Satanic High Priest's Claim About The Origin Of Evolution

[Kale100]

No, evolution can't have possibly happened at all.

Since the molecules for life would have been immediately attached and destroyed as soon as they came into existence, evolution solves the problem by telling us the primitive Earth had a "reducing" atmosphere, with no oxygen.

However, there would have been on Ozone Layer, which means solar rays would have bombarded the Earth and immediately produced and Oxidizing Atmosphere and Ozone Layer, a "Catch 22".

No reducing atmosphere = no evolution.

Ok, if evolution couldn't have happened, which of the 3 points I outlined do you contend?
Again, you are talking about abiogenesis, NOT evolution.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Go back and read the post.

There are two versions of the Sickle Cell gene.

One version results in Sickle Cell Trait

Which one doesn't eventually result in harming humans?

When Darwin used the term Favoured 'Races' as the Origins sub-title he was referring to species generally. It's a subtle difference but one which existed in Darwin's Victorian English usage. Origin of Species does not talk about humans.

Oh, so "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" is not talk about human evolution, which we know full well was in his mind by "The Descent of Man"?

In any case, Darwin was not entirely free from the prejudices of his time but this has no bearing on his explanation of Evolution.

OB

Did you ask Darwin what he meant by "races"?

So, knowing of his prejudices, of his belief that the human race evolved by the same mechanisms as other creatures, and of his use of "favored races" - you still defend his philosophy?

Theistic evolutionists not only deny God's Word both in the Old Testament and New Testament, but they defend those who hold Satanic philosophies like racism, humanism, and atheism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, to which member are you referring?

So did you just make it up, or were you merely confused and accused me of something I never did out of that confusion? I went back and checked. I never accused anyone of hating God, much less Spurgeon. You're excused, but don't make a habit of it.

 

[The Barbarian]

I tell evolutionists there's no way there was a "Reducing Atmosphere" because that's an instant "Catch 22" and you all resort to gas light evidence. You can't rob the Earth of an Ozone Layer and expect anything but rapid creation of an Ozone Layer via split water molecules by the multiplied trillions per second.

As you learned, the presence of reduced iron deposits clearly show the presence of a reducing environment. They couldn't have happened otherwise. They just won't form in the presence of free oxygen. And more imporatant, you learned that the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. I suppose you could argue that life never appeared on Earth, which would be no less wrong than pretending that the origin of life is part of evolutionary theory. Remember, Darwin just supposed that God did the first living things.

You can't have an intact fossil record after the Earth has had 60 times the time needed to wash all the continents into the oceans every 10 million years.

You've merely assumed that the entire Earth is constantly eroded at a uniform rate and is never uplifted, overthrust or folded. And you've assumed that sediment is never added to overlay earlier strata. As you just learned, those are false assumptions. Even most creationists have abandoned that one.

Dr. Mary Sweitzer's dino bones can't possibly be millions of years old if they found intact blood cells.

They aren't "intact blood cells" nor did she say they were. But chemists show us that some organic molecules can survive for millions of years if they are in contact with a great deal of iron. Which is what RBCs contain. We don't even get hemoglobin from those remains, much less complete cells. But some heme (fragment of a hemoglobin molecule) did survive as physical chemists tell us could happen. And when it was tested, it turned out to be most like that of birds, and not as much like other reptiles, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Weak reactivity was observed against the turkey hemoglobin although the protein band was too faint to be reproduced photographically. That the antisera did not react with snake hemoglobin shows that the reactivity is specific and not artifact. This was further confirmed by the lack of reactivity between the antisera and samples of plant and sandstone that were extracted in the same manner as the bone tissues used to immunize the animals (data not shown).

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.12.6291

Ironically, what you tossed out as evidence for your assumptions, turns out to be powerful evidence for evolutionary theory.

You can't have rocks "millions of years old" there's still tons of helium atoms trying to escape into the atmosphere.

Of course you can, and do. Helium continues to migrate out of the Earth from the interior. How do you think it gets to the surface? And of course, it's continuously being produced by radioactive processes inside the Earth.

On Earth, helium is generated deep underground through the natural radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium. "It takes many, many millennia to make the helium that's here on the Earth," says Sophia Hayes, a chemist at Washington University in St. Louis. The helium seeps up through the Earth's crust and gets trapped in pockets of natural gas, where it can be extracted.

Like hydrogen, its immediate predecessor on the periodic table, helium is lightweight. But unlike hydrogen, it doesn't readily combine with other elements. So, once helium reaches the surface, it can easily escape the Earth's gravitational pull.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775554343/the-world-is-constantly-running-out-of-helium-heres-why-it-matters

Here's a suggestion; instead of galloping around, tossing out every story you can find on the net, why not pick a few that look promising, research them carefully to find out of there are obvious problems of the sort I'm showing you here, and then go forward with them? It would save me a lot of time, and you a lot of embarrassment.

