Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

Speedwell · Mar 24, 2019

juvenissun said:
I can say something on the earth which we do not know the origin. That would be the evidences of God. Make sense?

No. It just means we don't know the origin.

juvenissun · Mar 24, 2019

Speedwell said:
No. It just means we don't know the origin.

It is an evidence.
Of course we do not know. But the evidence is there. If we know, why do we need any evidence?

Speedwell · Mar 24, 2019

juvenissun said:
It is an evidence.
Of course we do not know. But the evidence is there.

What is it?

If we know, why do we need any evidence?

If we don't have any evidence, how do we know?

juvenissun · Mar 24, 2019

Speedwell said:
What is it? If we don't have any evidence, how do we know?

Hopeless.

Speedwell · Mar 24, 2019

juvenissun said:
Hopeless.

So what is it on the Earth whose origin we don't know, but for which there is evidence? Wait. For which there is no evidence--which proves that there is a God? But the existence of God is not in dispute, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

juvenissun · Mar 25, 2019

Speedwell said:
So what is it on the Earth whose origin we don't know, but for which there is evidence? Wait. For which there is no evidence--which proves that there is a God? But the existence of God is not in dispute, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

When you have a fact which you can not explain, instead of saying I don't know, what can you think? History tells us that people WILL attribute it to some kind of supernatural force, i.e. "god". When you ask them, how do you know there is such a god? They will point that unexplainable fact to you, and say: because of that, we know there is god.

If that unexplainable fact is not an evidence of god, what is it?

Modern scientists are facing exactly the same situation. One can die without an answer. Or one can die with God in his mind.

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

lifepsyop said:
No.... grouping animals by similar character traits is not "demonstrating" specific lines of evolutionary descent by any stretch of the imagination.

Gibberish.

The tested method:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

APPLICATION of the tested methods:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "

Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the humanchimpgorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

Keep dismissing the evidence while presenting literally nothing supporting your anti-science beliefs.

That is what folks like you do, all the while acting very confident. Dunning and Kruger have an explanation for that.

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

Shemjaza said:
Totally ridiculous....
We have an demonstrated explanation for where these traits come from, how they spread through the population and how natural selection fixes them.

I think your biggest problem is forgetting that internet creationists are the self-proclaimed experts in ALL fields of science, even when they aren't.

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

Shemjaza said:
Totally and completely false.

Frameworks, libraries, published solutions, programming languages... and even algorithms are all examples of tools and techniques that violate nested hierarchy in programming.

Your argument is completely inconsistent.

When we point out the lines of ancestry and the closely related families of life you claim that as evidence of a sensible programmer reusing working code.

Then when we point out that separate families all apparently crafted by the same programmer at the same time don't use those same sensible solutions you claim that no programmer would re use tools.

I suspect you have some limited experience in tech development... but in this situation you are just thrashing for an excuse and trying to keep on the offensive to conceal that.

It's the same systems that demonstrate relatedness between parents, children and cousins... it also works on a larger scale.

Do yo have an explanation for the line of hominids over the last couple of million years, or would you just like to lie about rabbits some more?

Mutations = FACT
Inheritance = FACT
New Traits = FACT

Also, I'd be very cautious of using "200+ years of storytelling" as a form of insult when your extent of evidence is: "I really like this book, it's totally true, let me tell you the correct way to interpret it".

Careful - on top of being the leading expert in paleontology, genetics, geology and all other biology-related sciences, he is also a top-notch computer programmer!

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

usexpat97 said:
The OP asked for evidence of Young Earth creation--not proof. This is evidence, not proof:

Caltech Geologist Investigates Canyon Carved in Just Three Days in Texas Flood

Canyon in Texas was carved out of the ground in 3 days, by one flood. Not hundreds of millions of years.

"the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep"

WOW!

A little over a mile, and 21 feet deep, with no horseshoe bends or incised meanders - but TOTALLY exactly like the Grand Canyon!

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

usexpat97 said:
They weren't there.

Were you there when the Grand Canyon formed?

Were you there when Jehovah created man out of dust?

Cool argument bro - but you seem to have forgotten that it can be used against YOU, too.

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

usexpat97 said:
The canyon at Canyon Lake was formed in 3 days; not millions of years. And that is evidence of Young Earth Creation. End of story.

HA!

Not even close, but do continue in your acts of desperation and double standards.

lifepsyop · Mar 25, 2019

USincognito said:
I'm sorry for the all caps, but this hasn't seemed to register previously - IT'S NOT ABOUT THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. IT'S ABOUT THE LAYERS AND THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF FOSSILS IN THE LAYERS.

Yes, very good, we're talking about the rock layers and the types of fossilized ecosystems that are represented in them. No need to shout about it.

USincognito said:
No one expects to find a rabbit in marine sediment and no one expects to find a trilobite in fossilized paleosols. We DO however, expect to find rabbits only in Paleogene, Miocene and Quaternary strata.

You expect to find rabbits in upper rock layers because that's where we've always found them.

It's only from a safe post-hoc position (long after general fossil order patterns have been discovered) that you make these types of 'predictions' ....

I will clarify what I mean by post-hoc with a simple thought-experiment:

Imagine it is the 19th century and paleontologists are digging into the earth and revealing a pattern of mammals, including rabbit fossils, appearing in deeper Mesozoic strata. Following these discoveries, you already know what the conclusion would be. Evolutionists would conclude that those animals had "evolved" in Mesozoic times. And present-day you would be using the same argument as you're using now, just with different rock layers, e.g. "If Evolution is false then why don't we find any rabbit fossils in layers before the Mesozoic????"

