Call for Submissions

[setst777]

What do you say about Christians who accept evolution as a fact of science?

Already responded to that.

 

[setst777]

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

You are writing nonsense, because you are not actually reading the responses given.

Read
Call for Submissions

These are not stories, these are scientific facts.

 

[setst777]

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

Creationists do not deny changes in DNA over time to produce long-term adaption to chronic conditions. That is why the Genetic Code is so complex and amazing. How was this Genetic Code designed to adapt in such amazing ways?

 

[tas8831]

"God placed within each species genetic information"

EVIDENCE????

 

[tas8831]

You are writing nonsense, because you are not actually reading the responses given.

Read
Call for Submissions

These are not stories, these are scientific facts.

They are stories as you present them. You present NO facts that show that there is a uniform stratum of sedimentary rock laid down at the same time 4500 or so years ago. Thus, STORIES.

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

 

[tas8831]

You are writing nonsense, because you are not actually reading the responses given.

Read
Call for Submissions

These are not stories, these are scientific facts.

I read your stories.

As is often the case, the creationist mixes reality with fantasy.

Yes, there are things called sedimentary rock. Yes, fossils form in such rock and volcanic ash, etc.

Mix with that your fantasy about how this does not happen today, how this rock is all over the world, etc.

Link to it all you want, it will never be evidence for the Genesis flood.

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

 

[tas8831]

Creationists do not deny changes in DNA over time to produce long-term adaption to chronic conditions.

But that is not what you wrote:

"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 very clearly implied (stated outright, actually) that Yahweh put that "genetic information" IN plants and animals in the first place, and that this God-placed "genetic information" is what allows adaptations to take place.

Are you now backing off that claim?

As a result of realizing that you haven't got a prayer of providing what science people call evidence to support it?

That is why the Genetic Code is so complex and amazing.

What do you think "the genetic code" even is? It seems like you don't really know.

How was this Genetic Code designed to adapt in such amazing ways?

What is your evidence that it WAS "designed"?

Oh - and it looks like you have already, within a single post, rejected, then re-embraced your evidence-free claim that Yahweh put the "information" to to do this in our genomes from the get-go.

Make up your mind, please.

 

[tas8831]

setst777 said: ↑
If a theory is tested and verified, which means it can be tested and verified, then it is no longer a theory, but rather, is a fact.

So cool how proud you are of your ignorance of what theories and facts and laws and such are.

 

[tas8831]

Ferns existed before and after the flood. However, the environment completely changed after the flood, and the air became much dryer. So ferns could not grow as large as trees after the flood. During the flood, when the sediment covered the plants and fossilized many of them, the sediment didn't just cover the older ferns that grew into trees, but also the younger small ferns.

Just so stories are cool for Sunday School.

Not for here.

How dry was the air post flood compared to pre-flood, and how do you know?

 

[tas8831]

Thanks for the lesson.

One of the reasons Germ Theory is a theory because Germ Theory does not explain why some people suffer infection from various organisms and not others. Possible considerations into this question are genetics, nutrition, exercise, state of mind, and proper sleep and rest.

Wow.... Um... not even in the right ball park...

Germ theory is about what causes disease (in essence). 'genetics, nutrition, exercise, state of mind, and proper sleep and rest' - that is about an individual's RESPONSE to pathogens.

You are really, really bad at science, dude.

Stick to whatever it is you do.

 

[setst777]

They are stories as you present them. You present NO facts that show that there is a uniform stratum of sedimentary rock laid down at the same time 4500 or so years ago. Thus, STORIES.

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

I never stated there was a uniform stratum, and that is not how sediment settles in standing water.

Although many earth changes, such as earthquakes, tectonic shifts, and other natural phenomena, accounted for oddities in the norm, the sediment naturally settles in many layers by density and coarseness, down to nanoparticles. And that is what the evidence shows.

In school we did a science experiment with a large aquarium filled with different kinds a mineral and debris and water. On Friday, we vigorously churned all the mineral and debris.

On Monday, we saw that most of the debris was already settled, but not into one stratum, but many layers of stratum - at least 12 were counted. And the water was still clouded with the most minute particles of debris that had not yet fallen.

So your idea that debris settles in one stratum is naive at best.

 

[tas8831]

Germ theory is just the organizing concept that germs cause infectious diseases.

For example: HIV causes AIDS; SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19, etc.

It says nothing else about how individuals are affected by those diseases.

This was absolutely eye-opening for me - CLASSIC Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[tas8831]

I never stated there was a uniform stratum,

You clearly implied it -

"the fossil record over the face of the earth embedded in what is now mostly sedimentary rock"


in fact, you should NEED there to be, since a single world-wide flood event would surely leave a world-wide single record, no?

The K-T boundary has a near world-wide layer of iridium, providing evidence for the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. Why special pleading for your flood?

and that is not how sediment settles in standing water.

Then please explain - with supporting documentation - how it does.

