his death, he expressed the thought that the actual age could be as high as 3 billion years. For additional early attempts to find extra-biblical estimates of the age of the Earth see; Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple, "The Age of the Earth" (1991 Stanford University Press).
Mrs. Chatman would probably insist she is a patriotic American, but she is fully committed to subverting the US Constitution. She objects strongly that "Christians and Jews are not allowed to teach what they believe" using the legal authority of public schools. They can if they are invited speakers to a religious history course. They cannot use the government to teach lies about science. She would oppose Sharia law while longing to impose her religious laws (which would not be very different from Sharia). The difference between us on this point is that I oppose both Jihadists, and Tea-hadists. We who oppose those who would pervert our Nation's heritage are the patriots.
Creationists try to fake controversies they claim question the scientific understanding of the Earth. In the latest fraud presented by Mrs. Chatman, she assaults our intelligence with denials of the age of the Earth. I'll take these in small groups to limit eye strain, and my mental health.
1. Distances beyond 100 light years cannot be measured accurately.
4. The farthest distance that can be measured accurately is 100 light years. Several billion light years cannot be measured, only theorized.
This is a "twofer" or "two for one." First, there is the logical failure of Mrs. Chatman. The age of the Universe is not essential to her stated goal of proving the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Then there is the failed creationist notion is that we can only measure astronomical distance by triangulation, known as the Trigonometric Parallax method. Since the distant star would be sighted from the extremes of the Earth's orbit every six months, there is an observational accuracy of 0.01 arcseconds. This limits this method to stars no more than 100 parsecs distant from the Earth. That is one hundred times 3.085678 X 10^18 cm, or 100 parsecs. This method directly measured distances of 326 light-years. That is over 3 time the distance cited by Mrs. Chatman. The first application of this method was in 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel using ground based telescopes. Current space telescopes measure stellar distances using the same method to 1000 parsecs, or 3,260 light years away. A new telescope launching soon by the European Space Agency will measure distances to 8,000 parsecs, or 26,080 light years away.
This is also a falsehood because we not limited to the Trigonometric Parallax method. It has been a falsehood since the start of the last century. We have 25 other accurate methods to measure astronomical distances, up to the maximum of about 13.7 billion light years away. For a fast, and fun review of how we measure the vast distances of the Universe see Ned Wright's excellent
The ABCs of Distances.
There are folks known as "Old Earth Creationists." Former astronomer Hugh Ross, founder of "Reasons to Believe Ministries" realized long ago that you couldn't lie like Mrs. Chatman and still be taken seriously. But this is an old problem for creationists, as Wiser Christians have Said
Before I debunk her 10 "evidences" for a 6,000 year old creation, I want to note the emotionally loaded language Mrs. Chatman uses. She also makes statements simply unfounded historically. For example, the notion that the Earth could not possibly be anywhere near the biblical 6,000 years old preceded evolutionary biology by over a century, and was not first proposed by atheists. However, prior to the geological discoveries of Smith, and Hutton in the late 1700s, scientists were too afraid of religious persecution to publish their conclusions. The earliest non-biblical idea of the age of the Earth seems to have come from Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738). His ideas were only published posthumously in 1748. Both Newton, and von Leibniz thought that the Earth's original state was molten and both offered ideas of how the Earth's surface could have been molded in a plastic state. Neither men, in spite of their public renown dared publish any non-biblical estimate of the age of the Earth. The first scientist to publicly dispute any biblical age calculations while still living was Comte de Buffon (1707-1788). His experiments on the cooling time of iron spheres allowed him to conclude the Earth must have had at least taken 74,832 years to cool. In private papers not published until many years after his death, he expressed the thought that the actual age could be as high as 3 billion years. For additional early attempts to find extra-biblical estimates of the age of the Earth see; Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple, "The Age of the Earth" (1991 Stanford University Press).
Mrs. Chatman would probably insist she is a patriotic American, but she is fully committed to subverting the US Constitution. She objects strongly that "Christians and Jews are not allowed to teach what they believe" using the legal authority of public schools. They can if they are invited speakers to a religious history course. They cannot use the government to teach lies about science. She would oppose Sharia law while longing to impose her religious laws (which would not be very different from Sharia). The difference between us on this point is that I oppose both Jihadists, and Tea-hadists. We who oppose those who would pervert our Nation's heritage are the patriots.
Creationists try to fake controversies they claim question the scientific understanding of the Earth. In the latest fraud presented by Mrs. Chatman, she assaults our intelligence with denials of the age of the Earth. I'll take these in small groups to limit eye strain, and my mental health.
1. Distances beyond 100 light years cannot be measured accurately.
4. The farthest distance that can be measured accurately is 100 light years. Several billion light years cannot be measured, only theorized.
This is a "twofer" or "two for one." First, there is the logical failure of Mrs. Chatman. The age of the Universe is not essential to her stated goal of proving the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Then there is the failed creationist notion is that we can only measure astronomical distance by triangulation, known as the Trigonometric Parallax method. Since the distant star would be sighted from the extremes of the Earth's orbit every six months, there is an observational accuracy of 0.01 arcseconds. This limits this method to stars no more than 100 parsecs distant from the Earth. That is one hundred times 3.085678 X 10^18 cm, or 100 parsecs. This method directly measured distances of 326 light-years. That is over 3 time the distance cited by Mrs. Chatman. The first application of this method was in 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel using ground based telescopes. Current space telescopes measure stellar distances using the same method to 1000 parsecs, or 3,260 light years away. A new telescope launching soon by the European Space Agency will measure distances to 8,000 parsecs, or 26,080 light years away.
This is also a falsehood because we not limited to the Trigonometric Parallax method. It has been a falsehood since the start of the last century. We have 25 other accurate methods to measure astronomical distances, up to the maximum of about 13.7 billion light years away. For a fast, and fun review of how we measure the vast distances of the Universe see Ned Wright's excellent
The ABCs of Distances.
There are folks known as "Old Earth Creationists." Former astronomer Hugh Ross, founder of "Reasons to Believe Ministries" realized long ago that you couldn't lie like Mrs. Chatman and still be taken seriously. But this is an old problem for creationists, as Wiser Christians have Said
Saturday, November 17, 2012
While I was not posting here last week
I was dumping on a creationist Here
The premise was to refute the notion that, "Biblical creationists don't have a prayer when it comes to any kind of an honest argument with an evolutionist." And so, self-employed marketing consultant Randy Ruggles wants to teach us po' po' sinners the truth of young earth creationism (YEC).
Hilarity ensues...
There wasn't much new for the readers of Stones and Bones, so I didn't post a blow by blow account. I did read, and debunk some quote mined nuggets. I was frustrated that I didn't find one I had already written about C14 dates and Canadian archaeologist Robert E. Lee. (Really his name- a great great grandson). I'll need to recreate it.
Mrs. Chatman made another appearance at Waynesville Daily Guide, entitled, "Throw Out Evidence of a Young Earth, It Doesn't Fit our Theory"
She regales us with 10 sure-fire proofs of the young earth, Genesis flood, and the evils of evolutionism. By popular request (one reader), I'll take each of them in turn.
The premise was to refute the notion that, "Biblical creationists don't have a prayer when it comes to any kind of an honest argument with an evolutionist." And so, self-employed marketing consultant Randy Ruggles wants to teach us po' po' sinners the truth of young earth creationism (YEC).
