Chimp and human species look nothing alike

[dad]

Good point!

Thanks. So while we wait for you then....


An interesting though. I was wondering two things. One --was whether the nature/state change after the flood may have changed or started the earth rotating? Two--what possibly could have done that in a state change from a science perspective?

One possibility might be that time was involved in the state change.

"To answer your original question, then, the difference between force and momentum is time. Knowing the amount of force and the length of time that force is applied to an object will tell you the resulting change in its momentum. "

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae462.cfm

If time itself was affected (science doesn't even know what time is) then we may have had some force and momentum going into action! Ha.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe nothing behind my head really exists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... how would you know if thing might work other ways than your heretofore never suspected? After all, only recently is it coming to light the majority of DNA is not really junk.

We don't know for sure whether it might work other ways; that's why it's still being studied. We can say that a significant proportion has no discernable function, and it's absence has no discernable effect.

That seems to hint it had a use in the former state, and may even have some hidden uses now.

We are aware of many DNA sequences that are no longer functional, or that have changed function, some of which originated in other species' genomes. There are probably others yet to be discovered.

So you don't know. Bingo.

Bingo? Of course we don't know how the whole genome functions - that's why we're still studying it!

 

[dad]

We don't know for sure whether it might work other ways;

Right. That means that what makes man tick might be very different below the surface of the little bit of DNA that you thought was all important a few years ago! The differences in chimp and man may best be looked at somewhere else than that surface minority DNA. Then there is the all important issue of what DNA was like in the past before the time you claim chimps and mad 'diverged'! That you know zero about. Nothing whatsoever.

that's why it's still being studied.

Ya think??

We can say that a significant proportion has no discernable function, and it's absence has no discernable effect.

To you here in this state. That says almost nothing.

We are aware of many DNA sequences that are no longer functional

Maybe remnants from the former nature.

, or that have changed function,

From the former nature for all you know.

some of which originated in other species' genomes.

How transfer occurred in the former state we do not know. You, by assuming heredity, do nothing at all more than assume a same state past!

Bingo? Of course we don't know how the whole genome functions - that's why we're still studying it!

I have no problem with the peanut gallery studying stuff. Long as they don't comment as if they know anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just admit that however we find ratios, once we do you go to town on them with your belief system.

I admit no such thing. In fact, I have been arguing just the opposite. It appears that you still don't understand any of the evidence.

That is all there is to so called dates.

Then you still don't know how dates are calculated. Do you think a whole slew of different K/Ar ratios will produce the same date?

If you have some point on mass spectrometers, spit it out.

Just answer the question.

" do you agree that a mass spectrometer does not use decay rates to measure the quantity of specific isotopes in rocks?"

 

[dad]

I admit no such thing. In fact, I have been arguing just the opposite. It appears that you still don't understand any of the evidence.

Try to talk English. The ratios are interpreted to be a result of decay. If you claim otherwise, be coherent.

Then you still don't know how dates are calculated.

Yes I do. Tell us plainly and see if you know.

Do you think a whole slew of different K/Ar ratios will produce the same date?

No. There is no dates. The ratios naturally would be in a pattern.

Just answer the question.

" do you agree that a mass spectrometer does not use decay rates to measure the quantity of specific isotopes in rocks?"

Tell us what it does. Then we will see if it relates to something in the thread. Why dance?

 

[The Barbarian]

If it's all a crock, it would be a difficult thing to explain how argon/argon testing precisely called the date of the flow that buried Pompeii.

No way to dodge that one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have no problem with the peanut gallery studying stuff. Long as they don't comment as if they know anything.

Studying is how you get to know stuff.

 

[dad]

Studying is how you get to know stuff.

To a point, yes. But science can never get to know the truth, though they be ever studying. They are wasting their time. Like beating the air.

 

[dad]

If it's all a crock, it would be a difficult thing to explain how argon/argon testing precisely called the date of the flow that buried Pompeii.

No way to dodge that one.

Piece of cake. The dating is correct. Notice that that city had the event in this state long after any flood? Focus. You see there was decay since that event because there was a present state. No way to dodge that one.

 

[The Barbarian]

Piece of cake. The dating is correct. Notice that that city had the event in this state long after any flood? Focus. You see there was decay since that event because there was a present state. No way to dodge that one.

If you have to invent a non-scriptural miracle to cover up the flaws in your ideas, isn't that an important clue for you?

