Richard Dawkins disappoints again

[NobleMouse]

Mississippi River - Information and History - Four Rivers Realty

This website indicates that the river is 10,000 years old. 4,000 years older than many young earthers seem to believe. What numbers are you using?

Hi K-BIF, hope things are going well with you brother. A number of YEC's within the scientific community accept a range up to and including 10,000 +/- years as allowance for the possibility of generations being omitted from the genealogy between Adam and Christ. Being an adherent to the YEC view, I personally don't believe I can lay claim that there is a definitive/exact age for the earth, but would expect somewhere in that 6-10k years based upon what is given in the Bible.

 

[NobleMouse]

I have been searching for evolutionists to back up their claim that time is all that is needed for the required mutations and gene copying errors to appear based on the probability that such a thing could occur. But all I read is their complaints against the way young earth creationists calculate the probabilities. They themselves assume it was likely to happen the way it did because it happened. But they ignore the possibility of young earth creationism, presumably, because of their assumption of materialism.

Agreed brother. In seeking the truth about our origins there is special revelation and general revelation - that's it. Special revelation comes from God's word as inspired by the Holy Spirit. General revelation comes from what is observed. Obviously, science only operates in the realm of research, testing, observation, etc... and when general revelation contradicts special revelation, as in the case of billions-of-years evolution, I'm going to side with what is told in God's word (special revelation). Especially in this case where the assertion is that all the forms of life that exist today is something that happened millions of years ago (ie. not observed).

That aside, the biblical model of creation more than adequately supports all the things observed today (whether in nature or the lab), as well as the events of the past. God bless you for your faith!

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice that the video doesn't give a biblical age for the Earth. It explains how some people revised scripture to make it appear so.

 

[NobleMouse]

Thank you for sharing this video! I noticed that Dr. Rob Carter made the statement at approx. 5:10 in, that the purpose for the discussion was not to calculate an exact age of the earth, but to come up with a worst case scenario... an oldest possible age for the earth, then at approximately 23:00 presented these ages (BC) based solely off of scripture (not assuming missing lineages, not altering the meaning of scripture on the basis of scientific assumptions) and was done off of the Masoretic (Hebrew) text, the Sumeritan text, and the Pentateuch (Greek) text.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi K-BIF, hope things are going well with you brother. A number of YEC's within the scientific community accept a range up to and including 10,000 +/- years as allowance for the possibility of generations being omitted from the genealogy between Adam and Christ. Being an adherent to the YEC view, I personally don't believe I can lay claim that there is a definitive/exact age for the earth, but would expect somewhere in that 6-10k years based upon what is given in the Bible.

What is the justification for there being omitted names in genealogies? And why would there be a limitation to the number of omitted names?

 

[4x4toy]

What is the justification for there being omitted names in genealogies? And why would there be a limitation to the number of omitted names?

Matthew and Luke genealogies are different because one is through his mother and the other is through his legal but not biological father Joseph back to King David ..

 

[dcalling]

I'm afraid that you are just unfamiliar with geomorphology dcalling. I'll have to let ya go now.

You posted the video explain how the river turns, but that naritive does not fit with rocks at all... You can either post another one or explain how rocks can grow

 

[dcalling]

I can see why this is confusing for you. Old rivers meander slowly on level plains. Young rivers rush downhill, cutting into rock, and have relatively straight courses.

An old, meandering river, being uplifted, speeds up and becomes trapped in the existing meanders, and can only cut more and more deeply into it's bed. That's why we see the deep v-shaped valleys of such rivers, along with the meanders of older rivers.

Does that help?

I think you mis-understand what I meant. Have you seen Kubto's video explain how rivers zigzags over time? which requires deposits to form on one side to keep pushing in. But when it is on rocks, rocks can't grow...

 

[dcalling]

Of course they can happen. As you learned, any part of DNA can mutate. I even showed you that there are other known mutatins of this gene complex.

A nonsense mutation in the HOXD13 gene underlies synpolydactyly with incomplete penetrance
J Hum Genet. 2011 Oct; 56(10): 701–706.

Which does to a human what it does to whales. Whales have several mutations here that result in polydactyly and failure of fingers to separate.

Based on fossils of icthyosaurs, and the genes of existing aquatic diapsids it appears that a slightly different number of mutations to this site did the same thing to them.

