proving evolution as just a "theory"

[AV1611VET]

I provided biblical evidence in support of your statement that the Ark and the Flood were miraculous events.

In that case, I apologize.

I must have misunderstood you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What fossils?

There were no fossils in Genesis 1.

Fossils? I don't see no fossils!

That's the best you can do? You imply that the rocks started out "old" but when I ask you about the fossils they contain you appear to deny them?

I am sorry, but the presence of fossils in a sequence in the old rocks was known by creationists before darwin.

It will do no good to pretend they are not there.

 

[AV1611VET]

It will do no good to pretend they are not there.

There was no death prior to Genesis 3, so why would there be fossils in Genesis 1?

 

[doubtingmerle]

There was no death prior to Genesis 3, so why would there be fossils in Genesis 1?

Do you or do you not think that there are fossils in rocks that appear as though they are older than 10,000 years?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you or do you not think that there are fossils in rocks that appear as though they are older than 10,000 years?

No.

I believe they date the fossils by the rocks they're found in, and they date the rocks they're found in by only the methods that give them dates they are looking for.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No.

I believe they date the fossils by the rocks they're found in, and they date the rocks they're found in by only the methods that give them dates they are looking for.

A day in a library could cure you of that notion. How can so many studies with dates pass peer review with those horrible methods?

Assume for the sake of argument that no rock is over 7000 years old. Then why do we see so many fossils down there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Assume for the sake of argument that no rock is over 7000 years old. Then why do we see so many fossils down there?

The Flood?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Either that, or Noah dismantled it to build his homestead.

that'd be one heck of a palatial mansion with epic foundations that'd last a million years... where is it?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The evidence is there in northern Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat. It's the firmament or solid boundary of Adam's entire small world, which protected it from the water which was above and below it. Gen 1:7 IOW, it was totally surrounded by water and 11k years ago Adam's entire firmament, which God called "Heaven" Gen 1:8 sank in Lake Van releasing the Ark into our world.

Since it's still there, it is evidence of life from another world, where Humans (descendants of Adam) had our true origins. That's God's Truth Scripturally.

once we find it, THEN it's evidence. Until then, it's just another unfounded assertion. Why don't you talk to someone about going in to get it?

 

[AV1611VET]

that'd be one heck of a palatial mansion with epic foundations that'd last a million years... where is it?

It served its purpose and went bye-bye.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

God obviously allows chance to take place in this universe. The difference is God did not create by chance. Genesis shows he's was very deliberate in what he created. He did not create one thing (whatever that is supposed to be). And then sit back see what became of it. He created everything and many things. He created one man and one woman after everything else was created.

Well, unfortunately for you, the evidence in your God's Creation says differently. Are you sure it wasn't fallible men who wrote the bible, even if it was to divinely inspired allegory? As I said before, your God could've set it all in play deliberately and with intent, it just looks like chance to us... Do you know your God's intent better than your God? Could it be that you are a fallible human being and don't quite fathom the depths of your God's intent and ability?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It served its purpose and went bye-bye.

Convenient. So we're back to having no more evidence for a Young Earth than for any other unfounded idea then?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But you did it to me in #6045: 'So you'd have no problem presenting that evidence? The remainder of your post would seem to demonstrate that you actually have nothing and this is all bluster'.

Yes, goading is against the rules, but you don't practise what you preach.

View attachment 216700

Oz

It's not goading if it reflects reality. Your persistent claims to possess evidence and refusal to present it when asked could be construed to be goading and also looks remakably like bluster. Perhaps you should examine how you treat others before you cast aspersions.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you or do you not think that there are fossils in rocks that appear as though they are older than 10,000 years?

That didn't answer AV's question.

 

[omega2xx]

So you can't even show me where I don't understand verifiable evidence? I'm so surprised...

That is because you have not posted any.

 

[Jimmy D]

That is because you have not posted any.

