Radioactive dating

[Subduction Zone]

That shows cladistics is religion,

How so? How can you support your claim? Of course we all know that you can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your so called "challenge" threads are only good for a laugh, and that is just the first time that one sees one. Your jokes get extremely stale over time.

Ignoring them will not help you understand why there is no evidence for a creatio ex nihilo earth on Day One.

 

[dad]

How so? How can you support your claim? Of course we all know that you can't.

"
Assumptions
There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:

1. Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.
The assumption that characteristics of organisms change over time is the most important one in cladistics. It is only when characteristics change that we are able to recognize different lineages or groups. We call the "original" state of the characteristic plesiomorphic and the "changed" state apomorphic.




2. Any group of organisms is related by descent from a common ancestor.
This assumption is supported by many lines of evidence and essentially means that all life on Earth today is related and shares a common ancestor. Because of this, we can take any collection of organisms and hypothesize a meaningful pattern of relationships, provided we have the right kind of information.

3. There is a bifurcating, or branching, pattern of lineage-splitting.
This assumption suggests that when a lineage splits, it divides into exactly two groups. There are some situations that violate this assumption. For example, many biologists accept the idea that multiple new lineages have arisen from a single originating population at the same time, or near enough in time to be indistinguishable from such an event (as in the case of the cichlid fish described previously). The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups, which occurs at least occasionally in some groups (like plants). While such exceptions may exist, for many groups they are relatively rare and so this assumption often holds true.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_05

So, 1) Change over time depends on the state that exists. That determines how much time was involved or needed. We also need to know what started out to begin with...i.e. kinds...
We also need to know what life existed, and to depend on a foolish fossil record is utterly hopelessly inadequate to do so.If the nature was different then most life on earth may not have been able to fossilize at all. Everything depends on the nature. Cladistics is a same state past based godless pipe dream, devoid of truth.

2) To be related by a common ancestor means a same state past and present genetics having existed. You are way out of your depth.

 

[dad]

Your so called "challenge" threads are only good for a laugh, and that is just the first time that one sees one. Your jokes get extremely stale over time.

Sour grapes?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. One could say that of any foolish belief.

Then what in the world do you mean by the word "evidence"? What does that word mean to you?

For the rest of the sane world, evidence means observations consistent with what we would expect to see if a statement is true. What does the word mean to you?

 

[dad]

Then what in the world do you mean by the word "evidence"? What does that word mean to you

Let's bring it down for you. If you claimed to have a popsicle you would provide evidence by handing the cold sweet thing on a stick to your little friend.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's bring it down for you. If you claimed to have a popsicle you would provide evidence by handing the cold sweet thing on a stick to your little friend.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

 

[dad]

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

I don't believe there was what we know as dna in Noah's day. Can you prove the state and laws were the same, so that the dna would be too? Hoo ha

 

[JackRT]

It's a product of time and decay, both of which may not have been part of the original creation.
Science offers no "Proofs", but math does. 0 plus 1 = a new number.
0 plus 0 will remain 0.
So according to math, a Creator exists.

You have just demonstrated that you understand neither mathematics or the concept of "proof".

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't believe there was what we know as dna in Noah's day. Can you prove the state and laws were the same, so that the dna would be too? Hoo ha

Answer the questions.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

 

[dad]

You have just demonstrated that you understand neither mathematics or the concept of "proof".

What was his mistake, then, the 1 or the 0?

 

[dad]

Answer the questions.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

Noah had dna like us? Proof? Otherwise you are off topic as well as hooped.

 

[Loudmouth]

Noah had dna like us? Proof? Otherwise you are off topic as well as hooped.

Nowhere is Noah mentioned in the question. We are talking about a murder trial since the invention of DNA fingerprinting in the 1980's.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

 

[dad]

Nowhere is Noah mentioned in the question. We are talking about a murder trial since the invention of DNA fingerprinting in the 1980's.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

That depends if the suspect was in Noah's day. If so....obviously not. If the guy lived in the last 4500 years...yes. providing your dates were verifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

That depends if the suspect was in Noah's day. If so....obviously not. If the guy lived in the last 4500 years...yes. providing your dates were verifiable.

Nowhere is Noah mentioned in the question. We are talking about a murder trial since the invention of DNA fingerprinting in the 1980's.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

 

[dad]

Nowhere is Noah mentioned in the question. We are talking about a murder trial since the invention of DNA fingerprinting in the 1980's.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

Don't be obsessive now. Try to focus on the vast time disparity between creation and the modern era, where your little court parable attempt would be.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't be obsessive now. Try to focus on the vast time disparity between creation and the modern era, where your little court parable attempt would be.

Nowhere is Noah mentioned in the question. We are talking about a murder trial since the invention of DNA fingerprinting in the 1980's.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

 

[dad]

Nowhere is Noah mentioned in the question. We are talking about a murder trial since the invention of DNA fingerprinting in the 1980's.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

So you would not accept DNA evidence in a murder case if no one was there to watch the suspect leave the DNA at the crime scene? Is eye-witness evidence the only evidence you will accept?

What has modern fingerprints or other evidenves got to do with a time and people you have no dna or prints from?

 

[Loudmouth]

What has modern fingerprints or other evidenves got to do with a time and people you have no dna or prints from?

What do you mean by "evidence"? What does that word mean to you?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sorry. Sea shells on top of the mountains with fossils of land animals below them tells me there was a flood. You must be mistaken.

I never heard of floods laying down sea shells. When does that happen?