Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm trying to shorten the quote but still keep enough to build on. Besides naming closely related breeds with several names, many different size reptiles with different names are actually baby, juvenile and adult dinosaurs of the same type. This could actually explain some on the chart you had here.

"not everyone agrees with all of his hypotheses, especially his startling contention that Torosaurus, a horned dinosaur with a large frill, is really an adult Triceratops."
http://scienceline.org/2012/02/one-dinosaur-too-many/​

Oh more than likely - that's why I included the video of that very subject. Undoubtedly some are merely babies and adults of the same species.


Which just goes to show if they can't even get babies and adults of the same species correct, we sure know they didn't get anything else correct - being as how they ignored how all life on this planet propagates when they classified them. As their own evolutionist supporter admitted - they were just too busy trying to get their names in the books because of ego's, to do any actual science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Microevolution is just another name for adaptation, variation within a kind. You see this everywhere, such as breeds of dogs, types of cattle or sheep. No matter how long you breed them, you will get dogs, cattle and sheep. When you get something else, that would be macroevolution; aka when pigs fly.

Best be careful, they might decide to claim cows are half-way there already.

Flying pigs are just a mutation away.

But yes, they have a tendency to ignore that Asian remains Asian, African an African, and only when the two mate does an Afro-Asian come into the record - with no transitional forms between them.

Although the photo above is a prime example of mutation at work - errors in the transcription process that merely cause deformity.

 

[pat34lee]

The horse charts were never shown to be a fraud. You are listening to dishonest people.

And no, the ages are not guesswork. Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Simple deduction. Do you know how radiometric dating works? How it is supposed to work, anyway?

You measure the sample for the presence of isotopes 1 and 2. (different isotopes for different methods) The ratio of i1:i2 is supposed to show how much time has elapsed since the sample was made.

Problems:
A) For it to work, the sample must begin with 100% isotope 1 and no isotope 2.
B) Over time, neither isotope can enter or leave the sample.
C) The rate at which i1 degrades into i2 cannot have changed.

There is no way to prove any of the three.

C has actually been shown to change.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Simple deduction. Do you know how radiometric dating works? How it is supposed to work, anyway?

You measure the sample for the presence of isotopes 1 and 2. (different isotopes for different methods) The ratio of i1:i2 is supposed to show how much time has elapsed since the sample was made.

Problems:
A) For it to work, the sample must begin with 100% isotope 1 and no isotope 2.
B) Over time, neither isotope can enter or leave the sample.
C) The rate at which i1 degrades into i2 cannot have changed.

There is no way to prove any of the three.

C has actually been shown to change.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

Don't forget those cosmic rays - changing the ratio of C14 as well.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_cosmicrays/
"Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age."

 

[pat34lee]

Don't forget those cosmic rays - changing the ratio of C14 as well.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_cosmicrays/
"Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age."

The people who believe in evolution don't understand one simple fact. The problem with evolution is that every part of the naturalistic explanation is impossible, from the big bang forward. They are left with just-so stories of how things 'could have' happened.

 

[bhsmte]

The people who believe in evolution don't understand one simple fact. The problem with evolution is that every part of the naturalistic explanation is impossible, from the big bang forward. They are left with just-so stories of how things 'could have' happened.

I didn't know the big bang was part of evolution. Maybe you should submit a paper on that.

 

[justlookinla]

The people who believe in evolution don't understand one simple fact. The problem with evolution is that every part of the naturalistic explanation is impossible, from the big bang forward. They are left with just-so stories of how things 'could have' happened.

It's certainly not science.

 

[The Cadet]

How do you prove that primates and man (any two animals of different kinds for that matter) ever had a common ancestor?

Inference based on genetic data, ERVs, chromosome fusion, and the like. There is no other scientific explanation that provides a viable mechanism for the nested hierarchy of genetic changes, ERV insertion sites, or morphological changes.

There is more evidence for common design than common ancestry.