Of course, other bible people write things like:

"We are told that on that day all the fountains or springs of the great deep burst forth. The picture is of geyser spewing its contents into the sky, implying that a great underground ocean had existed and had been under some amount of pressure since the beginning of creation. "

Seems pretty violent for there to be 'standing water'...

Although many earth changes, such as earthquakes, tectonic shifts, and other natural phenomena, accounted for oddities in the norm, the sediment naturally settles in many layers by density and coarseness, down to nanoparticles. And that is what the evidence shows.

Does it? Can you provide some examples, like I did re: molecular phylogenetics?

Does it naturally settle out in recurring strata, as in varves? If so, how can you explain that in a single flood?

In school we did a science experiment with a large aquarium filled with different kinds a mineral and debris and water. On Friday, we vigorously churned all the mineral and debris.

On Monday, we saw that most of the debris was already settled, but not into one stratum, but many layers of stratum - at least 12 were counted. And the water was still clouded with the most minute particles of debris that had not yet fallen.

Golly gee, a school experiment?

I saw a school experiment in which a volcano spewed water with red food coloring in it. Is that how real volcanos operate?

So your idea that debris settles in one stratum is naive at best.

Right... Because your aquarium experiment proved that a world-wide flood, churned by the fountains of the deep and heavens opening up would work just like a little fish tank.

Speaking of naïve - I see you think Germ Theory encompasses what we might see in an immune response.

Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[tas8831]

I would say,

Firstly, they are incorrect, because Evolution is a theory. A theory is not a fact.

You cannot tell the difference between "evolution" the process and the ToE, the explanation, can you?
That is "is naïve at best."

 

[tas8831]

Actually it does. See:
Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia

From your wiki link:

"The germ theory of disease is the currently accepted scientific theory for many diseases. It states that microorganisms known as pathogens or "germs" can lead to disease. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, other animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause disease. "Germ" may refer to not just a bacterium but to any type of microorganism, such as protists or fungi, or even non-living pathogens that can cause disease, such as viruses, prions, or viroids.[1] Diseases caused by pathogens are called infectious diseases. Even when a pathogen is the principal cause of a disease, environmental and hereditary factors often influence the severity of the disease, and whether a potential host individual becomes infected when exposed to the pathogen. Pathogens are diseases[????] that can pass from one individual to another, both in humans and animals. Infectious diseases are caused by biological agents such as pathogenic microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, and fungi) as well as parasites."​

It is almost as if you have a hard time parsing the written word.

Germ Theory

"Germ theory states that specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases....
Germ theory encouraged the reduction of diseases to simple interactions between microrganism and host, without the need for the elaborate attention to environmental influences, diet, climate, ventilation, and so on that were essential to earlier understandings of health and disease. Because of this, some important proponents of hygiene and sanitation—including Florence Nightingale and Rudolf Virchow—did not necessarily believe that acceptance of the germ theory would be associated with improvements in public health. "​

Germ Theory

"The germ theory is a fundamental tenet of medicine that states that microorganisms, which are too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope, can invade the body and cause certain diseases."​

Wiki can be a pretty good source of basic information. But the reader has to understand how to comprehend what is written there.

What do you like to write about people that understand the things they write about - ah yes:


"naive at best"

 

[tas8831]

The evidence I presented can only be applied to Creation. The Evolutionary Theory, as we know it, and as presented by Evolutionists as the Theory for Evolution, is destroyed.

Hilarious.
What is your scientific background again?

Because I am 99% certain you've not taken a science class in decades.

 

[tas8831]

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.

100% irrelevant to anything I wrote. it is like you are just randomly picking responses from an archive of some sort,

Precious how creationists like you just IGNORE most of what people write in order to maintain your obstinate devotion to ancient middle eastern stories.
Nearly every one of your posts SCREAMES naivete and closed-mindedness and a type of pseudocertainty very common among religionists, explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Classic - look as the creationist just omits actual pro-evolution evidence from his reply:

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."
​

The Creation Story, as we know it, and as presented by Creationists as the Theory for Creation, is destroyed.

 

[setst777]

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.

Over 6000 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.

Sediment, during the flood was composed of many sizes, shapes, weights, and densities of many different kinds of minerals and organic matter.

The sediment typically and naturally settles in many stratum of various mineral and organic origin. Some types of mineral and organic matter settle faster, and others more slowly. The sedimentary rock and sandstone is composed of the finest particle sizes, and nanoparticles.

Although sedimentary rock is called that, all the stratum of rock layers today were formed from sediment. We know this because all stratum layers contain fossils. Fossils are only formed after quick burial in silt like sediment under anaerobic conditions. The sediment layer forms a plaster around life forms protecting them from decomposition and predators, and creating a shape of the organism that was buried. Fossils are rarely formed today, because such quick burial of organisms under silt like stratum is hardly ever accomplished in our recorded history.

The layer of rock before the flood is practically fossil free because no quick burial took place.

setst777 said: ↑
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...