American Journal of Medical Genetics
From fins to limbs to fins: Limb evolution in fossil marine reptiles
Abstract

Limb osteology and ontogenetic patterns of limb ossification are reviewed for extinct lineages of aquatically adapted diapsid reptiles. Phylogenies including these fossil taxa show that paddle‐like limbs were independently derived, and that the varied limb morphologies were produced by evolutionary modifications to different aspects of the limb skeleton. Ancient marine reptiles modify the limb by reducing the relative size of the epipodials, modifying the perichondral and periosteal surface of elements distal to the propodials, and evolving extremes of hyperphalangy and hyperdactyly. Developmental genetic models illuminate gene systems that may have controlled limb evolution in these animals. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.


Perhaps you mean something else, and don't know how to ask about it?

All that are just assumptions. I am just picking one example out of it. In your first article, it said "Cetaceans and their common ancestor had two more alanines in this sequence than all the other mammals examined", has any one found a repeatable verifiable tests that show the above claim can happen in nature?

i.e. I don't want something about saw something similar and something must happened. I want tests, that shows one of the assumptions, i.e. the above alanine in sequence, how did that happen? You just assumed it mutated, but no test shows the actual mutation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Of course they can happen. As you learned, any part of DNA can mutate. I even showed you that there are other known mutatins of this gene complex.

A nonsense mutation in the HOXD13 gene underlies synpolydactyly with incomplete penetrance
J Hum Genet. 2011 Oct; 56(10): 701–706.

Which does to a human what it does to whales. Whales have several mutations here that result in polydactyly and failure of fingers to separate.

Based on fossils of icthyosaurs, and the genes of existing aquatic diapsids it appears that a slightly different number of mutations to this site did the same thing to them.

American Journal of Medical Genetics
From fins to limbs to fins: Limb evolution in fossil marine reptiles
Abstract

Limb osteology and ontogenetic patterns of limb ossification are reviewed for extinct lineages of aquatically adapted diapsid reptiles. Phylogenies including these fossil taxa show that paddle‐like limbs were independently derived, and that the varied limb morphologies were produced by evolutionary modifications to different aspects of the limb skeleton. Ancient marine reptiles modify the limb by reducing the relative size of the epipodials, modifying the perichondral and periosteal surface of elements distal to the propodials, and evolving extremes of hyperphalangy and hyperdactyly. Developmental genetic models illuminate gene systems that may have controlled limb evolution in these animals. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Perhaps you mean something else, and don't know how to ask about it?

All that are just assumptions.

Perhaps you don't know what "assumptions" means. Those are evidence, not assumptions. The evidence shows support for the conclusion that mutations in these homobox genes was responsible for key changes in the morphology of cetaceans.

I am just picking one example out of it. In your first article, it said "Cetaceans and their common ancestor had two more alanines in this sequence than all the other mammals examined", has any one found a repeatable verifiable tests that show the above claim can happen in nature?

Yes. It's observed that all cetaceans have this. It's just a matter of fact. It happens that all of them have the same sequence. But they all had a common ancestor. Would you like to learn how we know that?

Notice that similar mutations occasionally happen to non-cetaceans. If they happened to the right aquatic organism, they would likely be advantageous and thereby be preserved as a basis for further adaptation. But mutations don't happen according to need. They arrive randomly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Matthew and Luke genealogies are different because one is through his mother and the other is through his legal but not biological father Joseph back to King David ..

That's not what it says. Have you read them?

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you mis-understand what I meant. Have you seen Kubto's video explain how rivers zigzags over time? which requires deposits to form on one side to keep pushing in. But when it is on rocks, rocks can't grow...

Rocks do not grow, however deposited sediments do cement together, thereby forming rock. And these hardened deposits are seen in the grand canyon today as rocks, not loose sediments as they once were. Sediment of the present time is visible in point bars and deltas. Deposits of the past are now stone.

At the end of the day, a meander is a meander. It's a feature of sinious flowing rivers with relatively low flow velocities. And there really is no way around this. It is what it is.

 

[NobleMouse]

What is the justification for there being omitted names in genealogies? And why would there be a limitation to the number of omitted names?