Of course there is, "common design" could fit literally any dataset. There is not a single occurrence in biology that could not be explained by a "designer". Or can you name some entity in biology that an "intelligent designer" could not create? It's like if I said "God did it" has more evidence than gravity - because "God did it" can account for literally everything, and as a result, accounts for nothing. It makes no testable predictions because it could not be wrong, and is therefore not science and not useful.

 

[pat34lee]

I didn't know the big bang was part of evolution. Maybe you should submit a paper on that.

Maybe you should contribute something besides what laughingly seems to be sarcasm? You don't do it very well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah right. Here is someone who take out the evolution assumptions and the evidence still make sense.

"It's long been known that DNA from so-called retroviruses make up around 5 percent of our genetic makeup.

But for years, this was dubbed junk DNA with no real use, and was considered to be a side effect of evolution -- until now.

New research suggests that, over the course of evolution, the viruses took an 'increasingly firm hold' on how cells work, and they may have made brain cells in particular more active and dynamic, ultimately making us smarter.

In particular, the study from Lund University in Sweden claims that inherited viruses, which are millions of years old, play an important role in building up the complex networks that characterise our brains."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...irus-genes-DNA-helped-brain-cells-evolve.html

Retroviruses made us smarter? They have to be joking.

Common sense version :

"It's long been known that DNA from so-called retroviruses make up around 5 percent of our genetic makeup.

For years, this was dubbed junk DNA with no real use, and was considered to be a side effect of evolution -- until now.

New research suggests that, over the course of evolution, the what we once thought were viruses and a form or parasitic, junk DNA took an 'increasingly firm hold' on how cells work, and they may have made are actually important genetic elements that play a vital role in making brain cells in particular more active and dynamic, ultimately making us smarter.

In particular, the study from Lund University in Sweden claims that what we once thought were mere inherited viruses, which are millions of years old, are actually normal DNA sequences that play an important role in building up the complex networks that characterise our brains."

The evidence doesn't need evolution

I am so sorry that you can't understand a concept that is not that hard to understand. And I see that you are still clutching at straws. PROJECT Encode hyped their work. Even at best over 90% of our genome is still junk:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/how-much-of-human-dna-is-doing-something/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple deduction. Do you know how radiometric dating works? How it is supposed to work, anyway?

You measure the sample for the presence of isotopes 1 and 2. (different isotopes for different methods) The ratio of i1:i2 is supposed to show how much time has elapsed since the sample was made.

Problems:
A) For it to work, the sample must begin with 100% isotope 1 and no isotope 2.

Not necessarily, but there are tests where we know that is the case.

B) Over time, neither isotope can enter or leave the sample.

And if the sample shows no sign of erosion or metamorphosis that is quite reasonable. Also it there is metamorphosis there are methods that not only give the original age, but the time of the metamorphic event.

C) The rate at which i1 degrades into i2 cannot have changed.

And that is a very very reasonable conclusion. In fact creationists cannot show how they would have changed in any way at all.

There is no way to prove any of the three.

C has actually been shown to change.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

Wrong, that study has since been refuted, and the amount of change was very very small even if it happened. It would not have made a significant change in the dates from radiometric dating. You need to try again.

 

[pat34lee]

Inference based on genetic data, ERVs, chromosome fusion, and the like. There is no other scientific explanation that provides a viable mechanism for the nested hierarchy of genetic changes, ERV insertion sites, or morphological changes.

Wrong. They have been pushing this since long before there was DNA testing or any proof whatsoever. Evolution is nothing more than an attempt to use science to replace God as creator so they can deny him as judge.

Of course there is, "common design" could fit literally any dataset. There is not a single occurrence in biology that could not be explained by a "designer". Or can you name some entity in biology that an "intelligent designer" could not create? It's like if I said "God did it" has more evidence than gravity - because "God did it" can account for literally everything, and as a result, accounts for nothing. It makes no testable predictions because it could not be wrong, and is therefore not science and not useful.

