Talk:Erroneous arguments
Three more:
- Different parts of the same mammoth produced widely varying C-14 dates - this is simply false.
This claim has been made w.r.t. several different mammoth discoveries, including the Vollosovitch mammoth, the Fairbanks Creek mammoth and the baby mammoth nicknamed Dima. The claims frequently cite Troy L. Pewe's 1975 US Geological Survey Professional Paper #862, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska. Examples can be found at http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp . However, the original measurements invariably refer to separate specimens rather than parts of the same specimen. Often the quotes are fabricated; the example above falsely quotes Pewe as writing about Dima in 1975, when it wasn't discovered until 1977.
- Living seals and molluscs have been carbon dated as several thousand years old.
C-14 dating measures the time since the carbon was extracted from the atmosphere. This is reasonable for trees, since they exchange CO2 with the atmosphere. However, aquatic creatures do not. They obtain their carbon from substances found in seawater or on the ocean floor. Thus the C-14 age produced from shellfish etc is not the age of the creature, but the average time since it's sources of carbon were exposed to the atmosphere.
- Genetic information cannot increase.
This argument is technically invalid unless it includes details of how genetic information is measured. Unfortunately, not only do few of the proponents of this argument provide such details[1], but for many if not all of the standard methods of measuring information content, including Shannon information, there exist examples in nature where such increases have happened.[2] Further, one of the main originators of the information argument and one of the few who have attempted any quantitative analysis, Lee Spetner, is on record as having stated that genetic information *can* increase.[3] [1] There's an example at http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc...0709widgets.asp [2] such as http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...s=doi1089201034 [3] http://members.tripod.com/aslodge/id89.htm and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
Lamarckism
The reference to Lamarckism 'working' in the notes on rib numbers only applies if it's possible to show that the alterations to Adam's mortality and snakes' leglessness involved only bodily changes and not genetic ones as well. Since Lamarckism hasn't worked in other cases of amputation, there's no reason to think it would have worked for the serpent either, and thus plenty of reasons to think that such a change would have to included genetic changes too.
Article Title
"Creation myths" usually refers to various cultures' and religions' belief about origins, not incorrect arguments used in support of creation. I think this article needs a name change, although I'm not sure what it's best to call it. I'd like to suggest "Creation furphies", but that may be a little too Ozzie for most. :-) Philip J. Rayment 05:17, 26 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- I can see what you mean with the title, but I can't think of a better one. Furphies doesn't seem right. Yes, I think a better title should be conceived. Alternatively, "Creation stories" could be used to refer to other religions' beliefs on origins.
- I would suggest changing the title to "Incorrect Arguments". Dhkrause
- Sounds reasonable. Philip J. Rayment 13:03, 28 Nov 2004 (GMT)