And the presence of obvious radiation-induced changes in the "flood sediments" (such as the Oklo Reactor) makes the whole idea foolish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

And your own fellows know this is a fact. Even many creationists note that what they assume to be primordial granite has evidence of radioactive decay.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

To a point, yes. But science can never get to know the truth, though they be ever studying. They are wasting their time. Like beating the air.

So Louis Pasteur was wasting his time when he discovered germ theory of disease? Jonas Salk was wasting his time when he found the cure for polio? Benjamin Franklin was wasting his time when he discovered electricity? William Morton wasted his time when he discovered anesthesia? Wilhelm Rontgen wasted his time discovering X rays? I could go on and on and on.

For you to say science wastes it's time is beyond ignorant. I guess you don't like hot running water, the computer you are typing on, the car you drive, the cell phone you use, a doubled life expectancy,etc, etc. Do you want to live in the dark ages?

 

[dad]

If you have to invent a non-scriptural miracle to cover up the flaws in your ideas, isn't that an important clue for you?

The way the earth was in the flood era world is not non scriptural or invented actually. You sore because your would be major clever post was flicked off as not even relevant?

And the presence of obvious radiation-induced changes in the "flood sediments" (such as the Oklo Reactor) makes the whole idea foolish.

Wrong. Firstly that Oklo was obviously flood "flood sediments". Secondly that present state radiation was responsible for the reaction that happened! On all counts wrong.

And your own fellows know this is a fact.

Then they should ask me or wake up. Otherwise they are your fellows.

Even many creationists note that what they assume to be primordial granite has evidence of radioactive decay.

Let's see this evidence then? Is it hiding in the desert somewhere?

 

[dad]

So Louis Pasteur was wasting his time when he discovered germ theory of disease? Jonas Salk was wasting his time when he found the cure for polio? Benjamin Franklin was wasting his time when he discovered electricity? William Morton wasted his time when he discovered anesthesia? Wilhelm Rontgen wasted his time discovering X rays? I could go on and on and on.

Anyone can go on and on and on and on when all they are doing is rambling! None of what you listed even involves the days of Noah. Focus.

For you to say science wastes it's time is beyond ignorant.

It is absolute undeniable scriptural fact actually.

2Ti 3:7 - Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The truth of Christ the creator of heaven and earth. The truth about the future and far past. We are not talking about the truth of how things work in the playpen of the present world only here.
You will not associate the lies of so called science which are literally doctrines of demons with actual knowledge and science. You shall not pass!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Anyone can go on and on and on and on when all they are doing is rambling! None of what you listed even involves the days of Noah. Focus.

Actually, you need to focus. You didn't answer the question. Do you enjoy the computer you type on, your cell phone, car, running hot water, doubled life expectancy, modern medicine? Do you benefit from any of these things? If so, you love science.

 

[dad]

Actually, you need to focus. You didn't answer the question. Do you enjoy the computer you type on, your cell phone, car, running hot water, doubled life expectancy, modern medicine? Do you benefit from any of these things? If so, you love science.

Show how any of that involves the days of Noah or face the music.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Show how any of that involves the days of Noah or face the music.

Why do you have some obsession about the Noah flood myth? We aren't even talking about that. I asked you a simple question: Do you enjoy the benefits modern science? This is not a tough question. It's yes or no. Do you like modern medicine, hot running water, the computer you are typing on at his moment, your cell phone, car etc? Do you enjoy these things?

 

[dad]

Why do you have some obsession about the Noah flood myth?

Why do you have some obsession trying to avoid that era? In the creation debate it is the early days of man that matter. Also, after the flood, was when a change in nature likely happened, so that time is where science gets left behind.

We aren't even talking about that. I asked you a simple question: Do you enjoy the benefits modern science? This is not a tough question. It's yes or no. Do you like modern medicine, hot running water, the computer you are typing on at his moment, your cell phone, car etc? Do you enjoy these things?

Irrelevant. Stop talking about the present. That has NOTHING to do with the creation debate.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Irrelevant. Stop talking about the present. That has NOTHING to do with the creation debate.

You made a comment in post #249 that scientists are wasting their time. I asked you a question if you enjoy the benefits from scientific discovery? I won't entertain your red herring. Answer my question.

 

[dad]

You made a comment in post #249 that scientists are wasting their time. I asked you a question if you enjoy the benefits from scientific discovery? I won't entertain your red herring. Answer my question.

Yes they are wasting their time in being able to come to any knowledge of the truth. It is one thing to make nukes and womd, and warplanes and pollute the earth, and all that science does now...and another thing to claim that physics as we know it existed in the days of Genesis the flood or creation.