Hilarity ensues...
There wasn't much new for the readers of Stones and Bones, so I didn't post a blow by blow account. I did read, and debunk some quote mined nuggets. I was frustrated that I didn't find one I had already written about C14 dates and Canadian archaeologist Robert E. Lee. (Really his name- a great great grandson). I'll need to recreate it.
Mrs. Chatman made another appearance at Waynesville Daily Guide, entitled, "Throw Out Evidence of a Young Earth, It Doesn't Fit our Theory"
She regales us with 10 sure-fire proofs of the young earth, Genesis flood, and the evils of evolutionism. By popular request (one reader), I'll take each of them in turn.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
They are at it again.
A few weeks ago I spent some effort debunking the creationist spewing of Mrs. Jeannie Chatman. Then, all the posts she had made to the Waynesville Daily Guide were sent into the interweb ozone. But, SHE IS BACK!. And she is just as crazy as ever. Closer to home, the OC Weekly ran an article today about creationist engineer Bill Morgan. The dilemma is worse than the obvious choice of who to debunk first. I needed to finish registering the old pick-up, the rear window of the PU camper shell needs to be replaced, there is a rust hole in the PU muffler, I have a water leak in the laundry + kitchen wall, and I am going fishing tomorrow. I compromised by registering PU, buying various supplies for additional truck repair and plumbing, opening the wall from the laundry side so it will drain out and not screw my new kitchen paint job, using a high temp silicon caulk on the muffler, drinking a beer, and getting ready to fish. Oh, and I dropped a few comments at OC Weekly.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Mrs. Chatman swings from the stars for a Big Bang.
Mrs. Chatman made a post asserting there were 6 "kinds" of evolution, and that the first 5 had no empirical support. Her exact words were, "It is all opinion, theory, and hypothesis from scientists who believe in evolution."
She has repeated a very common creationist lie. I have found it in Seventh Day Adventist tracts, creatocrap from the Institute for Creation Research, and in Jack Chick's "Big Daddy." So, I invested far too much effort writing a rebuttal.
Big Daddy Frame 10- Blackboard with 6 kinds of evolution
1. Cosmic Evolution - Big Bang makes hydrogen
2. Chemical Evolution - higher elements evolve
3. Planetary Evolution, i.e. evolution of stars and planets from gas
4. Organic Evolution - life from rocks
5. Macroevolution - changes between kinds of plants and animals
6. Microevolution - changes within kinds
1. Cosmic Evolution, which tries to explain the origin of time, space, and matter.
Creationists like to exploit the different meanings of the word “evolution” as seen in this “list of kinds of evolution.” And to be fair, there are scientists who use the word “evolution” to mean a process of transformation. Recently, Harvard University has used this sense of “evolution” to organize a brief science curriculum covering topics from the origin of the universe, to the origin of new biological species today. I find it amusing that they are unknowingly following a pattern laid down first by creationists. But, it does make it much easier to debunk the main lie told about these “kinds of evolution,” of course this is that there is a lack of evidence for these events to have occurred, and be still occurring today.
The first of Mrs. Chatman’s “kinds” was “Cosmic Evolution, which tries to explain the origin of time, space, and matter.” This is properly known as Cosmology. The Belgian priest, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, was also an accomplished astronomer, and professor of physics. He proposed in 1927 that the Universe was expanding based on Einstein’s General Relativity, and then four years later that the Universe had had a discrete beginning. The direct observations by Edwin Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory lead to the discovery in 1929 that that Lemaître was in fact correct. So, the expanding universe and Big Bang origin of the universe has had direct observational support for over 80 years.
The data do not stop there. One implication of the Big Bang theory was that there must be a fading background “glow” which should be everywhere in the universe. Calculations by Ralph Alpher, Robert Herman, and George Gamow in 1948 indicated that this radiation should be in the microwave frequencies generated from an energy of about 3 degrees Kelvin. This was detected accidentally in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs. A team of researchers at nearby Princeton University led by Robert Dicke realized what Penzias and Wilson had detected. The NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) (launched in 2001) has completed a map of tiny temperature variations in this cosmic background which corresponds with the formation of the first galaxies in the universe. The project has also refined the age of the universe to 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years.
The third test of the Big Bang origin of the universe is the distribution, and abundances of atoms of different elements. I’ll leave this to a later comment. The trigger of the Big Bang is still under study. Two recent books which summarize our current understanding are;
Krauss, Lawrence
2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press
Susskind, Leonard
2005 "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" New York: Little and Brown Publishers
Helpful websites are;
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 1.
The “kinds” of evolution under items 2, and 3 are convoluted in the minds of creationists everywhere. The questions, and answers are also complex because we have to refer back and forth between experimental laboratory results here on earth, and astronomical studies from the deepest reaches of space.
By knowing the age and background temperature of the Universe today, we can calculate the approximate temperature at the Big Bang. This was an extraordinary 10^30 degrees Kelvin. At that temperature normal matter, baryonic matter, cannot even exist and all the physical forces with the exception of gravity are mashed into a single unified force. As the universe expanded it cooled, and below 10^28 degrees Kelvin the first ordinary matter condensed, and the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces began to separate. Atoms could not have existed yet, and didn’t emerge until the temperatures dropped to an average of around 10^6 degrees Kelvin, or about the temperature of the stars seen today. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of this era around 300 to 500 thousand years after the Big Bang. But long before this, neutrons and protons could exist, and to a limited extent interact forming nucleons.
So what were these first atomic nuclei, and how can we study them? In the 1920s, chemical elements were proven to be built from three subatomic particles, neutrons, protons and electrons. Mass is the main property of neutrons and protons, and electric charge is carried by protons (+) and electrons (-). The easiest of these particles to form, and therefore the first, is the neutron. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The simplest atom is Hydrogen with just a proton and an electron. Adding a neutron generates Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Smashing two protons together with a combined energy of about 10^7 degrees overcomes the electromagnetic force, and binds then together with the strong nuclear force creating Helium. This process, called nuclear fusion, is what powers nuclear bombs, and stars. It is easier to form helium by fusing two nuclei of deuterium than by bare protons, and makes helium isotopes with mass 3, and 4. Only tiny traces of Lithium (3 protons) could have been formed just after the Big Bang and before the first stars. The next heaviest nuclei are Beryllium (4 protons, with 3 to 6 neutrons). This could not form just by the addition of protons to existing nuclei because the extremely short half life of Be-8 blocks this route, and only extremely small amounts of Be-7, and Be-9 could have formed. So, the Big Bang theory predicts that about 75% of the early mass of the universe was hydrogen, just under 25% was helium, 0.01% deuterium, and less than a millionth of one percent lithium, and beryllium.
How have we tested all this? The nuclear physics is tested in accelerators. The next big results will be from the European CERN experiments since we Americans have dropped out of “big science.” The development of space telescopes coupled with spectrographs allows the direct measurement of the atomic composition of extremely distant stars, and interstellar gasses. We find that the proportion of atomic nuclei is exactly as predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
The CERN Large Hadron Collider will smash pairs of lead nucleons, each with an energy of 5.75 X 10^14 electron volts. The collision energies will be well over 10^20 eV. This is still well below the energies of the Big Bang, but it is expected to generate quark-gluon storms similar to the post-inflation period just before the emergence of the first neutrons.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 2.