Wrong again. Let's talk about eyes for a minute. By one count, eyes had to evolve at least a dozen or two times individually of each other. Forgetting the impossibility of them even evolving once, why did they evolve in pairs EVERY TIME? Some animals should have been happy with one. Some might have wanted eyes in the back of the head for extra protection from predators. This is not about mutants. We have one nose, one mouth. Why two eyes or two ears for that matter? Why not six legs, like the creatures on Avatar?

Common design says why. The same reason all life is carbon based. The same reason it takes only four letters to make all DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. They have been pushing this since long before there was DNA testing or any proof whatsoever. Evolution is nothing more than an attempt to use science to replace God as creator so they can deny him as judge.

And your evidence for this claim is ... ?

Creationist make foolish claims like this all of the time. They never can back them up.

Wrong again. Let's talk about eyes for a minute. By one count, eyes had to evolve at least a dozen or two times individually of each other. Forgetting the impossibility of them even evolving once, why did they evolve in pairs EVERY TIME? Some animals should have been happy with one. Some might have wanted eyes in the back of the head for extra protection from predators. This is not about mutants. We have one nose, one mouth. Why two eyes or two ears for that matter? Why not six legs, like the creatures on Avatar?

They don't always evolve in pairs. Spiders, for example, have eight eyes. Now you may try to claim that those are "four pairs". Fine, how about starfish? Do they have two and a half pairs of eyes?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ea-star-eyes-coral-reef-ocean-animal-science/

Common design says why. The same reason all life is carbon based. The same reason it takes only four letters to make all DNA.

"Common design" does not explain the nested hierarchy of DNA, of ERV's, and several other hierarchies. And to argue with you I would need to know what you believe. Are you a YEC? An OEC? How much do you think that species can evolve?

 

[pat34lee]

I am so sorry that you can't understand a concept that is not that hard to understand. And I see that you are still clutching at straws. PROJECT Encode hyped their work. Even at best over 90% of our genome is still junk:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/how-much-of-human-dna-is-doing-something/

I don't think so. Every time science throws up junk or vestigial, they are saying we don't know and we don't want to look. The only reason they have fictional 'junk' DNA is to hide the "millions of years of accumulated mutation garbage" that must be there in order for the TOE to work.

"As scientists delved into the “junk” — parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins — they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed. The result of the work is an annotated road map of much of this DNA, noting what it is doing and how. It includes the system of switches that, acting like dimmer switches for lights, control which genes are used in a cell and when they are used, and determine, for instance, whether a cell becomes a liver cell or a neuron."
http://thespiritscience.net/2015/01/22/junk-dna-is-not-junk/​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think so. Every time science throws up junk or vestigial, they are saying we don't know and we don't want to look. The only reason they have fictional 'junk' DNA is to hide the "millions of years of accumulated mutation garbage" that must be there in order for the TOE to work.

"As scientists delved into the “junk” — parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins — they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed. The result of the work is an annotated road map of much of this DNA, noting what it is doing and how. It includes the system of switches that, acting like dimmer switches for lights, control which genes are used in a cell and when they are used, and determine, for instance, whether a cell becomes a liver cell or a neuron."
http://thespiritscience.net/2015/01/22/junk-dna-is-not-junk/​

Read the article I linked. The ENCODE Project hyped their claims. They used a very very loose definition of "functional". You are merely grasping at straws.

And you do not seem to know what vestigial organs are. The appendix is still vestigial. Vestigial does not mean "useless".

 

[pat34lee]

And your evidence for this claim is ... ?

Creationist make foolish claims like this all of the time. They never can back them up.

Evolutionists make dumb statements like that about me. They learn better rather quickly, though they rarely admit it.

Read: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/secular-humanism.htm

"Common design" does not explain the nested hierarchy of DNA, of ERV's, and several other hierarchies. And to argue with you I would need to know what you believe. Are you a YEC? An OEC? How much do you think that species can evolve?

I am a YEC. The earth was created about six thousand years old and the flood happened about four thousand years ago. Creatures were given a broad ability to adapt to changing conditions, as dog breeds show. They are limited to the original kind though. No dog will ever become something else. You can push genetic changes only so far before sterility or death.

