Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you can’t think on your own, but need to be told what to believe by those that add 96% ad-hoc theory because they can’t get Relativity to work correctly outside the solar system, even if it has been tested to a 99% accuracy without those ad-hoc theories in the solar system?Well, thanks for your condescension
It's true that I don't have a response that agrees with your view; if you have a reference to or citation of an authoritative source that explains your view coherently, I'd be very interested to read it.
Catastrophic event. Show me a single bone beginning fossilization not involved in a catastrophic event? Just one?
That all but a few hundred are found in sedimentary strata, well, come to the correct conclusion on your own.
If you have a reference to or citation of an authoritative source that explains your Twin Paradox and/or Special Relativity views coherently, I'd be very interested to read it.So you can’t think on your own, but need to be told what to believe by those that add 96% ad-hoc theory because they can’t get Relativity to work correctly outside the solar system, even if it has been tested to a 99% accuracy without those ad-hoc theories in the solar system?
Grant Hutchison said:One way to eliminate the hassle with the traveller's reference frames is to set up a version of the twin paradox in which no-one does any accelerating during the course of the experiment.
We set up Ann, who simply floats in space with a clock. Passing her at some high fraction of the speed of light is Betty, who synchronizes her clock with Ann's as they pass. After a while, Betty meets Carol, who is heading in the opposite direction, also at a high fraction of the speed of light relative to Ann. Carol synchronizes her clock with Betty's as they pass. Finally, Carol encounters Ann, still floating patiently with her clock, and the pair compare clock readings as they pass each other. They find that Carol's clock reads an earlier time than Ann's.
Now that experiment can be viewed from the inertial frame of any of the participants with equal ease. Each participant sees the clocks of the other two running slowly, because they are in relative motion. (Betty, for instance, sees Ann moving quickly, and Carol moving even quicker.) And yet all agree that Carol's clock will show an earlier time than Ann's. The reason this occurs is because there's a switch in simultaneity as the clock readings are handed over from one reference frame to the next.
Grant Hutchison
Who rejects science? Those that accept a flood, or those that reject it, when 73% of the earths surface is sedimentary? Local floods? Then why do we not see one single flood in the last 4,000 years that has buried animals starting the process of fossilization? There simply is not enough sediment deposited in a small flood to bury animals quickly enough and deeply enough to prevent decay and begin fossilization.
No, only those rejecting science reject a global flood. Every fossil found is found in sedimentary rock, yet we see no fossils forming today from any of the claimed processes that lead to sedimentation, including small local floods. Every single one decays to the point of non-existance over time. Millions of buffalo were killed on the American plains and left to rot. Yet not a single bone began to fossilize, almost all are completely decayed away. In 65 million years there will be no record left of today’s animals through fossils, because no catastrophic event has occurred capable of causing fossilization. Those fossils are not fossils spread out over millions of years, but the results of catastrophic events that caused their deaths and burial in tons of sediment.
Science could easily prove this false by showing me one bone, even by your account of time, that has started to fossilize in the last 4,000 years? Not even one? Of course not, because no catastrophic event has occurred to bury them fast enough or deep enough to prevent their total decay.
Dear readers, let it be known that the only time a new form has been observed despite some claims to the contrary, is when the Asian mates with the African, the Husky mates with the Mastiff, the black bear mates with the Grizzly, and on and on and on.The gift that keeps on giving....
Dear readers - please let this burn into your memories.
This latest YEC expert on all science (despite clearly NOT being an expert on any science) has declared that diversity comes from the mating of a breeding pair in possession of nearly identical sets of alleles.
You heard it here first!
No hybridization is their silly response. But that’s because they ignore the definition of subspecies.WHERE DID THE DISTINCT GENES COME FROM???
You keep ignoring this question, or giving some silly, 3rd grade type of response (hybriization!).
I’m just going by the science you claim to accept, what, rejecting science now?98% of the genome is NOT non-functional - in fact, creationists claim that it is almost all functional! I think it is hilarious when one YEC expert on all science directly contradicts other YEC experts on all science.
Hmm, so knowing the answer, he predicted the answer?Kimura predicted, based on neutral mutation rates (and other things) way back in the 1960s that the genome of a large, 'slow breeding' organism (like mammals) would be about the size that ours (and other mammals, around 30,000 genes and genomes of about 3 billion bps) are and have about as many genes as we do - in fact, his prediction based on mutation rates was more accurate than other prediction of the time that were based on extrapolations of concepts of 'complexity' and the like (on the order of 100,000+ for humans).
