Call for Submissions

[tas8831]

The same is true of evolutionists. The believe in their theory so deeply, and they so much despise God, that they will do whatever they reasonably can to undermine or discredit a creation account. Don't be so naive. Look in the mirror.

LOL!
Creationists and their knee-jerk projection.

 

[tas8831]

setst777 said: ↑
The fossil record over the face of the earth embedded in what is now mostly sedimentary rock, including the thousands of miles of oil reserves and coal beds with fossil embedded throughout, is clear evidence for a worldwide catastrophic flood.



??? They are worldwide.

Sedimentary rock is worldwide.

Yes, there is a type of rock called 'sedimentary' that can be found the world over.

You are implying that it was all laid down in one flood 4500 years ago.

If this were so, given that this flood was world-wide, then these should be a more-or-less continuous single stratum of sedimentary rock the world-over containing all types of fossils in it.

Since this is not the case, you have nothing.

Fossils embedded in what is now solid rock, and in coal beds, is worldwide.

Fossils are formed by rather quick burial in anaerobic conditions and silt, or volcanic ash. Such fossil formation is rather rare today, but yet, we encounter all these fossil remains embedded in rock, coal, and other mineralizations, over the entire world in what are now solid rock layers; so, the layers of rock were not always rock. The fossils existing in the layer of rock prove this to be true.

Volcanic ash is not laid down today?
Hmmm...

So the fossils tell us that the rock layers that now contain the fossils were not always rock;

Amazing insight. It is almost as if you think no evolutionists understand this.

rather, most rock containing fossils used to be sediment that quickly covered a vast number of organic things, and so, formed various types of fossils within the rock layers. And this was worldwide.

World-wide, so please show me this continuous stratum containing fossils of all extinct creatures in it.

Many of the rock formations we now see today were, therefore, not formed from eroding solid rock over millions of years, but rather, softer sediment layers quickly eroded into the huge rock formations we see today, that have hardened over time. And this erosion was on a massive scale, because we know the earth went through environmental changes after the flood causing huge storms.

Just-so stories are cool.

We see these thousands of miles of coal beds and oil reserves throughout the world, on land, and in seas, and oceans. Oil is formed from algae, which has to be quickly covered by silt/sediment under anaerobic conditions under enormous pressure and heat to form oil. That is why they are called fossil fuels.

You keep making these grand assertions, yet when I provided you with a way to support your genetics claims, you chickened out, so why should anyone assume that you have actual supporting EVIDENCE for a word-wide flood caused by your deity?

...
So, the evidence shows me that not all things were constant as they are today; rather, far from it!

None of this is evidence for a world-wide flood 4500 years ago. In fact, none of this is actually "evidence."

You are telling stories and expecting everyone else to be as awed as you obviously were when someone told YOU these stories.

Also, this totally ignores the lack of bottleneck evidence in all living things.

Just so you know, THIS is what "evidence" looks like:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

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.

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

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 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]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

 

[tas8831]

So you say. Sounds like clear bias to me.

Your claims sound like desperation to me.

I have been involved in many numerous debates on the subject. You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

If your numerous debates go like this one is, you got trounced and lack the wherewithal to see it.
Remember when you make this spurious evidence-less claim? And I asked for evidence? And you ran off?

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

Did you bring up that empty assertion in those other "debates"? Hope not. By the way - your post on flood "evidence" contained NO actual evidence, just a series of assertions. You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

 

[tas8831]

setst777 said: ↑
The fossil record over the face of the earth embedded in what is now mostly sedimentary rock, including the thousands of miles of oil reserves and coal beds with fossil embedded throughout, is clear evidence for a worldwide catastrophic flood.



??? They are worldwide.

Sedimentary rock is worldwide.

Fossils embedded in what is now solid rock, and in coal beds, is worldwide.

Fossils are formed by rather quick burial in anaerobic conditions and silt, or volcanic ash. Such fossil formation is rather rare today, but yet, we encounter all these fossil remains embedded in rock, coal, and other mineralizations, over the entire world in what are now solid rock layers; so, the layers of rock were not always rock. The fossils existing in the layer of rock prove this to be true.

So the fossils tell us that the rock layers that now contain the fossils were not always rock; rather, most rock containing fossils used to be sediment that quickly covered a vast number of organic things, and so, formed various types of fossils within the rock layers. And this was worldwide.

Many of the rock formations we now see today were, therefore, not formed from eroding solid rock over millions of years, but rather, softer sediment layers quickly eroded into the huge rock formations we see today, that have hardened over time. And this erosion was on a massive scale, because we know the earth went through environmental changes after the flood causing huge storms.

We see these thousands of miles of coal beds and oil reserves throughout the world, on land, and in seas, and oceans. Oil is formed from algae, which has to be quickly covered by silt/sediment under anaerobic conditions under enormous pressure and heat to form oil. That is why they are called fossil fuels.

