"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Astrophile]

In my view, an honest and open minded Christian scientist should never accept the wrong notion that there are no scientific errors in the Bible.

Is this really what you meant to say?

 

[Zosimus]

The ψη-globin gene as another example.
"There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and humans. One is the ψη-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989). Another example is the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene. Humans have two copies of the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, a functional one and a untranslated pseudogene. Inactivation of the functional gene leads to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH, a rare and serious genetic disease), giving positive evidence that the 21-hydroxylase pseudogene lacks its proper function. Both chimpanzees and humans share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene that renders it incapable of its normal function (Kawaguchi et al. 1992)."




I already made that argument. Due to the randomness of mutation, if the gene was knocked out independently in each lineage then we should see mutations at different positions. If the gene was knocked out once in a common ancestor, then we should see the same mutation at the same position. That is the test. Guess what we see? The same mutation.

From the same link (above) we read:

"The GLO gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrate GLO genes, whereas the guinea pig has lost its first and fifth exon as well as part of its sixth exon..."

So since there is a 36 percent overlap between guinea pigs loss of vitamin C synthesis and that of humans, are humans and guinea pigs now more closely related than previously thought?

If not, why not?

 

[RickG]

From the same link (above) we read:

"The GLO gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrate GLO genes, whereas the guinea pig has lost its first and fifth exon as well as part of its sixth exon..."

So since there is a 36 percent overlap between guinea pigs loss of vitamin C synthesis and that of humans, are humans and guinea pigs now more closely related than previously thought?

If not, why not?

This is a bit of a side track, but can you explain the distribution of fossils throughout sedimentary strata geochronologically without evolution?

 

[Zosimus]

Hmmmph. First you tell me that if its true, I would post a link. Now I post a link and you still don't think its true. Instead, you say merely "one study does not convince me " . . . .

There are multiple studies but I won't bother. Multiple studies will not convince you either, because your mind is not making its choice based on the evidence. Your religious ideas are what form your opinion.

You're hilarious. I love it when Baptists tell agnostics not to be so religious.

Well yeah, but you don't have any refutation for the idea that the common form of the error in primates shows us that the error occurred once among several species rather than occurring at random over and over again; moreover, it is unreasonable to suggest a designer would copy an error; therefore evolution.

If by "evolution" you simply mean that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, I fail to see why that was ever in question or how gulo inactivation, had it not occurred, would have called it into question.

Oh, I'm with you there, adequate diet instead of getting pills of vitamin c or any other vitamins is the way to go.

I don't think I ever said that. In fact, after a look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18450228 I would say that intravenous vitamin C beats all other forms.

Oh those scientists, they look at everything . . . its almost as if they were curious about reality, whatever it happens to be, instead of looking at things in order to prove some already existing point.

Now if they only had a method that gave them any kind of a chance to find anything out about reality, said scientists would be ahead of the game.

 

[Zosimus]

This is a bit of a side track, but can you explain the distribution of fossils throughout sedimentary strata geochronologically without evolution?

Since I have never denied that the frequency of alleles can change from generation to generation, I don't see the need to do so. I am more interested in correcting logical errors in arguments than in adjudicating between the various unsubstantiated and faith-based beliefs of either side.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Is this really what you meant to say?

Yes! The Bible was inspired--not dictated. God is quoted by frail humans, but inspired does not mean dictated verbatim. I reject the Ipsa Verba doctrine. If God had written the Gospels, we would have only one version: the official one dictated by God himself; we have four!

 

[Nic Samojluk]

What they do is to list specific problems that can be encounter with radiometric dating. This of course is true.

Thanks! This is the reason I quoted this source. Next time I will use an evolutionary source.

 

[crjmurray]

Since I have never denied that the frequency of alleles can change from generation to generation, I don't see the need to do so. I am more interested in correcting logical errors in arguments than in adjudicating between the various unsubstantiated and faith-based beliefs of either side.

It's a fair question that Rick asked. You disagree with evolution and it has nothing to do with that logical fallacy nonsense. So if the TOE isn't sufficient to explain the biological diversity we see today then what explanation do YOU have? This isn't a case of "if you don't have a better explanation then the TOE must be correct". It's just a question on what explanation YOU have.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes! The Bible was inspired--not dictated. God is quoted by frail humans, but inspired does not mean dictated verbatim. I reject the Ipsa Verba doctrine. If God had written the Gospels, we would have only one version; we have four!

Actually, you only have two versions. As Matthew and Luke are direct copies of Mark, with John being another account.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I'm an atheist!

This remind me of what happened when Dawkins attempted to defend evolution as true science:

Dawkins Trys To Defend The Assumptions Of Evolution As Science

https://youtu.be/loW8g-wEjg

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, you only have two versions. As Matthew and Luke are direct copies of Mark, with John being another account.

Funny ...

I see neither Mary's genealogy, nor Joseph's, in Mark.

 

[HitchSlap]

This remind me of what happened when Dawkins attempted to defend evolution as true science:

Dawkins Trys To Defend The Assumptions Of Evolution As Science

https://youtu.be/loW8g-wEjg

 

[HitchSlap]

Funny ...

I see neither Mary's genealogy, nor Joseph's, in Mark.

Ah, I see you're unaware then. M/L copied Mark, then added stuff.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This remind me of what happened when Dawkins attempted to defend evolution as true science:

Dawkins Trys To Defend The Assumptions Of Evolution As Science

https://youtu.be/loW8g-wEjg

Yes, Bill looked amazingly ignorant. Did you have a point there?

 

[crjmurray]

This remind me of what happened when Dawkins attempted to defend evolution as true science:

Dawkins Trys To Defend The Assumptions Of Evolution As Science

https://youtu.be/loW8g-wEjg

Yeah that video totally shows Dawkins wrong and doesn't make O'Reilly look like a moron at all.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Actually, you only have two versions. As Matthew and Luke are direct copies of Mark, with John being another account.

So why is Matthew longer than Mark? And Luke is not an exact copy of Mark. Nevertheless, my argument that we have more than one version stands. This means that God did not dictate the content of the Bible, but simply inspired them to record for posterity what they had witnessed or discovered.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, I see you're unaware then. M/L copied Mark, then added stuff.

Then went to the martyr's block ... right?

The rule of thumb, for the record, is:

1. Where Matthew & Mark are synoptic, Luke is unique.
2. Where Matthew & Luke are synoptic, Mark is unique.
3. Where Mark & Luke are synoptic, Matthew is unique.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then went to the martyr's block ... right?

The rule of thumb, for the record, is:

1. Where Matthew & Mark are synoptic, Luke is unique.
2. Where Matthew & Luke are synoptic, Mark is unique.
3. Where Mark & Luke are synoptic, Matthew is unique.

Yeah, there's no evidence for that either.

And your "rule of thumb" is ad hoc explanation to keep your beliefs congruent. Check out what scholars have to say about the "synoptic" gospels.

 

[RickG]

Thanks! This is the reason I quoted this source. Next time I will use an evolutionary source.

Do you still not understand that evolution and geochronology are two completely different fields of science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then went to the martyr's block ... right?

The rule of thumb, for the record, is:

1. Where Matthew & Mark are synoptic, Luke is unique.
2. Where Matthew & Luke are synoptic, Mark is unique.
3. Where Mark & Luke are synoptic, Matthew is unique.

Um no. At least we don't know if the authors of those various gospels died on the "martyr's block". Why would you think that they did? And people that are wrong die quite often for their religion. All religions have martyrs and at the most only one can be right. That demonstrates that martyrdom does not prove anything.