And yet an Asian and African create an Afro Asian. A Husky and Mastiff create a Chinook, despite almost identicle genes.The ark inhabitants were descendants of Adam and Eve, right?
That means that the genetic diversity that they possessed was premised solely on the nearly identical genomes of Adam and Eve - so the usual un-answered question remains -
WHERE DID THE GENETIC DIVERSITY COME FROM???
Why not? We got over 100 breeds of dogs from almost identicle wolf genes. Keep interbreeding different races and selecting for specific traits and you’ll end up with 100’s of races, despite almost identicle genes.You can NOT claim 'interbreeding', because ALL of Adam and Eve's descendants would have had nearly identical genomes, and since you folks like to claim that they were "perfect" genomes there would have been no mutation (which you folks like to claim is a God punishment for the 'fall' - despite the fact that God apparently also gave us mutation correcting mechanisms... Couldn't make up His mind?).
Not anymore than if you take a Husky and Mastiff, mate them to get a Chinook, then mate the Chinook with the Mastiff, then select for specific traits and in a few generations mate that back to the Husky. And why lo and behold, you will have 4 or 5 different breeds where you started with just two.Are you implying that there were other non-biblical peoples around to interbreed with?
They don’t, they simply copy what already exists into a new format. You just don’t understand what copy means.You can't even bring yourself to admit that mutations produce new alleles, despite admitting that mutations occur (sometimes)!
To prevent birth defects as much as possible.And there you go.
If God did this, then why did God give us mutation correction mechanisms (and the genes for it)?
Only one of us isn’t denying the reality that Asian remain Asian and African remain African and neither evolve into the Afro-Asian by mutation.You cobbled together some phoney-baloney "genetics" to justify your dismissal of reality, then fall back on God-magic when you run out of fake science.
Do you understand that in a real family tree, that it in the end it always leads back to two, if you can trace it back far enough? Otherwise if they start from 10,000 unrelated individuals, there is no shared ancestory, except perhaps thousands of generations down the line as they begin interbreeding, but then that’s not what evolutionists claim, now is it?Goody for you.
Do you understand yet that YOU are not the descendant of a single person or breeding pair?
Everyone agrees with me. The traveling twin sees incorrectly the stationary twins clock rate. They just call it a paradox, instead of just admitting the twin was wrong.If you have a reference to or citation of an authoritative source that explains your Twin Paradox and/or Special Relativity views coherently, I'd be very interested to read it.
Take your pick of any one of them. Then show me where the traveling twin didn’t age less, even if he believed the stationary twins clocks were slower and they should have aged less. That’s not a paradox, that’s just plain error.Or is it that you don't have any reference or citation - that you are right, and all the experts are wrong? If so, who would you expect me to take more seriously about Special Relativity, some bloke on the Christian Forums or the physicists who use it for a living?
How can you do away with accelerations? One twin clearly accelerates away. If he didn’t he would go nowhere, correct? And one twin sees things incorrectly, because he sees the other ones clocks slow when they never did.Incidentally, I found an interesting TP variation that does away with accelerations:
And here's an explanation dealing solely with what each twin observes (diagrams seem to be missing unfortunately).
Hmm, so they are easily identified as Precambrian rocks, just as all Precambrian strata is easily identified, because they are uniform in consistency world wide.
“In terrestrial sediments of the Cenozoic Era”
Palaeos Cenozoic: The Cenozoic Era
“More than 95% of the Cenozoic era belongs to the Tertiary period, an unreasonable division which reflects the arbitrary manner in which the geological epochs were first named. From 1760 to 1770, Giovanni Arduino, inspector of mines in Tuscany and later professor of mineralogy at Padua, set forth the first classification of geological time, dividing the sequence of the Earth's rocks into Primitive, Secondary, and Tertiary. During the 18th century the names Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary were given to successive rock strata, the Primary being the oldest, the Tertiary the more recent. In 1829 a fourth division, the Quaternary, was added by P. G. Desnoyers. These terms were later abandoned, the Primitive or Primary becoming the Paleozoic Era, and the Secondary the Mesozoic.“
Doesn’t sound all jumbled up to me, sounds like they are distinct and in successive layers.
You seem to think that mass extinctions are basically single, short duration events. That is laughable.
And where are the fossils for the last 10,000 years?
None are even forming as we speak, even from local floods. We killed millions of Buffalo, certainly some of there bones should be fossilizing for someone to find in 65 million years?
