Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

[juvenissun]

. The earth being less than 10000 years old is a lie .

Your first one is wrong. So I would not be bothered with the rest.
It is NOT a lie. It is a theory.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You give a different story from what I heard.

I suggest you learn to read better. The "story" is there, in plain English, for those who want to read it.

I did not talk to you.

And?

 

[Brightmoon]

Your first one is wrong. So I would not be bothered with the rest.
It is NOT a lie. It is a theory.

Maybe during the 1700s it was a theory but this is the 21 st century. It’s literally been refuted for about 250 years now . So someone who tells you that the earth is young now, is lying to you!

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe during the 1700s it was a theory but this is the 21 st century. It’s literally been refuted for about 250 years now . So someone who tells you that the earth is young now, is lying to you!

The earth could be young. You need to open your mind. I guess you do not know the argument very well.

 

[juvenissun]

I suggest you learn to read better. The "story" is there, in plain English, for those who want to read it.

And?

The diagram IS in the textbook. Is it not? You should not lie.

 

[Brightmoon]

juvie , I’ve been enamoured with geology since I was about 10 , pick up any sedimentary rock , preferably one with some jasper and quartz mixed in it . These are usually decorative so they’re usually pretty . Calculate how long it would take for silicon dioxide ( quartz) to go into solution and solidify the colored mud in the jasper , you can get the solubility curves from most chemistry websites. That alone disproves a young earth. Here’s a piece of jasper

 

[Brightmoon]

The earth could be young. You need to open your mind. I guess you do not know the argument very well.

. The earth is not young. That is a lie. You believe that lie, I don’t

 

[Strathos]

The earth could only be young if the entire universe was deliberately manipulated to make it look old.

 

[juvenissun]

. The earth is not young. That is a lie. You believe that lie, I don’t

Regard to this matter, you "believe", I reason.
The earth is not necessary old.
And I can see you do NOT want to reason on this issue. An old earth is not an idea from God. You do not have to "believe" that.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The diagram IS in the textbook. Is it not? You should not lie.

Like I said, you need to learn to read. I even took time to restate the claim you were failing to understand, but you still haven't got it.

Take your blinkers off and read what was actually written before you respond again.

 

[Brightmoon]

Regard to this matter, you "believe", I reason.
The earth is not necessary old.
And I can see you do NOT want to reason on this issue. An old earth is not an idea from God. You do not have to "believe" that.

I don’t believe the earth is old . All the evidence points tonthe earth being old . Belief is for religion not science

 

[tas8831]

Sad how many creationists are totally OK with lying for their cause.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is that something?
It IS in the textbook.

But you can't tell us which textbook it is? How is that?

 

[mark kennedy]

As more evidence that you unteachable, I note that I had already tried to correct your errors on that in April:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/gill-slits-ear-holes.8058737/

Possible of course that you just missed it, but the title should have gotten your attention. You made that claim in 2016. Still using it now. Sad.

You didn't know what you were talking about then and the substance of your arguments have not improved. Really Tas, you should let it go when you refuted.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, he knows.

Sure I do, just as I know that 98% the same is grossly erroneous.

What is 3% plus 1.23%?

This difference corresponds to ∼3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions; this confirms and extends several recent studies63,64,65,66,67 ​

(Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)

The OP is a load of baloney, it continually amazes me that you will go ballistic on Creationists for errors but you give guys like him a pass when he makes blatantly erroneous statements.

 

[sfs]

What is 3% plus 1.23%?

What 3%? Do you mean the 1.5% that's unique to humans and the 1.5% that's unique to chimpanzees?

 

[The Barbarian]

What 3%? Do you mean the 1.5% that's unique to humans and the 1.5% that's unique to chimpanzees?

Neither of these is a measure of how far they've diverged from each other. It's a measure of how far they've diverged from their last common ancestor.

Which is why it's an error to add them. Both humans and chimpanzees have evolved from that point, only they went in different directions.

 

[mark kennedy]

What 3%? Do you mean the 1.5% that's unique to humans and the 1.5% that's unique to chimpanzees?

That's semantics Steve, it all adds up to 1.23 plus 3.

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ∼90 Mb. (Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

Ignoring 90 Mb is not hyperbole, it's a common and misleading rationalization. I mean you don't really have any reservations about the divergence so why not be explicit about it and go from there.

He's calling Creationists liars for making a straightforward statement that it's not 98%. How do you not have a problem with that?

Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). (CB144)​

Is that really 'entirely appropriate' to equivocate 5 million events with 5 million base pairs because it's more like 90 million base pairs Steve. You of all people should see this clearly and you would never allow a Creationist to make such an obviously erroneous statement.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is that really 'entirely appropriate' to equivocate 5 million events with 5 million base pairs because it's more like 90 million base pairs Steve.

Since most mutations involve more (usually many more) base pairs than one, this is merely juggling the books.

The easily demonstrated fact is that humans and chimpanzees are much more closely related to each other than chimpanzees or humans are related to any other animal.

Which is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

 

[mark kennedy]

Since most mutations involve more (usually many more) base pairs than one, this is merely juggling the books.

The easily demonstrated fact is that humans and chimpanzees are much more closely related to each other than chimpanzees or humans are related to any other animal.

Which is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

The theory of evolution is a farce, it's just a code word for Darwinism, it predicts nothing:

"The big picture is that we're perhaps 98 percent identical in our sequences to gorillas. So that means most of our genes are very similar, or even identical to, the gorilla version of the same gene," said Chris Tyler-Smith, a geneticist at Wellcome Trust. (Gorillas More Related to People Than Thought, Genome Says. National Geographic)
​

It's not 98%, there is no conceivable way this can be reconciled to the research and yet experts are content to make the same erroneous statement endlessly.