I've never found an evolutionist willing to honestly take on this point. And I don't expect you to, because it does expose the flawed logic that Darwinian mystics have wrapped themselves in for generations.

USincognito said:
If we were to find a rabbit in Precambrian, or Silurian, or Permian or Jurassic or Cretaceous strata that would falsify evolution.

And here you are immersed in two different illusions.... firstly that a fossil order in and of itself is evidence of Evolution and secondly that Evolution predicted that particular fossil order to begin with.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 25, 2019

juvenissun said:
When you have a fact which you can not explain, instead of saying I don't know, what can you think? History tells us that people WILL attribute it to some kind of supernatural force, i.e. "god". When you ask them, how do you know there is such a god? They will point that unexplainable fact to you, and say: because of that, we know there is god.

If that unexplainable fact is not an evidence of god, what is it?

You can't use an unexplained phenomenon as evidence that your explanatory hypothesis about it is correct. That's circular. The phenomenon remains unexplained until your hypothesis is confirmed in some other way.

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

lifepsyop said:
Additionally, the expected Evolutionary relationships break down in an almost comical fashion when "molecular clock" studies are applied in order to find specific divergence times.

Really?

Well, Arnason should stop doing that, to be sure.
But the use of local molecular clock models seem to do pretty well. The problem is the universal molecular clock, since there isn't one. This is irrelevant to the fact that the methods of generating phylogenies are tested and shown to be quite accurate. What are the equivalent methods employed in creation science or ID science? I mean besides denialism and double standards and analogies (none of which are actually evidence)?

So lets see your evidence for intra-kind variation, with explanations and examples of the mechanisms for this limited diversity. Surely it will be very impressive and evidence-backed, with no exceptions or caveats.

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

lifepsyop said:
200+ years of storytelling is not a demonstration.

But 2000 years of ancient middle eastern numerology storytelling IS?

it is funny - in the end, even the more verbose, condescending, pseudo-know-it-all creationists end up with little more to show for their position than mere unyielding belief.

tas8831 · Mar 25, 2019

Isn't it telling that in a thread asking about evidence for YECism, the best any creationist has been able to muster is attacks against evolution.

lifepsyop · Mar 25, 2019

tas8831 said:
Gibberish.

The tested method:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

APPLICATION of the tested methods:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "

Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the humanchimpgorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

Keep dismissing the evidence while presenting literally nothing supporting your anti-science beliefs.

That is what folks like you do, all the while acting very confident. Dunning and Kruger have an explanation for that.

You can show as many phylogenetic studies as you want, but it won't demonstrate anything beyond the the most likely evolutionary relationships, IF Evolution is true in the first place. You're still assuming Evolution (Universal Common Ancestry) is true.

Evolutionary phylogenetics is like taking a bird's eye view of a giant forest. You could find the most likely route a pink unicorn would travel to get from one end of the forest to another, and the likelihood of such a route would be supported by many lines of evidence discovered through robust and highly technical methodologies. However, at the end of the day, you'd still be assuming the pink unicorn is real, and that it walked through the forest.

Evolution (i.e. Universal Common Ancestry) is the pink unicorn.

The technical jargon from those studies is still great optics, though. I'm sure you're still manging to fool a lot of people who aren't willing to examine the underlying assumptions being made.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 25, 2019

lifepsyop said:
And here you are immersed in two different illusions.... firstly that a fossil order in and of itself is evidence of Evolution and secondly that Evolution predicted that particular fossil order to begin with.

The ToE was not based on the fossil record, it was based on the observations of living creatures. The ToE predicts a pattern of sequential, cumulative development; when we look at the fossil snapshots of creatures over evolutionary timescales, we see that they are consistent with the pattern of development predicted by the ToE. So it's not the fossil time-ordering per-se that is significant - it's the pattern of development of the creatures in the time-ordering of fossils. If that pattern is found not to hold, evolution would be falsified. The 'Precambrian rabbit' is an example of a find that would break the predicted pattern.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 25, 2019

lifepsyop said:
You can show as many phylogenetic studies as you want, but it won't demonstrate anything beyond the the most likely evolutionary relationships, IF Evolution is true in the first place. You're still assuming Evolution (Universal Common Ancestry) is true.

In science, it's called a hypothesis to start. It's not an assumption but more an informed guess. There can be several hypotheses to explain observations, and they're all potential explanations until they've been tested.

Evolutionary phylogenetics is like taking a bird's eye view of a giant forest. You could find the most likely route a pink unicorn would travel to get from one end of the forest to another, and the likelihood of such a route would be supported by many lines of evidence discovered through robust and highly technical methodologies. However, at the end of the day, you'd still be assuming the pink unicorn is real, and that it walked through the forest.

The evidence is a bit stronger than that - more like finding evidence of hoof prints in the mud, pink hairs on tree trunks along the route, and rainbow droppings on the ground. Comparative anatomy, developmental biology, & embryology might equate to forest locals saying they'd hunted a pink unicorn in the forest and displaying an old unicorn pelt from a previous hunt; and the fossil record might equate to camera traps showing monochrome images of a horse-like creature with a horn.

Once you have multiple independent lines of well-confirmed evidence supporting the hypothesis, then you can call it a theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection is such a theory, supported by multiple independent lines of well-confirmed evidence.

You might be pretty sure that the theory that pink unicorns used that route through the forest was correct, but it could still be falsified - a closer look at the hairs and pelt might reveal they were nylon, from a pantomime unicorn outfit, and the droppings could be fake, or from a griffon, etc. This would be equivalent to finding a Precambrian rabbit.

Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads