Toppling Ten Fake Facts That Prop Evolution

myst33 said:

Theory of evolution was changed many times (and one can say its still changing and reshaping) with new research and evidence. Because its science.

YEC "scientists" collect evidence that fit with their belief and ignore/reject evidence that do not fit. This is not science.


I was an YEC until my 30's, so probably I did.


As far as I am concerned, their declarations are worthless to me. Because their work with Scriptures is so bad and uneducated, the less I trust them in other things.
They are also very dishonest, once proved to be wrong, they continue to push their ideas like if nothing happened. For example there, Faulkner was clearly helpless, but later he again said on other television that the universe is provably young.

From 2:23:50, all scientists against him there are Christians.

Why?


Only when you read it at AiG/ICR, not in other world.

(if by "creation model" you mean young earth, global flood, firmanent, waters above, flat earth, no common ancestry, literal reading of Genesis and similar)

Click to expand...

Yes they shift their position on items but will not reject their belief in the dogma of evolution, it iis not the basic theory that ever changes, just a piece here and there. Well maybe changed cuz we have had steady state for awhile, for a while we had punctuated equilibrium, and even Goldschmidtd hopeful monster theory. I rate his the best because at least he recognized the impossibility of a slow accretion of mutations to ever produce the massive change required.

YEC scientists do not reject things that disagree, they find why it is wrong and have been at times decades ahead of teh evolutionary community in proving things wrong.

Like radio decay constants are not constant.

Mutations could not bring higher and more complex orders of life.

Well I do not know how old you are now, but you do not remember reading ICR? I know you never read AIG. Nor any of there technical papers.

Well you can reject them because you disagree but that is sad on your part. all of them are decorated scientists by the entire scientific community. Many are chairs of depts at secular colleges.

Why is creation and the BB/Evolution not science? YOu should know well! It fails the scientific method of validating things.

Neither creation nor the BB observed, it cannot be tested nor can either be repeated! Even the complicated equations used to prove the BB cannot be tested! They make untestable and unprovable assumptions!

Actually when I went from being a staunch evolutionist, to a theistic evolutionist, to a progressive creationist to a YEC believer, I took many many of the claims of YEC and then just simply compared them with the proven facts of science. Not the maybes, suggests, could haves, might haves, we think.

Things that were validated by he scientific method! Validated science supports a literal reading of teh bible for origins than it does the secular view of origins.

KomatiiteBIF said:

I think you've misunderstood your own link. I've been reading that they were from a museum.

And regarding the shellac, when you have cross contamination of samples, anything goes.

And no, the article you posted was very vague.

You're caught up in some bizarre conspiracy theory I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Well the link I posted and not the one you linked that I did not post did not take these samples from museums!

They avoided areas where contamination could affect the result (like cracked bones) and carefull insured all decontamination procedures were followed. They are experts in paleontology and fgeology after all, despite what adherents to evolutionism say!

The article I posted was very specific! I posted it twice now! shows which labs, which method, dates and the MOE, and much other info.

Shellac that is C-14 dateable is made from the resin of live lac bugs.

Once that resin leaves teh body and dies- it starts the C-14 clock and as those bugs are not tens of thousands of years old- their resin won't test that old as well. C'mon!

KomatiiteBIF said:

Your link doesn't actually say anything about where the fossils were obtained. Nor how. And contamination can enter porous spaces of bone and can permeate it. There doesn't need to be any cracks in it.

Once contamination is introduced into a sample, anything goes. You could have a proportion of 100 to 1 between parent and daughter atoms in the bone itself. If you introduce carbon from preservatives, you could increase daughter product and the age of the sample.

Even if the preservative is only 100 years old, the proportions between parent and daughter carbon can be bias toward daughter material if it's introduced to the system. Because it's not the age of the shellac that's important, it's the proportion between daughter product from the shellac and parent product from the bone and shellac.

What we should note here is that the authors didn't use any alternate means of corroborating their data. Even internally, their samples yielded varying ages, even from the same locations, which indicates variable contamination.

You appear to misunderstand your own source.

At best we have non corroborated data, contaminated samples and vague methodology.

Click to expand...

Here is the link I did post and it links to further info on all things written there!

What you said I posted I didn't.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And if shellac contamination (which did not occur in their samples) did occur as you said it would bias toward the daughter element making it older than dated.

But because all these dinos are supposed millions of years there should be no reading whatsoever!

So show the variable contamination.

Carbon-Dating Fossils

KomatiiteBIF said:

To give more detail, let's say we have a hypothetical bone with 99 parts. 98 parent, 1 part daughter. And let's say it's hypothetical age is 100 years.

Then let's say we have decayed shellac, daughter product, introduced to the system at 1 part. Now the shellac isn't a closed system, it can exist in any proportion when placed on the bone. So for the sake of understanding the response, we assume it's pure daughter and the parent is elsewhere on the bone.

So now we have a system with 98 parts parent, and one part daughter from the bone, and one additional daughter now, which doubles the age of the bone to 200 years because there is twice the daughter product.

The bone itself as a system may also be fragmented in which a biased high age system could be sampled, for example, let's say the dinosaur bone with 1 part shellac and 1 part daughter gets pulverized, and now you have 50 parts parent and 2 parts daughter.

Now your bone is 5,000 years old.

So the age of shellac is irrelevant. What's significant is the fact that contamination is introduced into a sample which can bias it's age high.

Click to expand...

so now show that they were that sloppy. Making assertions is one thing but now show they did sloppy work!

The Barbarian said:

Pretty much the way they shift their position on items but will not stop accepting gravity. You can always tell a YEC in a corner; they start chanting mantras like "the dogma of evolution." The "Central Dogma" is a real thing, but it's about protein synthesis, not evolution. Once again, you've hit a wall because you don't know what you're talking about.



Kinda like gravity. For the same reason.



Actually, Darwin wrote about that. You've hit the wall, yet again.

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter IV, Natural Selection



They do so constantly. Would you like to see some examples?



Show us their research findings. You seem to have made this up. It's true that some of them tried to get around the age of the universe by suggesting that radioactive decay used to be millions or billions of times faster. No only has no one found changes remotely that great, but as you learned, if was true, the resulting million-or-billion-fold increase in radiation would have killed all living things on Earth.



We realize you really, really wish this were so. But the evidence shows otherwise. And all you have is your wishes.




For example, two scientists from Bell Labs accidentally found the predicted microwave background from the Big Bang. Hypotheses make testable predictions. When these are verified by evidence, the hypotheses become theories and are then considered to be true.



Given that you seem to know almost nothing at all about evolution, that's difficult to believe.

Click to expand...

Yes show me where they toss things out they disagree with.

I am talking scientists from ICR, AIG or signatories to CRS.

I know enough to know that even though you throw a blizzard of stuff which is nigh impossible to answer in short time spans, you have been disingenuous by hiding falsehoods in a load of facts!

Example:

Even in th ecarefully controlled and designed and restricted experiment with chick and croc- they still could not produce a true feather even though they implanted the material from a chick into the croc!

This does not show how a creature could develop it on its own. It took scientists with massive intelligence to using an already established feather gene to produce "a feather LIKE appendage"

The Barbarian said:

Let's start with, Darwin's statement on stasis. YECs toss out his statement, pretending that the idea is new one and a departure from evolutionary theory. Yet Darwin discussed it his book over a hundred years ago.

From AIG:
Contrasted with Darwin’s view of a gradual process of change acting over vast ages of time, others have seen the history of life on Earth as one of giant leaps of rapid evolutionary change sprinkled through the millions of years.

But as you just learned...

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter IV, Natural Selection

You think the people at AIG have the same excuse you do? No, they aren't ignorant of the theory; they just threw out Darwin's comments and pretended he never said them.



So am I. I already showed you how they tossed out part of a comment by astronomers who showed that the number of SNRs is not a problem for an ancient universe, and then presented the edited result as evidence that they though the opposite. Would you like to see that again, or would you like to see some more new ones?



If that bothers, you, it was probably a bad idea for you to try it. The "Gish Gallop" only works when there's limited time to shoot down all the YEC stories. On a message board, anyone can take the time to shoot them down one at a time. So it's a waste of your time tossing out all those falsehoods.

And I'm a very patient guy.



You're going to embarrass yourself, again...
Example:



A gene, not "material." And as you learned, the results produced the same sort of down feathers we seen on early dinosaurs:

Alligators are descended from the same ancient reptiles as birds, and as evolutionary cousins of modern birds their scaly skin served as a stand in for dinosaurs.


After performing a complete genetic analysis of chickens and alligators as they develop in eggs, the researchers identified key genes involved in feather formation.