You can't have an "millions of years old" insect trapped in amber with living bacteria still in its abdomen.

One of my degrees is in bacteriology. So, I have read some of that...

Microbial Ecology
May 28, 2004

Micrococcus luteus - Survival in Amber​

The bacteria’s ability to utilize succinic acid and process terpine-related compounds, both major components of natural amber, support its survival in this oligotrophic environment.

Pretty impressive, um?

And evolution can't explain away the phenomenal evidence for a Biblical Flood

As you saw, the Bible does not claim there was a global flood. There was a great regional flood in the Middle East about the right time, however. There is no evidence for a single global flood, however. And since there's no Biblical evidence for it, either, no point in assuming so.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, evolution can't have possibly happened at all.

We see it going on all the time. Remember when I suggested you tell us what you think biological evolution means? I think you have it confused with something else, but you won't answer, so it's impossible to help you.

Since the molecules for life would have been immediately attached and destroyed as soon as they came into existence, evolution solves the problem by telling us the primitive Earth had a "reducing" atmosphere, with no oxygen.

However, there would have been on Ozone Layer, which means solar rays would have bombarded the Earth and immediately produced and Oxidizing Atmosphere and Ozone Layer, a "Catch 22".

As you were reminded, even Darwin just assumed God created the first living things. However, the existence of reduced iron deposits show us that there were extensive anoxic environments on the ancient Earth. It's a moot point for evolutionary theory, of course, since evolutionary theory assumes that life began somehow. Seems like a safe assumption to me.

No reducing atmosphere = no evolution.

No reducing atmosphere = no reduced iron deposits. But we have reduced iron deposits. So there were extensive reducing environments on Earth.

No way around it.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You were really fooled by that story. Pygmy chimps lack the knees and hips to be bipedal as Lucy was. They don't have long legs and short arms as Lucy does. And they have much more robust jaws and teeth than she did.

You're not getting it. That hip is NOT for upright gait - that's why Johanssen said it got "twisted" from a human to an ape during fossilization. Evolutionists have been caught time and time again trying to pass off fraudulent scientific "evidence" for evolution, so are you now trying to convince us that Johanssen didn't claim the hip got twisted?

One of the useful things about primates, is they have bilateral symmetry. So their left and right limbs are mirror images of each other.

That still doesn't explain the awesome calculator Johanssen used to determine ".87 to 1" for the arm to leg ratio - that skeleton certainly doesn't lead any honest scientist to conclude that, what with all the missing pieces.

Thought you knew. BTW, subsequent finds of Australopithecine fossils confirm the first find. Would you like to learn about that?

What does a find elsewhere have to do with something you find over here? But, I understand why you want a distant find to confirm this one in front of you - that's how that human knee wound up with Lucy, right?

Nope. You're confusing a hoax where creationists said the knee was found kilometers away. That was a lie, too. Would you like to learn how that happened?

Look, pal, I think the record is crystal clear on who's prone to engage in "hoaxes" when it comes to science, and it ain't the Creationists. The knee was not found with Lucy.

Notice the femur fits into the hip at an angle, as human femurs do. This knock-kneed posture allows efficient walking, unlike other apes, that have a straight angle requiring an inefficient rocking gait when they walk.

Wow, you can tell all that by a 2 dimensional picture, with pieces laid out STRATEGICALLY to appear a certain way? The only thing I notice is the willingness of evolutionists to believe things like "twisted during fossilization" and ".87" ratios and "human knees" found with what any honest person would conclude is an ape.

BTW, this has been confirmed by other finds of Australopithecines. Creationists deny the fact, but it's just "wishful thinking."

Yes, we all know how trustworthy the "confirmations" of evolutionary scientists are...like when they "confirmed" mammoths to have lived 40 million years before man.....until they dug one up with spears stuck in it. Oops. And, how did scientists deal with what was so precisely "confirmed"? Just take 40 million years and toss them into the garbage can, and viola, mammoths and humans became contemporaneous.

Your "evidence" - as well as your wish to undermine the Bible - is the wishful thinking. Peter said in the last days there will be people who would arise not able to cope with the truth of a coming fiery judgment, but in order to get rid of that fiery judgment, they would have to also get rid of the previous watery judgment - which is why in that Satanic 19th century counsel, the super-intelligent "god of this world" came up with a means to "destroy the Bible without burning it" - the theory of evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

I suggest you stop reading nonsensical "science" and start by reading true science. Helium Diffusion tests expose the flaws of radiometric dating.

You messed up by assuming (among other things) that helium isn't produced by radioactive processes in the Earth. It's being constantly produced by uranium and thorium breakdown.