The Big Bang creation of atoms was limited to 75% hydrogen, just under 25% helium, 0.01% deuterium, and tiny traces of lithium, and beryllium. The physical forces were all fixed, and the weakest and most profound force was gravity. It was gravity that controlled the next stage in atom building. As hydrogen, and helium were swept together by gravity the density, or pressure of the gas increased. This heats the gasses. The deeper the gravity well, the greater the pressure, and the greater the heating. Stars are masses of hydrogen and helium that have heated by gravitational collapse to temperatures high enough to trigger fusion. This starts at about 15 million degrees, or 1.3 thousand electron volts per nucleon resulting in the simplest fusion path of 3 hydrogen nuclei fusing into one helium. The larger the mass of gasses condensing, the faster the temperature raises and the sooner fusion begins. The heat released by hydrogen fusion is what powers a thermonuclear bomb. What keeps stars from exploding is their deep gravity well. But, the heat of fusion does act against gravity, stopping the increasing pressure from gravitational collapse.
The maximum temperature in the interior of a star depends on how much gas was available to collapse to build it. Basically, the larger the star the hotter the maximum core temperature. As the size and core temperature of a star increases, different fusion pathways from hydrogen to helium take over, and release even more energy as heat, and as neutrinos. But, there is no way to go simply from hydrogen to the heavy elements. I mentioned this earlier. What stops the reaction is the extreme instability of Berylium-8 which decays into helium in less than a trillionth of a second. This problem was solved theoretically by Fred Hoyle in the 1950s. He proposed that three helium nuclei (alpha particles) could fuse essentially instantly in the core of a large enough, and hot enough star to form the stable carbon-12 nucleon (6 protons and 6 neutrons). This “triple alpha” process was shown observationally/experimentally to occur in 1957 by William A. Fowler who received the 1983 Nobel Prize for this work. In spite of the fact that this reaction is rare even under the best of conditions, nearly all the carbon in the universe formed this way.
Once carbon is formed, other higher elements follow by the addition of more alpha particles, or protons. There are other pathways also opened once the Be-8 barrier is overcome, particularly the formation of elements by Beta decay which removes one proton from a heavier element converting it into a lighter one. As the concentration of heavier elements increased, they also undergo fusion reactions, for example two carbon-12 nuclei fuse to make either a Neon-20 + Helium, or a Sodium-23 + Hydrogen. These are called s-reactions because they are all slow.
But another roadblock appears due to the extreme stability of the iron nucleus. Elements formed with atomic mass higher than iron are less stable, and the end result is that iron cores begin to form in massive active stars. (There are still stars today a million times larger than the sun, and these were much more common in the early universe). There is no further nuclear synthesis in the iron core, and the star acquires a stratified structure with most of the active nuclear fusion happening away from the core. This is leading to the collapse of the star, and a Super Nova.
Experimental evidence:
C. W. Cook, W. A. Fowler, C. C. Lauritsen, and T. Lauritsen
1957 “B12, C12, and the Red Giants” Phys. Rev. 107, 508–515
I received my first Isotope Producer License when I was about 20 years old. I used thermal neutrons generated in a TRIGA Mark IV nuclear reactor to produce radioactive isotopes. Beta decay is accompanied by the emission of a gamma ray, and the energy of the radiation indicates the mass of the nucleus. This kind of research is called Neutron Activation Analysis. It was quite new back then.
Suggested reading;
Dickin, Alan P.
2000 “Radiogenic Isotope Geology” Cambridge University Press
Helpful websites;
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/FusionHydrogen.html
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-1.htm
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 3.
Rapid nucleosynthesis in Novas and Super Novas.
The origin of elements (nucleosynthesis) in Part 2 was limited by the stability of the iron nucleus which blocked the formation of heavier elements. The sequence of reactions in the s-process are hydrogen (H) transmutes (or evolves, if you insist) to helium (He), He to carbon (C), C to neon (Ne), Ne to oxygen (O), O to silicon (Si), and Si to iron (Fe). Each of these reactions released energy in the form of heat which keeps the star from totally collapsing. As this happens, the star is being organized into layers of nucleons, with the lighter ones towards the surface and iron at the center.
Without the radiated heat from nuclear fusion in the iron core, the star begins to collapse again. This gravitational collapse increases the core temperature. If the star was large enough, the core temperature gets high enough to force iron fusion. Because iron is so stable, this reaction absorbs energy without releasing any back. The result is even more gravitational collapse, and higher temperatures until the iron nucleons are broken down into He, H, and neutrons which stream out toward the surface. At the same time, the outer shells of the star are falling inward towards the core, increasing pressure and temperature. They cannot fall forever, and will “bounce” from the core back out to the surface again.
This process cannot last long. The neutrons streaming out from the core are absorbed by the in-falling nuclei raising them to higher atomic mass by Beta decay. The recoil from the collapse will blast the star, and the newly formed heavy elements into space. These are called Super Novas. Next, gravity eventually will collect them back into new stars where the entire sequences repeats. These next generation stars will start with an enriched chemistry of heavy nuclei. The consequence is that they generate even heavier elements in the next nova.
Experimental/Observational evidence; With the invention of space telescopes, and charge coupled detectors, we can now observe these events directly. Particularly important are the gamma ray studies showing us the existence of newly formed radioactive isotopes. A review of these discoveries as of 1997 is cited below.
David Arnett and Grant Bazan 1997 “Nucleosynthesis in Stars: Recent Developments” Science Vol. 276 no. 5317 pp. 1359-1362
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1359
Two specific examples are discussed here;
Roger A. Chevalier 1997 “Type II Supernovae SN 1987A and SN 1993J” Science Vol. 276 no. 5317 pp. 1374-1378
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1374
Helpful Websites;
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/element.html
“Kinds” of evolution 1,2,3 a summary and extension
The origin of the elements following the Big Bang origin of the universe is neither a mystery nor unsupported by direct scientific evidence. There is still much to be learned, but we can dispense with the lie that they are without clear and obvious evidence. The energy released in the Big Bang, regardless of source, cooled and this resulted in the formation of neutrons from a quark, and gluon storm of tremendous heat and pressure. The continued cooling provided conditions where neutrons decayed to protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Protons found electrons becoming hydrogen. Accelerated protons found each other becoming helium. Neutrons continued to add themselves forming the isotopes of deuterium, and helium 3, and 4. Traces of lithium were made, but the Big Bang nucleosynthesis process was blocked at beryllium-8 due to its nearly instant self destruction back into helium.
Gravity came to be the most important force in the next step, the formation of stars. The earliest stars were mostly huge things, millions of times larger than our sun. They quickly (in universal time scales) generated the elemental nuclei up to iron’s 26 protons via the “slow” process . Again the process was blocked, but this time by the stability of the iron nucleus. That very stability, ironically, lead to the greatest explosions observed in the universe today, the super nova. Those events generated the rest of the heavy elements to uranium (and maybe higher). Once there were ample amounts of heavy elements, other more interesting things do start to appear - planets.
This is, step by step, observed and verified scientific fact. Naturally creationists denied it could ever be true.
In the creationist’s freakish version of reality, planets just spring into existence by magic. For many decades, all leading creationist “thinkers” insisted that there were no planets other than those around the Earth. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was still trying to deny that science could discover extra-solar planets, or even the origin of the moon in the late 1990s. See for example his nonsense published as “The Stardust Trail.”