They then placed these chicken feather genes in alligator eggs, with the goal of prompting the scales on the growing reptiles’ skin to develop into feathers.


As a result, some of the scales grew into structures “similar to the unusual filamentous appendages found in the fossils of feathered dinosaurs," said Dr Chuong.
Scientists have tried to create alligators with feathers

Alligators still have genes for forming feathers. It takes only one gene to restore that ability. I've already shown you this. Did you think everyone forgot?

No one is clever enough to hide all that evidence. No matter what you do, it's a hopeless endeavor.

Click to expand...

So Darwin believed in a form of punctuated equilibrium. they still cannot prove stasis for eons. Nor can they prove rapid speciation! According to studies mutations are constant! Eldridge and Goulds theory fell out of favor and is not widely supported as it once was. But it just shows thatwe have a buffet of beliefs in evolution to choose from.

Well you said but you cannot show! Saying is one thing-that is a hypothesis. Now back upi teh facts to prove it.

But other evolutionists say scutes and feathers, while having many identical geneitc material are still different enough than one gene! If you could show a croc with feathers that would be nice! Buit even with intelligent design and handcrafting an evolutionary experiment- they still could not produce a feather in a croc.

Yes they produced a feather like appendage. feather like is not exactly a feather and it took remarkable manipulation and careful planning at precise stages of embryonic development! Not exactly what you call random undirected mutations. That is Dawkin Deception! And it took more than one gene.

For the research study, the team performed a complete RNA transcriptome and DNA genomic analysis of developing chicks and alligators to identify their gene expression differences and the key genes in scale or feather formation.

Next, they placed these unique chicken feather genes within alligator eggs, carefully turning them on or off underneath their growing skin to reawaken an ancient programming that can turn scales into feathers.

"Our analyses led to the identification of five morpho-regulatory modules that are essential for modern feather formation," said Chuong. "We propose that these modules may originally evolve as different strategies for better adaptation. Eventually, the integrative combination of five morpho-regulatory modules achieves the highly successful feather architecture today, allows the Ave class to claim most of the open sky as their ecological niche."

These key circuits lead to the budding and elongation of appendages, follicle with stem cells and dermal papilla to allow cyclic regeneration, barb ridge formation with different branching forms, and specific feather keratin differentiation.

Some molecules could only induce one of the five criteria, e.g., the Sox2 gene can turn on feather budding and totally inhibits scale formation, while Grem1 can induce barb-like branching.

"Other molecules, such as retinoic acid or Sox18, have a greater ability to induce scutate scales to form feather-like skin appendages," said Chuong. "These feather-like appendages display all five criteria defining feathers, suggesting that they act at a higher hierarchical level in this evolutionary pathway."

These master regulators may have been the very first genes to adapt during ancient archosaur evolution and gain a newfound ability toward the making of today's complex feathers.

"Intriguingly, some of these phenotypes are similar to the unusual filamentous appendages found in the fossils of feathered dinosaurs."

Inspired by the "flying dragon," Ping Wu wants to challenge alligator scales to form feathers. By forced expression of sprouty and beta-catenin, genes they found to help convert chicken scales to feathers, they are able to cause the formation of elongated scales in alligator embryonic skin.

The study significantly adds to the growing list of genes and molecules known to induce feather-like structures in birds and has established a powerful new system in alligators to test and further explore the evolution of flight.

For Barbarian:

I am glad you are patient. This is a 13 minute talk in non technicalese like you love posting that says you are wrong!

Hair, Feathers, and Scales

It is more than one gene according to the evolutionists that did the experiment! Once again you got caught!

KomatiiteBIF said:

"And if shellac contamination (which did not occur in their samples) did occur as you said it would bias toward the daughter element making it older than dated."

That's right. The shellac would appear to be of an older age, and the dinosaur bones older as well.

And in regards to the dinosaur bones, there's no carbon parent, so it would have an age, versus greater than 50,000 years, or something along those lines.

Click to expand...

And the link shows these bones were taken from in situ so the entire shellac argument is irrelevant!

KomatiiteBIF said:

Nobody can know the methods of their practice, because the link you shared doesn't describe any of it.

Click to expand...

I do not think that most paleontologists show how they grabbed a sample, and bagged it for testing! I believe it is an assumption that most expect them to know what they are doing.

But I realize that evolutionists think YEC scientists are either not real scientists or have these conspiracies to trick the world or are just kinda stupid. It just ain't so but I am used to that.