Gotta run for now, but I'll ask the same for next time. What do you believe?

 

[The Cadet]

Wrong. They have been pushing this since long before there was DNA testing or any proof whatsoever.

Comparative anatomy is the key here. In the past, attempts to classify creatures were considerably more rudimentary, I will freely admit, but they still got so much so right that it's kind of astounding.

Evolution is nothing more than an attempt to use science to replace God as creator so they can deny him as judge

Just to name two prominent examples: Francis Collins and Ken Miller are both devout Christians and staunch advocates of evolution. As recently as 2005, more than half of biologists believed in god. There is no inherent divide between evolution and god, only between evolution and a literalist interpretation of the bible.

1Let's talk about eyes for a minute. By one count, eyes had to evolve at least a dozen or two times individually of each other. Forgetting the impossibility of them even evolving once, why did they evolve in pairs EVERY TIME? Some animals should have been happy with one. Some might have wanted eyes in the back of the head for extra protection from predators. This is not about mutants. We have one nose, one mouth. Why two eyes or two ears for that matter? Why not six legs, like the creatures on Avatar?

Common design says why. The same reason all life is carbon based. The same reason it takes only four letters to make all DNA.

And yet, you completely miss the point. Could your "common designer" create a creature with one eye? Or a mammal that isn't bilaterally symmetrical? Could your common designer create a creature whose DNA has a fifth and sixth nucleotide base?

I don't think so. Every time science throws up junk or vestigial, they are saying we don't know and we don't want to look. The only reason they have fictional 'junk' DNA is to hide the "millions of years of accumulated mutation garbage" that must be there in order for the TOE to work.

"As scientists delved into the “junk” — parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins — they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed. The result of the work is an annotated road map of much of this DNA, noting what it is doing and how. It includes the system of switches that, acting like dimmer switches for lights, control which genes are used in a cell and when they are used, and determine, for instance, whether a cell becomes a liver cell or a neuron."
http://thespiritscience.net/2015/01/22/junk-dna-is-not-junk/​

...Dude, are you seriously citing the space jews guy as a source? I usually at least try to engage with a source, but my "gives a crap" jar for Spirit Science has been empty since I watched his History movie, took a drink every time he said something baseless and absurd, and ended up in the hospital in need of a new liver.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists make dumb statements like that about me. They learn better rather quickly, though they rarely admit it.

Read: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/secular-humanism.htm

Not too convincing, that was made by dishonest creationists. Please note that under creation they mentioned the nonexistent "creation science". In the real world those people are jokes at best.

I am a YEC. The earth was created about six thousand years old and the flood happened about four thousand years ago. Creatures were given a broad ability to adapt to changing conditions, as dog breeds show. They are limited to the original kind though. No dog will ever become something else. You can push genetic changes only so far before sterility or death.

Gotta run for now, but I'll ask the same for next time. What do you believe?

Sorry to believe that you either have to be almost totally ignorant of science or believe in a God that lies. I am assuming that you do not believe in a God that lies.

 

[bhsmte]

Wrong. They have been pushing this since long before there was DNA testing or any proof whatsoever. Evolution is nothing more than an attempt to use science to replace God as creator so they can deny him as judge.



Wrong again. Let's talk about eyes for a minute. By one count, eyes had to evolve at least a dozen or two times individually of each other. Forgetting the impossibility of them even evolving once, why did they evolve in pairs EVERY TIME? Some animals should have been happy with one. Some might have wanted eyes in the back of the head for extra protection from predators. This is not about mutants. We have one nose, one mouth. Why two eyes or two ears for that matter? Why not six legs, like the creatures on Avatar?

Common design says why. The same reason all life is carbon based. The same reason it takes only four letters to make all DNA.

If evolution is just an attempt to replace God as you claim, why do many more Christians agree with evolution vs non believers?

 

[Jan Volkes]

I am a YEC. The earth was created about six thousand years old and the flood happened about four thousand years ago.

Is this what Americans call "Free Speech"? I don't think so because speech like this has a huge price tag attached.