Duane Gish claiming that the non-existence of extra-solar planets was important to Christian faith wrote, “Our faith is based on the certainty of eyewitness accounts, not the uncertainty of the wobble of stars.”
http://www.icr.org/article/believing-what-cannot-be-seen/
"As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets." Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Bier Book House, 1984) p. 244.
Science knows, and every American should know that extra-solar planets are common. Science knows, and every American should know that the nebular hypothesis as proposed by Immanuel Kant in 1755 has been proven. (Somewhat to my surprise, the Wikipedia article in this is excellent, and I'll just refer readers there). This does not slow down the creationists who continue to deny reality, for example: "NASA Data Derail Nebular Hypothesis" by Brian Thomas of the ICR. http://www.icr.org/article/nasa-data-derail-nebular-hypothesis/
Two features of the modern nebular hypothesis are that there will be a circumstellar disk which will have remnants following the formation of inner planets. This is called the Kuiper Belt. It was recently decided by astronomers that Pluto was better described as a Kuiper Belt object. There should also be an even more distant, spherical distribution of matter around a star called the Oort Cloud. These two concentrations of matter also have the interesting feature of explaining the origin, and persistence of comets. And this is why creationists hate and deny their very existence. Young Earth Creationists insist that the rather short cometary lives (hundreds to thousands to millions of years) somehow "proves" that the Earth is merely 6,000 years old. This is why we can read such stupidity as, “This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.” “The Stardust Trail” Henry Morris. http://www.icr.org/article/stardust-trail/
Unfortunately for creationists, we have all the data we need. Even better, every feature of the Nebular Hypothesis: circumstellar disks, Kuiper Belts, and Oort Clouds, have been directly observed around other stars. And, how do we know that our solar system was built from earlier generations of stars? The most obvious way is the analysis of extra-solar dust grains still found today. There have been hundreds of scientific publications on these observations in just the last few years. Just use the Google; "extrasolar dust" is a good one. Then, "extrasolar disks" will reveal space telescope images of planet formation recorded for over a decade.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20090812.html
4. Organic evolution, which tries to explain life springing from inanimate matter.
We do no know exactly how life originated on Earth. We do know that it happened at least once at the end of the Hadean era, or about 3.9 billion years ago.* But, recall that the creationists, like Mrs. Chatman or Jack Chick, insist that there is no evidence that this could have occurred at all. Here is just a glimpse at the available evidence.
There are bacteria which "spring from inanimate matter" all the time. At least in the sense that they require absolutely no organic form of nutrition. And we know that "organic" molecules have no particular magic. There was once the thought that the organic "stuff" of life was completely different from "inorganic" or mineral matter. This seems still to be the thought of the ignorant. Known as vitalism, this concept was shown to be false by F. Wöhler, in his 1828 synthesis of urea, a "live" compound, from inorganic stock chemicals ("ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA" Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig).
Charles R. Darwin, in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker wrote, "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." A few years later in 1871, he had observed, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "
The study of the origin of life is actually called abiogenesis. It was, as Darwin noted, nothing but speculation until the 1950s. Then, in 1953 a short paper by Stanley Miller for Science magazine brought origin of life studies into actual experimental research (“A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529). What Miller had shown was that a very simple set of starting conditions, common gasses, hot water, and an electric spark would produce many of the chemicals essential to the origin of life. There were many critics, especially creationists. Miller and others repeated his experiment with different gasses, and energy sources. It was so simple to set up even high school chemistry labs could manage. Miller's last paper was published posthumously 55 years later, "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres" (H. James Cleaves & John H. Chalmers & Antonio Lazcano & Stanley L. Miller & Jeffrey L. Bada 2008 Orig Life Evol Biosph 38:105-115). This group at the University of California's Scripp's Institute demonstrated that under a neutral atmosphere, or even with a trace of free oxygen, ample amino acids could form in the presence of common minerals such as borax, or calcite.
A recent book reviewing the last 58 years of abiogenesis research, and pointing out several still large gaps in our knowledge is;
Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press
A bit more technical is;
Schopf, William (editor)
2002 "Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution" University of California Press
For some really up-to-the-minute research see;
NASA's Astrobiology Institute website
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
* Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei 2004 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 217 237-244 (online 6 December 03), Oleg Abramov, Stephen J. Mojzsis 2009 “Microbial habitability of the Hadean Earth during the late heavy bombardment” Nature 459, 419-422 (21 May) | doi:10.1038/nature08015;
5. Macro evolution, which tries to explain one specie evolving into things another specie.
6. Micro evolution, which explains variations within a specie.
I was planning to keep to a single 'kind' of evolution per day. But, the local fishing has really improved the last few days, and I want to get back out tomorrow. And, the notion that we have some sort of problem demonstrating 'macro' evolution is a joke. 'Macro' evolution is merely 'micro' evolution across long periods of time. Science professionals not actually specialists might read;
Carroll, Robert L.
1998 'Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution' New York: Cambridge University Press,
and,
Valentine, James W.
2005 On the Origin of Phyla University of Chicago Press (Professor Valentine's book is probably the best study of the pre-Cambrian, and Cambrian eras available in English).
For non-scientists I recommend;
Carroll, Sean B.
2005 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful' New York: Norton
or,
Shubin, Neal
2008 Your Inner Fish New York: Pantheon Books
One major problem is that few people, especially creationists, even know what a 'species' is. I recommend reading 'What is a Species, and What is Not' by Ernst Mayer
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/Mayr_1996_june.shtml
We have obviously observed the emergence of new species, in nature, in experiments, and induced in laboratories. I have compiled a list of dozens of examples ranging from plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Some have been known for over a century. The central strategy used by creationists to deny this reality is to try and change the meaning of 'species,' and to even change the meaning of 'evolve.'
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html
She has repeated a very common creationist lie. I have found it in Seventh Day Adventist tracts, creatocrap from the Institute for Creation Research, and in Jack Chick's "Big Daddy." So, I invested far too much effort writing a rebuttal.
Big Daddy Frame 10- Blackboard with 6 kinds of evolution
1. Cosmic Evolution - Big Bang makes hydrogen
2. Chemical Evolution - higher elements evolve
3. Planetary Evolution, i.e. evolution of stars and planets from gas
4. Organic Evolution - life from rocks
5. Macroevolution - changes between kinds of plants and animals
6. Microevolution - changes within kinds
1. Cosmic Evolution, which tries to explain the origin of time, space, and matter.
Creationists like to exploit the different meanings of the word “evolution” as seen in this “list of kinds of evolution.” And to be fair, there are scientists who use the word “evolution” to mean a process of transformation. Recently, Harvard University has used this sense of “evolution” to organize a brief science curriculum covering topics from the origin of the universe, to the origin of new biological species today. I find it amusing that they are unknowingly following a pattern laid down first by creationists. But, it does make it much easier to debunk the main lie told about these “kinds of evolution,” of course this is that there is a lack of evidence for these events to have occurred, and be still occurring today.
The first of Mrs. Chatman’s “kinds” was “Cosmic Evolution, which tries to explain the origin of time, space, and matter.” This is properly known as Cosmology. The Belgian priest, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, was also an accomplished astronomer, and professor of physics. He proposed in 1927 that the Universe was expanding based on Einstein’s General Relativity, and then four years later that the Universe had had a discrete beginning. The direct observations by Edwin Hubble at the Mt. Wilson observatory lead to the discovery in 1929 that that Lemaître was in fact correct. So, the expanding universe and Big Bang origin of the universe has had direct observational support for over 80 years.
The data do not stop there. One implication of the Big Bang theory was that there must be a fading background “glow” which should be everywhere in the universe. Calculations by Ralph Alpher, Robert Herman, and George Gamow in 1948 indicated that this radiation should be in the microwave frequencies generated from an energy of about 3 degrees Kelvin. This was detected accidentally in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs. A team of researchers at nearby Princeton University led by Robert Dicke realized what Penzias and Wilson had detected. The NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) (launched in 2001) has completed a map of tiny temperature variations in this cosmic background which corresponds with the formation of the first galaxies in the universe. The project has also refined the age of the universe to 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years.
The third test of the Big Bang origin of the universe is the distribution, and abundances of atoms of different elements. I’ll leave this to a later comment. The trigger of the Big Bang is still under study. Two recent books which summarize our current understanding are;
Krauss, Lawrence
2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press
Susskind, Leonard
2005 "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" New York: Little and Brown Publishers
Helpful websites are;
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 1.
The “kinds” of evolution under items 2, and 3 are convoluted in the minds of creationists everywhere. The questions, and answers are also complex because we have to refer back and forth between experimental laboratory results here on earth, and astronomical studies from the deepest reaches of space.
By knowing the age and background temperature of the Universe today, we can calculate the approximate temperature at the Big Bang. This was an extraordinary 10^30 degrees Kelvin. At that temperature normal matter, baryonic matter, cannot even exist and all the physical forces with the exception of gravity are mashed into a single unified force. As the universe expanded it cooled, and below 10^28 degrees Kelvin the first ordinary matter condensed, and the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces began to separate. Atoms could not have existed yet, and didn’t emerge until the temperatures dropped to an average of around 10^6 degrees Kelvin, or about the temperature of the stars seen today. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of this era around 300 to 500 thousand years after the Big Bang. But long before this, neutrons and protons could exist, and to a limited extent interact forming nucleons.
So what were these first atomic nuclei, and how can we study them? In the 1920s, chemical elements were proven to be built from three subatomic particles, neutrons, protons and electrons. Mass is the main property of neutrons and protons, and electric charge is carried by protons (+) and electrons (-). The easiest of these particles to form, and therefore the first, is the neutron. Neutrons decay into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The simplest atom is Hydrogen with just a proton and an electron. Adding a neutron generates Deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Smashing two protons together with a combined energy of about 10^7 degrees overcomes the electromagnetic force, and binds then together with the strong nuclear force creating Helium. This process, called nuclear fusion, is what powers nuclear bombs, and stars. It is easier to form helium by fusing two nuclei of deuterium than by bare protons, and makes helium isotopes with mass 3, and 4. Only tiny traces of Lithium (3 protons) could have been formed just after the Big Bang and before the first stars. The next heaviest nuclei are Beryllium (4 protons, with 3 to 6 neutrons). This could not form just by the addition of protons to existing nuclei because the extremely short half life of Be-8 blocks this route, and only extremely small amounts of Be-7, and Be-9 could have formed. So, the Big Bang theory predicts that about 75% of the early mass of the universe was hydrogen, just under 25% was helium, 0.01% deuterium, and less than a millionth of one percent lithium, and beryllium.
How have we tested all this? The nuclear physics is tested in accelerators. The next big results will be from the European CERN experiments since we Americans have dropped out of “big science.” The development of space telescopes coupled with spectrographs allows the direct measurement of the atomic composition of extremely distant stars, and interstellar gasses. We find that the proportion of atomic nuclei is exactly as predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
The CERN Large Hadron Collider will smash pairs of lead nucleons, each with an energy of 5.75 X 10^14 electron volts. The collision energies will be well over 10^20 eV. This is still well below the energies of the Big Bang, but it is expected to generate quark-gluon storms similar to the post-inflation period just before the emergence of the first neutrons.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 2.
The Big Bang creation of atoms was limited to 75% hydrogen, just under 25% helium, 0.01% deuterium, and tiny traces of lithium, and beryllium. The physical forces were all fixed, and the weakest and most profound force was gravity. It was gravity that controlled the next stage in atom building. As hydrogen, and helium were swept together by gravity the density, or pressure of the gas increased. This heats the gasses. The deeper the gravity well, the greater the pressure, and the greater the heating. Stars are masses of hydrogen and helium that have heated by gravitational collapse to temperatures high enough to trigger fusion. This starts at about 15 million degrees, or 1.3 thousand electron volts per nucleon resulting in the simplest fusion path of 3 hydrogen nuclei fusing into one helium. The larger the mass of gasses condensing, the faster the temperature raises and the sooner fusion begins. The heat released by hydrogen fusion is what powers a thermonuclear bomb. What keeps stars from exploding is their deep gravity well. But, the heat of fusion does act against gravity, stopping the increasing pressure from gravitational collapse.
The maximum temperature in the interior of a star depends on how much gas was available to collapse to build it. Basically, the larger the star the hotter the maximum core temperature. As the size and core temperature of a star increases, different fusion pathways from hydrogen to helium take over, and release even more energy as heat, and as neutrinos. But, there is no way to go simply from hydrogen to the heavy elements. I mentioned this earlier. What stops the reaction is the extreme instability of Berylium-8 which decays into helium in less than a trillionth of a second. This problem was solved theoretically by Fred Hoyle in the 1950s. He proposed that three helium nuclei (alpha particles) could fuse essentially instantly in the core of a large enough, and hot enough star to form the stable carbon-12 nucleon (6 protons and 6 neutrons). This “triple alpha” process was shown observationally/experimentally to occur in 1957 by William A. Fowler who received the 1983 Nobel Prize for this work. In spite of the fact that this reaction is rare even under the best of conditions, nearly all the carbon in the universe formed this way.
Once carbon is formed, other higher elements follow by the addition of more alpha particles, or protons. There are other pathways also opened once the Be-8 barrier is overcome, particularly the formation of elements by Beta decay which removes one proton from a heavier element converting it into a lighter one. As the concentration of heavier elements increased, they also undergo fusion reactions, for example two carbon-12 nuclei fuse to make either a Neon-20 + Helium, or a Sodium-23 + Hydrogen. These are called s-reactions because they are all slow.
But another roadblock appears due to the extreme stability of the iron nucleus. Elements formed with atomic mass higher than iron are less stable, and the end result is that iron cores begin to form in massive active stars. (There are still stars today a million times larger than the sun, and these were much more common in the early universe). There is no further nuclear synthesis in the iron core, and the star acquires a stratified structure with most of the active nuclear fusion happening away from the core. This is leading to the collapse of the star, and a Super Nova.
Experimental evidence:
C. W. Cook, W. A. Fowler, C. C. Lauritsen, and T. Lauritsen
1957 “B12, C12, and the Red Giants” Phys. Rev. 107, 508–515
I received my first Isotope Producer License when I was about 20 years old. I used thermal neutrons generated in a TRIGA Mark IV nuclear reactor to produce radioactive isotopes. Beta decay is accompanied by the emission of a gamma ray, and the energy of the radiation indicates the mass of the nucleus. This kind of research is called Neutron Activation Analysis. It was quite new back then.
Suggested reading;
Dickin, Alan P.