Rarely are conditions right to form actual oil in our recorded history. In the past, however, as the waters receded from the flood, huge and quite vast tracts of algae collected in recessions in the earth that are averaging around 6000 feet deep, some recesses being over 50,000 square miles. And then these huge tracts of algae were buried rather quickly in huge layers of sediment that later on solidified into sedimentary rock and sandstone.

Coal beds also are formed by quick burial of sediment over huge tracts of vegetation that accumulated in recesses in the earth that are, in some cases, over 70,000 square miles and over 3,000 feet in depth. The sediment must be deposited quickly to form the right pressure, heat, and anaerobic conditions for coal beds to form. Such conditions are very rare and localized today, but this happened all over the world during the flood, as it receded.

We also know that the earth went through huge environmental changes. For instance, ferns use to grow the size of trees.

So, the evidence shows me that not all things were constant as they are today; rather, far from it!

Yeah, sorry - assertions are not evidence. Lots of holes in your stories, too. You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

But this guy does (emphases mine):

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

Todd Wood, PhD., creationist
​

Now tell us all about your scientific background such that a person should take your unsupported stories as "evidence" and dismiss what Dr. Wood states here...

 

[tas8831]

A theory is never a fact no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

Creation is carefully founded upon science.
Evolution is carefully founded upon science.

However, no scientific evidence is available that proves that evolution or creation is anything more than an theory. Theories are never facts.

Things fall "down" on the surface of the earth. This is due to gravity. This is a fact.
The theory of universal gravitation explains why this happens. Gravity is both theory and fact.

Living things change (evolve) over time. This is due to changes in the genome over time. This is a fact.
The ToE explains why this happens. Evolution is theory and fact.

The 'debates' you took part in must have been quite a sight.

 

[tas8831]

delete

 

[tas8831]

??? Most Christians are in name only.

Christians and their fallacies...

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is no longer accepted by evolutionists as the primary method of evolution. Multiple theories to explain evolution are now proposed. So much for Darwin's research into facts.

Right... Darwin should have invented DNA sequencing such that he could have added genetics to his theory in the 1850s. He should have jumped 100 years into his future to understand population genetics.

Your rational, steady insights are amusing.

 

[setst777]

This is why scientific discussions with creationists are futile. When they realize they are in over their head, they almost always pull out this nonsense as an escape.

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

EVIDENCE????

The genetic code, which is extremely organized and complex, gives the complete instructions for each kind of life to form.

We see that the genetic code allows for adaption - short term and long term.

Short term adaptions are things like, resistance training will cause the cells of the body to adapt - the cardiovascular system becomes more robust to take on the extra load. The muscles adapt to become more efficient under stress loads.

As well, people tan when in the sun. That is a short term adaptation to not only protect the body, but also to develop vitamin D, an essential nutrient.

There are thousands of examples of short term adaptation all programed into life forms by the complex genetic pattern that each kind of animal is formed.

Long term adaptation: When people live in hot and sunny climates long enough, they develop more permanent pigment adaptation to protect the body against chronic radiation.

Europeans, having been subjected to a diet higher in processed foods, have adapted the ability to handle that kind of food intake without becoming diseased, as do Asians and other ethnicities from which such a diet has been alien to them, until recently within the past 1000 years or so.

There is no doubt the genetic code is a highly engineered and very complex design by which kinds of animals are formed, with the ability to adapt to changes in environment.

 

[tas8831]

It is reasonable to reject the idea of a universal flood, because there is no evidence for such a thing. This doesn't harm a hair on any god's head. It's just the facts of geology.

That is your uneducated opinion.

Amazing...

 

[setst777]

Things fall "down" on the surface of the earth. This is due to gravity. This is a fact.
The theory of universal gravitation explains why this happens. Gravity is both theory and fact.

Living things change (evolve) over time. This is due to changes in the genome over time. This is a fact.
The ToE explains why this happens. Evolution is theory and fact.

The 'debates' you took part in must have been quite a sight.

Creation is theory and fact for the same reasons.

 

[tas8831]

Please keep in mind folks, this creationist is setting out to provide "evidence" for this claim of his:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

The genetic code, which is extremely organized and complex, gives the complete instructions for each kind of life to form.

We see that the genetic code allows for adaption - short term and long term.

We 'see' this? How? Pease EXPLAIN how we "see" that the genetic code allows for adaption. What we actually see is CHANGE in the genes, not that the 'information' was already there.

Short term adaptions are things like, resistance training will cause the cells of the body to adapt - the cardiovascular system becomes more robust to take on the extra load. The muscles adapt to become more efficient under stress loads.

Cool story - 100% IRRELEVANT to your claim, and this has NOTHING to do with 'God placed within each species genetic information...'

As well, people tan when in the sun. That is a short term adaptation to not only protect the body, but also to develop vitamin D, an essential nutrient.

It is like you just read a website selling suntan lotion...

There are thousands of examples of short term adaptation all programed into life forms by the complex genetic pattern that each kind of animal is formed.

Just-so stories are precious.

But they are NOT evidence.

You see, EVIDENCE would be to provide the genetic foundation for sun tanning. I am surprised that a debate-winning science expert like you cannot tell the difference between a story and evidence.