Tell me genius - why would FISH suffer a mass extinction during a flood? Why would only certain plants and animals die in a mass extinction if it was a world-wide flood?
Ok I’ll tell you.
Flooding causes fish kills in Withlacoochee River
https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/634570/Fish-Kills-FAQ-August-2011.pdf
But let’s ignore the increased mud in the waters, lowering oxygen. Reduced visibility for hunting... nah, let’s ignore reality so you can sustain your fantasies.
There you go genius, reality.
I know, they were on the Ark.
Yah well, others on here dismiss relativity too.
And chapter and verse for the 4 other world wide floods?
Every fossil is found in sedimentary strata, how many chapters and versus if the actual creation do you need?
Obviously I do, but you seem to think all such fossils are due to mass extinction world-wide floods for which there is 0 evidence.Sure I do, but do you not understand why with but a few exceptions they are found in sedimentary rock?
The tested methodology:
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.
Hmm, from inbreeding, we’re [sic] you not the one arguing animals don’t do that in the other thread?
And now want to present inbreeding as evidence? Of course we get exactly what we expect to see, significant deviations. They were genealogically relations to begin with, so you reproduced what you started with?
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.
Hmm, I predict that I can predict the lineage of known ancestors, and my test will confirm they are ancestors, and then I’ll claim see, I predicted it with 98% certainty, knowing the answer before I started.
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.
I’m other words if we leave in a big enough fudge factor so we can say what we like by playing with the numbers.
Application of the tested methodology:
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 human–chimp–gorilla 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]. "
A whole 90 kB in a dna strand billions of bits long? My, so comprehensive.
And of course the most favorable section cut from the rest of the parts that had no relation.
Let’s see, I’ll start with 20 red apples and 500 green apples. I’ll throw away 499 of the green apples, compare what’s left to 20 other red apples and declare, why look, all apples share a 98% similarity in color. If you say so.
Then you won’t mind showing me fossils beginning to form in any lakes would you?Preservation
Of all land environments, lakes provide the best conditions for accumulating fossils quietly (without damage) and protecting them in an oxygen-low pile of sediment.
A catastrophic event, we agree.Some igneous rocks act like sediments, however. Volcanic ash is produced from molten material as it blows apart, but ash rains down and behaves like a sediment. It too can bury organisms, dead or alive, and fossilize them.
Hmm, so large bodies of water preserve shells, which are already calcium to begin with. But again, show me any preserved recent animals in the ocean?So the shallow sea is better for accumulating sediments (and fossils). The shallow sea is a very productive habitat in terms of nutrients brought down by rivers, and in terms of photosynthesis by surface and seafloor algae, so this habitat typically teems with life. The life often contains many animals with shells and skeletons that would make them good fossils, and as a result we have better data and more complete understanding of the Earth's fossil record of shallow marine organisms than of any other environment.
And yet we have billions of fossils of land animals, each and every one of which died in a watery environment. Along with those land plants, much softer than bone as well.Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream.
And every one needs water but catastrophic volcanic explosions, burying animals quickly.These are just the first couple I found, I could go on but frankly I can't be bothered only one example would be necessary.
And every loaf of bread does, except that made by corn flour. So we find one or two in volcanic ash, a catastrophic event.That is like saying "and yet almost every almost every loaf of bread contains wheat flour"...
I sure have. But apparently I understand the difference between mummification and fossilization, which apparently you are confused on that point.Have you heard of Pompeii?
Then you won’t mind showing me fossils beginning to form in any lakes would you?
....................................
A catastrophic event, we agree.
.....................................
Hmm, so large bodies of water preserve shells, which are already calcium to begin with. But again, show me any preserved recent animals in the ocean?
.....................................
And yet we have billions of fossils of land animals, each and every one of which died in a watery environment. Along with those land plants, much softer than bone as well.
.................................................
And every one needs water but catastrophic volcanic explosions, burying animals quickly.
And yet you failed to provide one single creature in the recent past beginning to fossilize by the means described above. So it only happens that way in the past, right? There are no fish bones in any lake undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones in the ocean undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones fossilizing anywhere, nor any land animals or plants swept into any of these by recent floods. Each and every one is decaying to the point of non-existence.
I mean if you could find even one, well, you might have evidence to base your claims upon. That the only ones we do find are those buried in meters of sedimentary rock. Quickly, in both individual and mass grave sites.