2000 “Radiogenic Isotope Geology” Cambridge University Press
Helpful websites;
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/FusionHydrogen.html
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-1.htm
2. Chemical evolution, which tries to explain the elements.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution, which tries to explain the universe.
Part 3.
Rapid nucleosynthesis in Novas and Super Novas.
The origin of elements (nucleosynthesis) in Part 2 was limited by the stability of the iron nucleus which blocked the formation of heavier elements. The sequence of reactions in the s-process are hydrogen (H) transmutes (or evolves, if you insist) to helium (He), He to carbon (C), C to neon (Ne), Ne to oxygen (O), O to silicon (Si), and Si to iron (Fe). Each of these reactions released energy in the form of heat which keeps the star from totally collapsing. As this happens, the star is being organized into layers of nucleons, with the lighter ones towards the surface and iron at the center.
Without the radiated heat from nuclear fusion in the iron core, the star begins to collapse again. This gravitational collapse increases the core temperature. If the star was large enough, the core temperature gets high enough to force iron fusion. Because iron is so stable, this reaction absorbs energy without releasing any back. The result is even more gravitational collapse, and higher temperatures until the iron nucleons are broken down into He, H, and neutrons which stream out toward the surface. At the same time, the outer shells of the star are falling inward towards the core, increasing pressure and temperature. They cannot fall forever, and will “bounce” from the core back out to the surface again.
This process cannot last long. The neutrons streaming out from the core are absorbed by the in-falling nuclei raising them to higher atomic mass by Beta decay. The recoil from the collapse will blast the star, and the newly formed heavy elements into space. These are called Super Novas. Next, gravity eventually will collect them back into new stars where the entire sequences repeats. These next generation stars will start with an enriched chemistry of heavy nuclei. The consequence is that they generate even heavier elements in the next nova.
Experimental/Observational evidence; With the invention of space telescopes, and charge coupled detectors, we can now observe these events directly. Particularly important are the gamma ray studies showing us the existence of newly formed radioactive isotopes. A review of these discoveries as of 1997 is cited below.
David Arnett and Grant Bazan 1997 “Nucleosynthesis in Stars: Recent Developments” Science Vol. 276 no. 5317 pp. 1359-1362
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1359
Two specific examples are discussed here;
Roger A. Chevalier 1997 “Type II Supernovae SN 1987A and SN 1993J” Science Vol. 276 no. 5317 pp. 1374-1378
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1374
Helpful Websites;
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/element.html
“Kinds” of evolution 1,2,3 a summary and extension
The origin of the elements following the Big Bang origin of the universe is neither a mystery nor unsupported by direct scientific evidence. There is still much to be learned, but we can dispense with the lie that they are without clear and obvious evidence. The energy released in the Big Bang, regardless of source, cooled and this resulted in the formation of neutrons from a quark, and gluon storm of tremendous heat and pressure. The continued cooling provided conditions where neutrons decayed to protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Protons found electrons becoming hydrogen. Accelerated protons found each other becoming helium. Neutrons continued to add themselves forming the isotopes of deuterium, and helium 3, and 4. Traces of lithium were made, but the Big Bang nucleosynthesis process was blocked at beryllium-8 due to its nearly instant self destruction back into helium.
Gravity came to be the most important force in the next step, the formation of stars. The earliest stars were mostly huge things, millions of times larger than our sun. They quickly (in universal time scales) generated the elemental nuclei up to iron’s 26 protons via the “slow” process . Again the process was blocked, but this time by the stability of the iron nucleus. That very stability, ironically, lead to the greatest explosions observed in the universe today, the super nova. Those events generated the rest of the heavy elements to uranium (and maybe higher). Once there were ample amounts of heavy elements, other more interesting things do start to appear - planets.
This is, step by step, observed and verified scientific fact. Naturally creationists denied it could ever be true.
In the creationist’s freakish version of reality, planets just spring into existence by magic. For many decades, all leading creationist “thinkers” insisted that there were no planets other than those around the Earth. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was still trying to deny that science could discover extra-solar planets, or even the origin of the moon in the late 1990s. See for example his nonsense published as “The Stardust Trail.”
Duane Gish claiming that the non-existence of extra-solar planets was important to Christian faith wrote, “Our faith is based on the certainty of eyewitness accounts, not the uncertainty of the wobble of stars.”
http://www.icr.org/article/believing-what-cannot-be-seen/
"As far as distant stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no evidence either in science or Scripture, that any of them have planets." Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Bier Book House, 1984) p. 244.
Science knows, and every American should know that extra-solar planets are common. Science knows, and every American should know that the nebular hypothesis as proposed by Immanuel Kant in 1755 has been proven. (Somewhat to my surprise, the Wikipedia article in this is excellent, and I'll just refer readers there). This does not slow down the creationists who continue to deny reality, for example: "NASA Data Derail Nebular Hypothesis" by Brian Thomas of the ICR. http://www.icr.org/article/nasa-data-derail-nebular-hypothesis/
Two features of the modern nebular hypothesis are that there will be a circumstellar disk which will have remnants following the formation of inner planets. This is called the Kuiper Belt. It was recently decided by astronomers that Pluto was better described as a Kuiper Belt object. There should also be an even more distant, spherical distribution of matter around a star called the Oort Cloud. These two concentrations of matter also have the interesting feature of explaining the origin, and persistence of comets. And this is why creationists hate and deny their very existence. Young Earth Creationists insist that the rather short cometary lives (hundreds to thousands to millions of years) somehow "proves" that the Earth is merely 6,000 years old. This is why we can read such stupidity as, “This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.” “The Stardust Trail” Henry Morris. http://www.icr.org/article/stardust-trail/
Unfortunately for creationists, we have all the data we need. Even better, every feature of the Nebular Hypothesis: circumstellar disks, Kuiper Belts, and Oort Clouds, have been directly observed around other stars. And, how do we know that our solar system was built from earlier generations of stars? The most obvious way is the analysis of extra-solar dust grains still found today. There have been hundreds of scientific publications on these observations in just the last few years. Just use the Google; "extrasolar dust" is a good one. Then, "extrasolar disks" will reveal space telescope images of planet formation recorded for over a decade.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20090812.html
4. Organic evolution, which tries to explain life springing from inanimate matter.
We do no know exactly how life originated on Earth. We do know that it happened at least once at the end of the Hadean era, or about 3.9 billion years ago.* But, recall that the creationists, like Mrs. Chatman or Jack Chick, insist that there is no evidence that this could have occurred at all. Here is just a glimpse at the available evidence.
There are bacteria which "spring from inanimate matter" all the time. At least in the sense that they require absolutely no organic form of nutrition. And we know that "organic" molecules have no particular magic. There was once the thought that the organic "stuff" of life was completely different from "inorganic" or mineral matter. This seems still to be the thought of the ignorant. Known as vitalism, this concept was shown to be false by F. Wöhler, in his 1828 synthesis of urea, a "live" compound, from inorganic stock chemicals ("ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA" Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig).
Charles R. Darwin, in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker wrote, "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." A few years later in 1871, he had observed, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "
The study of the origin of life is actually called abiogenesis. It was, as Darwin noted, nothing but speculation until the 1950s. Then, in 1953 a short paper by Stanley Miller for Science magazine brought origin of life studies into actual experimental research (“A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529). What Miller had shown was that a very simple set of starting conditions, common gasses, hot water, and an electric spark would produce many of the chemicals essential to the origin of life. There were many critics, especially creationists. Miller and others repeated his experiment with different gasses, and energy sources. It was so simple to set up even high school chemistry labs could manage. Miller's last paper was published posthumously 55 years later, "A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres" (H. James Cleaves & John H. Chalmers & Antonio Lazcano & Stanley L. Miller & Jeffrey L. Bada 2008 Orig Life Evol Biosph 38:105-115). This group at the University of California's Scripp's Institute demonstrated that under a neutral atmosphere, or even with a trace of free oxygen, ample amino acids could form in the presence of common minerals such as borax, or calcite.
A recent book reviewing the last 58 years of abiogenesis research, and pointing out several still large gaps in our knowledge is;
Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press
A bit more technical is;
Schopf, William (editor)
2002 "Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution" University of California Press
For some really up-to-the-minute research see;
NASA's Astrobiology Institute website
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
* Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei 2004 U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 217 237-244 (online 6 December 03), Oleg Abramov, Stephen J. Mojzsis 2009 “Microbial habitability of the Hadean Earth during the late heavy bombardment” Nature 459, 419-422 (21 May) | doi:10.1038/nature08015;
5. Macro evolution, which tries to explain one specie evolving into things another specie.
6. Micro evolution, which explains variations within a specie.
I was planning to keep to a single 'kind' of evolution per day. But, the local fishing has really improved the last few days, and I want to get back out tomorrow. And, the notion that we have some sort of problem demonstrating 'macro' evolution is a joke. 'Macro' evolution is merely 'micro' evolution across long periods of time. Science professionals not actually specialists might read;
Carroll, Robert L.
1998 'Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution' New York: Cambridge University Press,
and,
Valentine, James W.
2005 On the Origin of Phyla University of Chicago Press (Professor Valentine's book is probably the best study of the pre-Cambrian, and Cambrian eras available in English).
For non-scientists I recommend;
Carroll, Sean B.
2005 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful' New York: Norton
or,
Shubin, Neal
2008 Your Inner Fish New York: Pantheon Books
One major problem is that few people, especially creationists, even know what a 'species' is. I recommend reading 'What is a Species, and What is Not' by Ernst Mayer
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/Mayr_1996_june.shtml
We have obviously observed the emergence of new species, in nature, in experiments, and induced in laboratories. I have compiled a list of dozens of examples ranging from plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Some have been known for over a century. The central strategy used by creationists to deny this reality is to try and change the meaning of 'species,' and to even change the meaning of 'evolve.'
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
I am fairly pleased with my last hacks on Mrs. Chatman
The latest of her creationist posts to the Waynesville Guide, Pulaski County's only daily newspaper were basic steals from Jack Chick's notorious "Big Daddy." Her probable source was Frame 10, the Six Kinds of Evolution.
Of course, I have a backup copy.
Some of Mrs. Chatman's lies have been copied from the Institute for Creation Research, and others from the Answers in Genesis gang. The basic framework of my refutation of her creatocrap is the larger project to expose Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" as the fraud it is. I'll be creating a new blog for the Jack Chick rebuke since he has shown the propensity to claim copyright infringement against critics of his gross misrepresentations and lies about science.
Of course, I have a backup copy.
Some of Mrs. Chatman's lies have been copied from the Institute for Creation Research, and others from the Answers in Genesis gang. The basic framework of my refutation of her creatocrap is the larger project to expose Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" as the fraud it is. I'll be creating a new blog for the Jack Chick rebuke since he has shown the propensity to claim copyright infringement against critics of his gross misrepresentations and lies about science.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
How can we keep up?
Mrs. Chatman has posted another slew of creatocrap. This time she has plagiarized the Jack Chick cartoon tract "Big Daddy, Frame 10"- Blackboard with 6 kinds of evolution. She is nearly as quick as Duane Gish in his famous "Gish Gallop" of creationist lies.
This saves me a lot of time since I am working on a frame by frame rebuttal of this very same lump of creatocrap.
Why do fundamentalist creationists find it necessary to lie to support their cult? Do they know they are liars? Do they care?
This saves me a lot of time since I am working on a frame by frame rebuttal of this very same lump of creatocrap.
Why do fundamentalist creationists find it necessary to lie to support their cult? Do they know they are liars? Do they care?
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Mrs. Chatman rides again
Mrs. Chatman has launched a new set of falsehoods against the public. Today she took aim at the fossil data demonstrating human evolution. I can only hope that one day she will try the same shenanigans with the genetic data for human evolution. She has maintained her near prefect score of zero correct claims. I will just enumerate the major falsehoods/lies in this post, and move on with details as time permits. Every one of the following is an error, or out-right falsehood found in Mrs. Chatman’s latest post.
1) “it is taught as a fact that human beings and apes evolved from a common primate ancestor about 50 million years ago.”
(It is neither fact, nor taught).
2) Humans and apes are a different specie (sic). How can they be from a common ancestor?
(“Apes” is not a species identification. The bigger falsehood is more subtle).
3) “Where are the missing links?”
(“Missing links” are a false assumption from the 1700s idea of a “great chain of being. There are deeper errors here, and we in fact have no lack of fossils supporting Human evolution).
4) “The textbooks can't mentioned the missing links anymore, because each one has been proven to be a hoax.”
(School textbooks, unlike the creationist trash Mrs. Chatman reads, try to be accurate and current with modern research. Much more to follow).
5) “the Nebraska man was made from the tooth of an extinct pig.”
(The “Nebraska Man” was largely the invention of an English journalist. It was an honest mistake soon corrected, and never a “hoax”).
6) “The Neanderthal man has been proven to be perfectly human, but just a little unusual looking.”
(Neanderthals were our last surviving “kissing cousins,” (exluding florensis, and Denisova Cave fossils) but it would be very easy to tell them from any modern).
7) “Lucy is still in the textbooks. That poor chimpanzee had her bones scattered miles apart,”
(The notion that an Australopithecus afarensis could be confused with a Chimp (genus Pan sp.) is a testament to monumental ignorance. The “Lucy” skeleton’s bones were found in close together. This particular lie about “miles apart” originated with Kent Hovind. My opinion of Mrs. Chatman has dropped even lower).
8) “Artists even put human feet on her, although no foot bones were found.”
(There are fossil foot bones from Australopithecus afarensis, the species that “Lucy” belonged to, which I’ll discuss later. There are not many “controversies” left for creationists to exaggerate, or lie about).
9) “Why can't there just be the factual study of the wonderful human body, without the theory of evolution?”
(As the devout Christian, and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (title to his 1973 essay).
10) “Webster's New World Dictionary, the Third College Edition …”
(I have the same dictionary. We should not be surprised that Mrs. Chatman cannot use the dictionary competently).
11) “The theory that man evolved from apes slaps Christianity, and other God believing religions in the face.”
(The fact that Humans have evolved only “slaps” the false biblical traditions of creationists like Mrs. Chatman. Her repeated falsehoods are closer to spiting in the face of belief).
12) “Evolution is the faith based religion of the atheist in the public school system, and it indoctrinates young students.”
(The sciences, which Mrs. Chatman has distorted for some long time, are neither a “faith” nor a “religion.” They are “atheist” only in the same way that civil engineering, plumbing, or auto mechanics are atheist. Never drive across a bridge that depends on prayer to stay intact).
13) “A great multitude of parents object to the indoctrination of their children.”