Justification
That I'm not 100% sure; however, have come across commentary talking about an effect found in scripture sometimes called "telescoping genealogies" where in the Bible we know, for example, Abraham was the father of Isaac and Isaac the father of Jacob; however, in the Hebrew text we may find Abraham identified as the 'father' of Jacob as in Genesis 28:13. This, I suspect, may be one of the reasons for extending the lineages beyond what is written.

Limitation
When this occurs and direct descendants are corroborated elsewhere in the Bible, we don't see evidence that, say 50 generations are skipped - it is very limited... and so biblical scholars tend to not extend this to imply vast gaps or long periods of time between the generations given. So for me, I think 10,000 years is being very generous in assuming many gaps; whereas if we go off of what is actually written then somewhere around 6,000 - 7,500 years may be more fitting depending whether going off of Masoretic, Sumeritan, or Septuagent text.

 

[Job 33:6]

Justification
That I'm not 100% sure; however, have come across commentary talking about an effect found in scripture sometimes called "telescoping genealogies" where in the Bible we know, for example, Abraham was the father of Isaac and Isaac the father of Jacob; however, in the Hebrew text we may find Abraham identified as the 'father' of Jacob as in Genesis 28:13. This, I suspect, may be one of the reasons for extending the lineages beyond what is written.

Limitation
When this occurs and direct descendants are corroborated elsewhere in the Bible, we don't see evidence that, say 50 generations are skipped - it is very limited... and so biblical scholars tend to not extend this to imply vast gaps or long periods of time between the generations given. So for me, I think 10,000 years is being very generous in assuming many gaps; whereas if we go off of what is actually written then somewhere around 6,000 - 7,500 years may be more fitting depending whether going off of Masoretic, Sumeritan, or Septuagent text.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[dcalling]

Rocks do not grow, however deposited sediments do cement together, thereby forming rock. And these hardened deposits are seen in the grand canyon today as rocks, not loose sediments as they once were. Sediment of the present time is visible in point bars and deltas. Deposits of the past are now stone.

At the end of the day, a meander is a meander. It's a feature of sinious flowing rivers with relatively low flow velocities. And there really is no way around this. It is what it is.

I am very happy that you now understand what I was talking about.

Now look at the following picture, and tell me if the land mass in the center is deposited sediments that cemented together or is that the original rock that just got exposed:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UDP89nLll...bend-colorado-river-grand-canyon-arizona1.jpg

 

[dcalling]

Justification
That I'm not 100% sure; however, have come across commentary talking about an effect found in scripture sometimes called "telescoping genealogies" where in the Bible we know, for example, Abraham was the father of Isaac and Isaac the father of Jacob; however, in the Hebrew text we may find Abraham identified as the 'father' of Jacob as in Genesis 28:13. This, I suspect, may be one of the reasons for extending the lineages beyond what is written.

Limitation
When this occurs and direct descendants are corroborated elsewhere in the Bible, we don't see evidence that, say 50 generations are skipped - it is very limited... and so biblical scholars tend to not extend this to imply vast gaps or long periods of time between the generations given. So for me, I think 10,000 years is being very generous in assuming many gaps; whereas if we go off of what is actually written then somewhere around 6,000 - 7,500 years may be more fitting depending whether going off of Masoretic, Sumeritan, or Septuagent text.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I know about telescoping genealogies but never noticed Gen 28:13 where Abraham identified as the 'father' of Jacob. I am guessing as long as you are "off" certain branch, to God you are just as if the son of that root, even if there are many many generations (that to God 1000 years is as of one day).

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian observes:
Of course they can happen. As you learned, any part of DNA can mutate. I even showed you that there are other known mutatins of this gene complex.

A nonsense mutation in the HOXD13 gene underlies synpolydactyly with incomplete penetrance
J Hum Genet. 2011 Oct; 56(10): 701–706.

Which does to a human what it does to whales. Whales have several mutations here that result in polydactyly and failure of fingers to separate.

Based on fossils of icthyosaurs, and the genes of existing aquatic diapsids it appears that a slightly different number of mutations to this site did the same thing to them.