Yes, volcanic ash is laid down today. I never said it wasn’t. Read carefully.

setst777 said: ↑
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.

This amazing insight is ignored by evolutionists. They interpret the layers of rock as meaning thousands or hundreds of thousands of years per layer, and so assume the fossils within each layer are also hundreds of thousands, up to hundreds of millions of years old, depending on the stratum they are found in.

However, not only must creatures be buried quickly under various layers of stratum to form fossils, but the less mobile and less complex a life form is, that life form will be buried first, while the more mobile a life form is, the more likely it will avoid burial earlier on. And the more complex creatures float when dead, and so many do avoid being buried under earlier stages of sediment.

The more simple life forms sink to the bottom, and are less mobile, so these creatures are naturally buried first - under the lowest layers of stratum.

Evolutionists assume that, because the less mobile and simple life forms are found even in the lowest stratum, that they must have evolved first. Actually, the less mobile and simple creatures are buried first under the early stratum layers because they could not escape or had no inclination to escape, and they do not float in water, and they are usually far less mobile. And so, that is why such simple creatures are even found on the lowest stratums.

But the evolutionists date the fossils according to stratum, and so, they date the less mobile and simple creatures as being 100’s of millions of years old. However, that is not how the stratums were laid, as they were laid rather quickly – likely within a few years, as the flood waters receded off the face of the earth. This is proven by the fossils found within. lifeforms must be buried in sediment quickly to form fossils.

In addition, aquatic life is found in all layers because they live in abundance in water. Some of these many aquatic creatures die off and so are buried in the lowest stratums, while others live on and escape, only to be buried in the higher layers of stratum.

setst777 said: ↑
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.

A continuous stratum is your invention. That is a myth of your making. There is no such thing as a continuous stratum.

setst777 said: ↑
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.

You agreed that the sedimentary rock is found over the face of the earth. What do you think sedimentary rock was formed from? How about sediment.

And since fossils are found throughout - aquatic life forms mixed with land creatures - that means the sediment was deposited rather quickly under anaerobic conditions, otherwise no fossils would be formed.

setst777 said: ↑
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?

This is common scientific knowledge. I thought you were so well versed on the subject. How is it you are not aware of how fossils fuels developed?

setst777 said: ↑
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.

Even though you agree that sedimentary rock covers the face of the earth, with fossils found all through these layers, from Aquatic to many forms of animal and plant life all mixed together, yet you refuse to acknowledge a worldwide flood. How is that possible? Are you so closed minded that you cannot even see reality?

How else did all those life forms - from water and land all mixed together - get covered in many layers or sediment so quickly to form fossils?

Where did all the trillions of tons of algae come from that is found all across the world in the form of mammoth oil reserves spanning tens of thousands of square miles with an average depth of 6000 feet when many layers of sediment that quickly buried them?

Where did that huge amount of algae come from that? How did they get buried under sediment so quickly - many reserves in areas way inland on dry land?

Why do we find fossils of sea creatures even in layers of stratum on the highest mountains far inland?

So you see, evolutionists take facts and interpret them to according to their evolution theory.

Creationists have a theory that most accurately accounts for all known facts.

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:

Creationists do not deny facts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh, brother. Here we go again...

Actually it does. See:
Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia

The lead of said article.

The germ theory of disease is the currently accepted scientific theory for many diseases. It states that microorganisms known as pathogens or "germs" can lead to disease.

That's what I said. I was trying to keep it simple for you.

If that were the case, then everything we know about Atomic Theory would by fully and completely known. But that is not the case.

Part of the problem is that (as a physicist) when I hear "Atomic Theory" I think of the quantum mechanical theory of atomic structure. (The details of specific atoms and how they come about.)

For a science historian, "Atomic Theory" is the "Atomic Theory of Matter", i.e., matter is made of atoms which are the smallest unit of matter and those "atoms" contained the "fundamental essence" of those substances. For example consider copper, tin, and bronze. They knew that they could make very pure copper or tin that was just "copper" or "tin" and seemed to have nothing else in them. They could also alloy copper and tin to make bronze. Was the copper or tin destroyed? No, they could extract the copper and tin back out. The bronze always contained the "essence" of copper and of tin. Thus, atoms have elemental types like copper and tin.

The final element (pun intended) of the atomic theory of matter was the finite "chunk" aspect, the indivisible "atoms" of copper or tin. This was sorted out by chemists in the 18th and 19th century.

[Since then we have discovered that atoms do indeed have sub-components (electrons, protons, neutrons), but (and this is important) the minimal thing that *is* a copper atom has 29 (and only 29) protons and 29 electrons. If it didn't it wouldn't be copper. So there is a effective "essence" of "copperness."]

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

These are just biological responses of a single organism. No different than an organism feeling a compulsion to drink (thirst) due to low water levels in the body, or plants growing toward the sunlight.

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.

Those are actually evolution.