(Sadly, a great many parents object to racial integration, or even allowing girls go to school at all).
14) “They want only scientific facts taught, not philosohies, theories, or ideas that insult their religion.”
(People who are insulted by the truth have a lot to worry about, and their “wants” are not the controlling factors. And, teaching science as merely a long list of facts is like teaching communication by forcing children to memorize phone books).
1) “it is taught as a fact that human beings and apes evolved from a common primate ancestor about 50 million years ago.”
(It is neither fact, nor taught).
2) Humans and apes are a different specie (sic). How can they be from a common ancestor?
(“Apes” is not a species identification. The bigger falsehood is more subtle).
3) “Where are the missing links?”
(“Missing links” are a false assumption from the 1700s idea of a “great chain of being. There are deeper errors here, and we in fact have no lack of fossils supporting Human evolution).
4) “The textbooks can't mentioned the missing links anymore, because each one has been proven to be a hoax.”
(School textbooks, unlike the creationist trash Mrs. Chatman reads, try to be accurate and current with modern research. Much more to follow).
5) “the Nebraska man was made from the tooth of an extinct pig.”
(The “Nebraska Man” was largely the invention of an English journalist. It was an honest mistake soon corrected, and never a “hoax”).
6) “The Neanderthal man has been proven to be perfectly human, but just a little unusual looking.”
(Neanderthals were our last surviving “kissing cousins,” (exluding florensis, and Denisova Cave fossils) but it would be very easy to tell them from any modern).
7) “Lucy is still in the textbooks. That poor chimpanzee had her bones scattered miles apart,”
(The notion that an Australopithecus afarensis could be confused with a Chimp (genus Pan sp.) is a testament to monumental ignorance. The “Lucy” skeleton’s bones were found in close together. This particular lie about “miles apart” originated with Kent Hovind. My opinion of Mrs. Chatman has dropped even lower).
8) “Artists even put human feet on her, although no foot bones were found.”
(There are fossil foot bones from Australopithecus afarensis, the species that “Lucy” belonged to, which I’ll discuss later. There are not many “controversies” left for creationists to exaggerate, or lie about).
9) “Why can't there just be the factual study of the wonderful human body, without the theory of evolution?”
(As the devout Christian, and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (title to his 1973 essay).
10) “Webster's New World Dictionary, the Third College Edition …”
(I have the same dictionary. We should not be surprised that Mrs. Chatman cannot use the dictionary competently).
11) “The theory that man evolved from apes slaps Christianity, and other God believing religions in the face.”
(The fact that Humans have evolved only “slaps” the false biblical traditions of creationists like Mrs. Chatman. Her repeated falsehoods are closer to spiting in the face of belief).
12) “Evolution is the faith based religion of the atheist in the public school system, and it indoctrinates young students.”
(The sciences, which Mrs. Chatman has distorted for some long time, are neither a “faith” nor a “religion.” They are “atheist” only in the same way that civil engineering, plumbing, or auto mechanics are atheist. Never drive across a bridge that depends on prayer to stay intact).
13) “A great multitude of parents object to the indoctrination of their children.”
(Sadly, a great many parents object to racial integration, or even allowing girls go to school at all).
14) “They want only scientific facts taught, not philosohies, theories, or ideas that insult their religion.”
(People who are insulted by the truth have a lot to worry about, and their “wants” are not the controlling factors. And, teaching science as merely a long list of facts is like teaching communication by forcing children to memorize phone books).
Thursday, May 24, 2012
It's always something
I have been wanting to work on the Jack Chick debunking. There are several good ones I have come across that were helpful. But, Tuesday Mrs. Chatman posted some more regurgitated cretocrap about dinosaurs. It is obvious she is just plagiarizing Answers in Genesis. I have identified several of her specific sources, and hope to post here and to the Wanesville Daily Guide later. And there is still some 'touch-up' work to do on the new living room paint, and my article debunking Joe the surgeon Kuhn.
Instead, I spent 5 1/2 hours in the dentist's chair yesterday. My dentist, Dr. Shabnam Taherian, and her whole support team at Laguna Niguel Dental Group, are excellent.
And, then last night I came across in the Nature magazine discussion section,
Dr. Josephson received the 1973 Noble Prize in physics, and has been crazy for a long time. So, I think that my reply to him takes precedence over those other chores.
Instead, I spent 5 1/2 hours in the dentist's chair yesterday. My dentist, Dr. Shabnam Taherian, and her whole support team at Laguna Niguel Dental Group, are excellent.
And, then last night I came across in the Nature magazine discussion section,
I do not recognise Gary Hurd's characterisation of Intelligent Design . Has he actually studied work in this field, such as that of Stephen Meyer (who has a Cambridge Ph.D. in philosophy, for what that is worth). Hurd seems typical of those who I suspect are scared of the possibility that there may really be a deeper intelligence at work in the natural, and are driven by these fears to avoid examining in a realistic way what experts such as Meyer are in fact doing." Brian Josephson
Dr. Josephson received the 1973 Noble Prize in physics, and has been crazy for a long time. So, I think that my reply to him takes precedence over those other chores.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Some days I wonder if we can ever counter all the creatocrap
(Several additional people have joined in commenting to Mrs. Chatman's nonsense).
What has me somewhat dispirited today is this great steaming pile of lies and ignorance by Mrs. Jeannie Chatman. I'll pick this apart over the next few days, and add updates as I go. For those interested in the Baylor University Medical Center article, there have been some weird developments. Over the last weekend the editors shifted from "publish" to "reject." Their reasons were weak, to say the least. For example, one "reason" was that this blog had a portion of the text I used in the first two pages of the BUMC Proceedings text. But, I have always had the National Center for Science Education in mind as a reserve, and with them I don't need to be kind to either Joe the Surgeon or Baylor. A re-write is in progress.
Well, the number of gross errors and misrepresentations Mrs. Chatman makes is impressive, particularly when we added in her prior bloviations. But they are not original in any way. I posted two clips; one on Darwin and Nazis from More about Nazi Darwinists, and one on the geological column from Glenn Morton's excellent piece "The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood."
The only bit not already familiar to me was the creationist genetics by Jeffery Tomkin, Ph. D. currently working for the Institute for Creation Research. I have pulled a load of papers, and will plug away at them later today. First I need to finish painting the living room.
What has me somewhat dispirited today is this great steaming pile of lies and ignorance by Mrs. Jeannie Chatman. I'll pick this apart over the next few days, and add updates as I go. For those interested in the Baylor University Medical Center article, there have been some weird developments. Over the last weekend the editors shifted from "publish" to "reject." Their reasons were weak, to say the least. For example, one "reason" was that this blog had a portion of the text I used in the first two pages of the BUMC Proceedings text. But, I have always had the National Center for Science Education in mind as a reserve, and with them I don't need to be kind to either Joe the Surgeon or Baylor. A re-write is in progress.
Well, the number of gross errors and misrepresentations Mrs. Chatman makes is impressive, particularly when we added in her prior bloviations. But they are not original in any way. I posted two clips; one on Darwin and Nazis from More about Nazi Darwinists, and one on the geological column from Glenn Morton's excellent piece "The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood."
The only bit not already familiar to me was the creationist genetics by Jeffery Tomkin, Ph. D. currently working for the Institute for Creation Research. I have pulled a load of papers, and will plug away at them later today. First I need to finish painting the living room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)