Well read this and tell me why it isn't evidence for common ancestry, if you were to follow the link you will find the verifiable data that was used to reach the conclusion....

Endogenous retrovirus, an inherited retrovirus encoded in an organism's genome.

Creationists keep arguing that finding ERV's at the same place in the genomes of different species is not evidence for common ancestry since retroviruses would insert into the same places. What they forget is that the theory of evolution also predicts which ERV's will be found at different places in each genome, something their claims can not do.

Here are the two positions under question:

1. Common ancestry.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base.

As it happens, there are ERV's that we can use to test these hypotheses. In chimps and gorillas we find multiple insertions from the PtERV family of retroviruses. Interestingly, insertions from that retrovirus are NOT found in humans and orangutans. Our two different positions make two different testable hypotheses in this situation.

1. Common ancestry. Since these insertions are not found in the human or orangutan genome, then these insertions must have happened after the chimp lineage split off from the human lineage. If they occurred before this point then they would be found in the human genome. If they occurred at the root of the ape tree, then they would also be found in the orangutan genome. Since they are only found in the chimp and gorilla genomes, this means that they had to occur independently in each species. Therefore, PtERV insertions in the chimp and gorilla genomes should NOT be found at the same location in the chimp and gorilla genomes.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base. If the specificity of retroviral insertion causes ERV's to occur at the same position 99.9% of the time (the rate needed to produce the shared ERV's between the human and chimp genomes), then we should find PtERV insertions at the same location in both the chimp and gorilla genomes.

As you can see, the two positions make the exact opposite prediction. Here is the data:

"Within the limits of this BAC-based end-sequencing mapping approach, 24 sites mapped to similar regions of the human reference genome (approximately 160 kb) and could not be definitively resolved as orthologous or non-orthologous (Table S3). We classified these as “ambiguous” overlap loci (Figure 3). If all 24 locations corresponded to insertions that were orthologous for each pair, this would correspond to a maximum of 12 orthologous loci. The number of non-orthologous loci was calculated as 275/287 (275 + 12) or 95.8%. This is almost certainly a lower-bound estimate owing to the limitation of our BAC-based mapping approach to refine the precise locations of the insertions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

The limits of the BAC-based method allow you to determine if two insertions are within about 100k to 200k base pairs of each other. Of the 287 PtERV insertions, 95.8% were not even within hundreds of thousands of base pairs of each other. Already, the independent insertion hypothesis is entirely busted. The authors of the paper then looked at existing genome sequencing to determine if the ones that were close to each other were actually at the same base. They couldn't find a single unambiguous orthologous PtERV shared by chimps and gorillas.

The common ancestor hypothesis is completely supported. The independent insertion hypothesis is thoroughly falsified.

(Thanks Loudmouth, who originally posted this)

....................................................

If you don't understand what is being discussed no problem, but please don't pretend no evidence being presented.

 

[omega2xx]

But none of that is evidence from the scientific standpoint. Creationism is not science; it rests on an entirely different epistemological basis than science. Even if creationists were right about our origins and scientists wrong, it still wouldn't be science.

"After their kind" is science, and it can't be falsified. We see that truth verified by being repeated and observed thousands of times every day, and that refutes the TOE.

Man has never observed a change of species.

 

[Jimmy D]

"After their kind" is science, and it can't be falsified. We see that truth verified by being repeated and observed thousands of times every day, and that refutes the TOE.

Man has never observed a change of species.

What's a "kind"?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That is because you have not posted any.

Righto, Well, I'm going to side with the scientific community, all of whom have trained a great many years in their respective fields to know the subject matter thoroughly before going on to contribute further applicable and useful science to humanity, and leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

I hope you don't think denying the evidence will magically make your side right, or something? That's just not how it works.

 

[xianghua]

I already answered it. If there is something you didn't understand in my response, then I'll be happy to elaborate.

where is the limit of pushing a creature back in time? by pushing it 40my? 50?