Long term adaptation: When people live in hot and sunny climates long enough, they develop more permanent pigment adaptation to protect the body against chronic radiation.

Amazingly, there is a genetic explanation for this. It has to do with CHANGES to their DNA. This is actually evidence AGAINST your God-claim! And it is actually the reverse of what you imply - people started out with dark skin, and losing the dark skin was an adaptation to living in higher and lower latitudes. Just one example of many on the subject: Genetics of Hair and Skin Color.

See what I did there? I provided some EVIDENCE. I did not just make an empty assertion and claim it is evidence, like you do. You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

Europeans, having been subjected to a diet higher in processed foods, have adapted the ability to handle that kind of food intake without becoming diseased, as do Asians and other ethnicities from which such a diet has been alien to them, until recently within the past 1000 years or so.

Europeans were eating 'processed foods' 1000 years ago? Evidence please. I mean actual evidence, not more stories.
Also - you again contradict your earlier evidence-free claim - you claimed Yahweh put all that "genetic information" information in us in the first place. Why did it take 100 years?

Also, define "genetic information" as you are using it.

There is no doubt the genetic code is a highly engineered and very complex design by which kinds of animals are formed, with the ability to adapt to changes in environment.

Cool assertion.

Still no evidence that "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."


You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

 

[tas8831]

Creation is theory and fact for the same reasons.

You keep making assertions. Is that all you can muster?

 

[setst777]

Amazing...

Amazing indeed.

See:
Call for Submissions

 

[tas8831]

Creation is theory and fact for the same reasons.

Ok... Well anyway - as you have such amazing scientific insights and such, here are a couple of threads I've started on the subjects at hand. Maybe you can set me straight?

On DNA percent differences between taxa and YEC timelines

For those wishing DNA worked exactly like computer code

Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

 

[setst777]

Please keep ion mind folks, this creationist is setting out to provide "evidence" for this claim of his:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

We 'see' this? How? Pease EXPLAIN how he "see" that the genetic code allows for adaption.

Cool story - 100% IRRELEVANT to your claim, and this has NOTHING to do with 'God placed within each species genetic information...'

It is like you just read a website selling suntan lotion...

Just-so stories are precious.

But they are NOT evidence.

You see, EVIDENCE would be to provide the genetic foundation for sun tanning. I am surprised that a debate-winning science expert like you cannot tell the difference between a story and evidence.

Amazingly, there is a genetic explanation for this. It has to do with CHANGES to their DNA. This is actually evidence AGAINST your God-claim! And it is actually the reverse of what you imply - people started out with dark skin, and losing the dark skin was an adaptation to living in higher and lower latitudes. Just one example of many on the subject: Genetics of Hair and Skin Color.

See what I did there? I provided some EVIDENCE. I did not just make an empty assertion and claim it is evidence, like you do. You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

Europeans were eating 'processed foods' 1000 years ago? Evidence please. I mean actual evidence, not more stories.
Also - you again contradict your earlier evidence-free claim - you claimed Yahweh put all that "genetic information" information in us in the first place. Why did it take 100 years?

Also, define "genetic information" as you are using it.

Cool assertion.

Still no evidence that "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

That is the evidence, which I provided. Theories are formed to explain the evidence. The theory itself is not the evidence. This is true for Creation Science just as it is true for Evolution Science. Both are theories that try to explain the evidence provided.

 

[tas8831]

Amazing indeed.

See:
Call for Submissions

Not really - those are just assertions. And the assertions are unsupported and no sensible person would conclude that they support a world-wide god flood.

I already dealt with that stuff.

 

[setst777]

That is the evidence, which I provided. Theories are formed to explain the evidence. The theory itself is not the evidence. This is true for Creation Science just as it is true for Evolution Science. Both are theories that try to explain the evidence provided.

See
Call for Submissions

For more examples.

 

[setst777]

Not really - those are just assertions. And the assertions are unsupported and no sensible person would conclude that they support a world-wide god flood.

I already dealt with that stuff.

No assertions made. This is scientific fact.

 

[tas8831]

That is the evidence, which I provided.

It is not evidence. It is a series of stories that in no way supports your assertion, that much is obvious.

Theories are formed to explain the evidence. The theory itself is not the evidence. This is true for Creation Science just as it is true for Evolution Science. Both are theories that try to explain the evidence provided.

That is irrelevant. You presented neither theory nor fact. You presented stories (with no evidence) and merely imply that these stories support your God-claim.

They do not.

The actual evidence is contrary to the impetus of your stories (which is not evidence).

So you very clearly embody your own hubris:

You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.

 

[tas8831]

No assertions made. This is scientific fact.

Not facts at all. You left out a lot of detail, for (there are other ways to make fossils, for example). And you merely imply that your stories support your God-claims.

Show me the EVIDENCE of a world-wide layer of sedimentary rock that houses fossils of ALL extinct and extant taxa (or even representatives of such groups - hippos and ceratopsians in the the same stratum, for example).

Just no more stories. That is the stuff of Sunday School, not science. If you think what you provided was evidence, then you obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.