You could go on, but it would just be more of the same, with no correlation to recorded history where every single bone found in these environments is degrading away into nothing, not a single one lasting to begin fossilization. Because again, nothing catastrophic has happened in recorded history. And btw, the bones found in Pompei for example, are not fossilized, they are mummified, tWo seperate processes. As Mastadon bones are frozen and mummified, not fossilized. So that a volcanic eruption might occur and capture bones already fossilized, well, but that would require going into the differences between mummification and fossilization. Not sure you can distinguish between the two.
Then you won’t mind showing me fossils beginning to form in any lakes would you?
....................................
A catastrophic event, we agree.
.....................................
Hmm, so large bodies of water preserve shells, which are already calcium to begin with. But again, show me any preserved recent animals in the ocean?
.....................................
And yet we have billions of fossils of land animals, each and every one of which died in a watery environment. Along with those land plants, much softer than bone as well.
.................................................
And every one needs water but catastrophic volcanic explosions, burying animals quickly.
And yet you failed to provide one single creature in the recent past beginning to fossilize by the means described above. So it only happens that way in the past, right? There are no fish bones in any lake undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones in the ocean undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones fossilizing anywhere, nor any land animals or plants swept into any of these by recent floods. Each and every one is decaying to the point of non-existence.
I mean if you could find even one, well, you might have evidence to base your claims upon. That the only ones we do find are those buried in meters of sedimentary rock. Quickly, in both individual and mass grave sites.
You could go on, but it would just be more of the same, with no correlation to recorded history where every single bone found in these environments is degrading away into nothing, not a single one lasting to begin fossilization. Because again, nothing catastrophic has happened in recorded history. And btw, the bones found in Pompei for example, are not fossilized, they are mummified, tWo seperate processes. As Mastadon bones are frozen and mummified, not fossilized. So that a volcanic eruption might occur and capture bones already fossilized, well, but that would require going into the differences between mummification and fossilization. Not sure you can distinguish between the two.
And that's why you will hold onto that the whole earth cant be flooded.
The text books you rely on are apart of the false paradigm.
Until you, yourself, get up into the heights of where a rocket can take you, you will always rely on the screen (TV, PC monitor) or a sanctioned text book to accept so called reality, or the mathematical equations within the false paradigm.
Its the fundamental truth, that destroys the false claim of (no world wide flood)
All the evidence for a flood is discarded due to mathematical equations within the false paradigm.
The pretence that the earth is a globe orbiting the sun.
When the exact opposite is true.
"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age. "
Geologic Time: Age of the Earth
What is the pretence in the above?
Is it a solar system? (heliocentricm)
You do realise that geocentrists accept that the solar system does exist, they just place the earth at its centre.
So just another ignorant point that has no validity. All that the determination requires is that the solar system was created at about the same time. Whether it is heliocentric or geocentric would make no difference.
More incorrect statements, in fact if the earth was flat a global flood would be slightly more difficult to believe as it would have an edge that would always have to be higher than the highest piece of land). For a globe earth there is no real problem with sufficient water (which is a real problem for the flood no matter the shape of the earth).
Your statement is 100% incorrect. It is a common claim by FE adherents who ignore the mountain of direct evidence that proves the earth is not flat. Evidence that can be gathered by simple observation.
The differing night sky rotation and visible stars north and south of the equator, especially considering that people in Australia and South America can look at the night sky AT THE SAME MOMENT on the longest nights of the year and see the same stars to their south, conclusively proves that the FE map is garbage and the earth cannot be flat.
Measurements made with precise optical instruments (that are not that expensive) can easily show that the objects do disappear slowly due to the earths curvature..
There is no stalemate for people who accept evidence.
Here's an abstract of a study of fossilisation of shells in Texas. Note that they are following the process from surface (now), to some depth (earlier).But I’m still waiting for that one animal bone undergoing fossilization in the recent past? You all claim it’s happening, so it shouldn’t be too hard to find one.
I'm not going to repeat thousands of pages of evidence. Perhaps you know about the evidence of an object striking off the coast of what is now the Yucatan Peninsular. That, plus the iridium layer found worldwide is evidence of something other than a flood, for which there is no evidence.What evidence? That all remains are found in sedimentary strata?
I'm saying the earth is the centre of creation
"In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system) is a superseded description of the universe with Earth at the center. Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbited Earth.[1] The geocentric model served as the predominant description of the cosmos in many ancient civilizations, such as those of Aristotle and Ptolemy."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?