American Journal of Medical Genetics
From fins to limbs to fins: Limb evolution in fossil marine reptiles
Abstract

Limb osteology and ontogenetic patterns of limb ossification are reviewed for extinct lineages of aquatically adapted diapsid reptiles. Phylogenies including these fossil taxa show that paddle‐like limbs were independently derived, and that the varied limb morphologies were produced by evolutionary modifications to different aspects of the limb skeleton. Ancient marine reptiles modify the limb by reducing the relative size of the epipodials, modifying the perichondral and periosteal surface of elements distal to the propodials, and evolving extremes of hyperphalangy and hyperdactyly. Developmental genetic models illuminate gene systems that may have controlled limb evolution in these animals. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Perhaps you mean something else, and don't know how to ask about it?

After more reading it turned out you are right, it is my misunderstanding in the term alani that lead to my questions. So what you said is correct that this can indeed happen in nature.

However does it mean that whales etc is indeed mutated from some land mammals? Not necessary. Evidences of this is very easy to spot. For humans the natural selection pressure is very low, but to this day we only see few mutation features on humans (i.e. skin color, eye color etc). There is no race of humans with fused limbs even though such mutations does occur. Which strongly indicate that we are designed to certain specifications and any mutation outside of it will result in system crashes.

Perhaps you don't know what "assumptions" means. Those are evidence, not assumptions. The evidence shows support for the conclusion that mutations in these homobox genes was responsible for key changes in the morphology of cetaceans.



Yes. It's observed that all cetaceans have this. It's just a matter of fact. It happens that all of them have the same sequence. But they all had a common ancestor. Would you like to learn how we know that?

Notice that similar mutations occasionally happen to non-cetaceans. If they happened to the right aquatic organism, they would likely be advantageous and thereby be preserved as a basis for further adaptation. But mutations don't happen according to need. They arrive randomly.

Assumption/Evidence:

You assumption: Based on observed evidence (fossiles/DNA etc) you assumed that those changes can happen in natural mutation.

My assumption: Based on observed evidence (jumping fossiles, complexity of DNA) and my experience in software engineering, I assumed that God designed DNA to have certain flexiblity in mutation (error correction), but he tweaked the code to generate most of the models instead of wait for them to mutate/evolve.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am very happy that you now understand what I was talking about.

Now look at the following picture, and tell me if the land mass in the center is deposited sediments that cemented together or is that the original rock that just got exposed:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UDP89nLll...bend-colorado-river-grand-canyon-arizona1.jpg

Actually, yes, some of the rock depicted in that photograph, consist of cemented stream deposits.

The San Juan Country

See the Kayenta formation, which consists of lenticular deposits "uneven at their tops, and discontinuous within short distances".
Kayenta Formation - Wikipedia

The deposits from the Colorado river itself, are visible in the picture you have shown, if you just look at the picture, you can see point bars forming. Massive point bars are not forming, as the river is incised and its sediment is predominantly being carried down stream and deposited. The rest of the canyon however, consists in part of ancient stream deposits from historic, no longer existing streams, by which the Colorado river has found its path.

More ancient stream deposits are found in formations both above and below the kayenta formation.

Moenave Formation - Wikipedia

 

[dcalling]

To answer the question, I would say yes, the rock in the center is deposited sediment that has been cemented together. At least in part.

Maybe some part of it is, but anyone with an unbiased mind will know from the looks and the cut away surface (even the layers matches the other bank), that the core of it is the original rock, not deposited sediment, which can't grow as ordinal meander.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UDP89nLl...bend-colorado-river-grand-canyon-arizona1.jpg

 

[The Barbarian]

After more reading it turned out you are right, it is my misunderstanding in the term alani that lead to my questions. So what you said is correct that this can indeed happen in nature.

However does it mean that whales etc is indeed mutated from some land mammals? Not necessary. Evidences of this is very easy to spot. For humans the natural selection pressure is very low, but to this day we only see few mutation features on humans (i.e. skin color, eye color etc).

No, that's very wrong. There are dozens of mutations in humans for almost every gene locus. And since humans are descended from a single pair, anything more than four of those alleles came about by mutation.

There is no race of humans with fused limbs even though such mutations does occur.

There are no biological human races, since there is more genetic variation within any sort of "race" you might define, than there is between "races." However, there are many, many genetic variations in different populations. Would you like me to show you some of them?

Which strongly indicate that we are designed to certain specifications and any mutation outside of it will result in system crashes.

Lots of mutations, no population crashes. You likely have a few dozen that didn't exist in either of your parents.

You assumption

Perhaps you don't know what "assumption" means. Science works by inferences from evidence. As you know, there is abundant evidence for these mutations.