How is it that helium in a zircon that is supposed to be "millions of years old" is still there when there's not possible way that should be?

Explain how you think gas can't be trapped in a crystal.

You're essentially arguing that an open bottle of Coke sitting on the counter bubbling has been sitting there for months, not minutes.

If it had a continuous source of new CO2, that would make sense, wouldn't it? Now think about it again, with Helium in the Earth...

 

[The Barbarian]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

You keep running into walls because you read these stories on creationist sites and then repeat them here without checking them. The reason I'm so easily trashing them, is they are pretty much points refuted a thousand times.

It only takes 10 million years to wash everything into the ocean

As you saw, your assumption is incorrect. You're just assuming that the entire earth erodes everywhere at a constant rate, with no overthrusting, folding, or deposition of sediment. If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you'd see why that is impossible.

What about the Flood? You do realize that a Global Flood with no Ark would force evolution to start from scratch all over again, right?

But as you learned, there's no evidence for a single world-wide flood, nor does the Bible say there was one.

 

[Phoneman-777]

We see it going on all the time. Remember when I suggested you tell us what you think biological evolution means? I think you have it confused with something else, but you won't answer, so it's impossible to help you.

As you were reminded, even Darwin just assumed God created the first living things. However, the existence of reduced iron deposits show us that there were extensive anoxic environments on the ancient Earth. It's a moot point for evolutionary theory, of course, since evolutionary theory assumes that life began somehow. Seems like a safe assumption to me.

No reducing atmosphere = no reduced iron deposits. But we have reduced iron deposits. So there were extensive reducing environments on Earth.

No way around it.

If the atmosphere was anoxic, there would have been no Ozone Layer, and cosmic rays would have bombarded the Earth to eliminate this anoxic condition.

The presence of reduced iron deposits here and there is from another causative factor - the Flood - but because evolutionists want to be willfully ignorant of a past watery judgment so that they can be willfully ignorant of a coming fiery judgment, grasping at straws is now included in the Scientific Method.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is a classic illustration of the way natural selection works. Suppose people in a malaria area have a 50% chance of getting severe malaria if they are homozygous for normal hemoglobin, but won't get it if they are heterozygous for the sickle cell genes. (I used those numbers to make the demo simpler for you, but if you like, I can adjust them for more precise numbers)

Suppose that two homozygous normals have children. All of them will also be normal and about half of them will die without leaving offspring.

Suppose one homozygous and one heterozygous person have children. About 3/8 of them will die without leaving offspring, meaning 5/8 will live and reproduce, and that these people will leave more descendants.

Suppose two heterozygous people have children.
About 1/4 will have sickle cell disease and die without leaving offspring.
About 1/2 of them will be heterozygous and will not have malaria.
About 1/4 of them will be homozygous for normal, and about half of them will live to have offspring
About 5/8 of their offspring will also live to reproduce.

Does this suggest to you why sickle cell mutations tend to persist in malaria areas?

I can't believe you think a person with Sickle Cell Anemia is equal to a healthy human being.

It's hard for me to believe you could read that, and actually think I think such a thing. Notice I said that people with that disease tend to die early without offspring. You would do better if you could deal with what I actually write, rather than what you invent for me.

Read it again carefully, and if you can, answer the question. Hint: which people leave more descendants?

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution assumes chance mutation caused DNA information to arise.

It's not an assumption; it's a fact. Perhaps you don't know how to calculate information?

Suppose 2 alleles for a gene, each with a frequency of 0.5. The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30. (0.5 X log(0.5))X2
Suppose a chance mutation for that gene occurs and eventually all three alleles have a frequency of about 0.333. Then (0.333 X log(0.333))X3, or about 0.48. An increase in information.

The mathematical probabilities for such a thing coming to pass are equivalent to the probability of a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a Boeing 747 with a space shuttle sitting on its back with a fully functioning satellite in the cargo bay ready to take off.

See above. You've been badly misled about that. Perhaps you're confusing "information" with "useful mutation." We have a very large number of those. Would you like to learn about some of them?

 

[The Barbarian]

The presence of reduced iron deposits here and there is from another causative factor - the Flood

As you learned, there was no worldwide flood and even witthout that, according to "flood geoloists" the reduced iron deposits are in pre-flood strata. So that excuse won't fly.

I notice you still aren't able to tell us what the scientific definition of biological evolution is. Which, as I told you, is what's causing you all this confusion. Why not spend a little time and learn about it, so you won't be having so much difficulty here?

 

[The Barbarian]

You were really fooled by that story. Pygmy chimps lack the knees and hips to be bipedal as Lucy was. They don't have long legs and short arms as Lucy does. And they have much more robust jaws and teeth than she did.

ou're not getting it. That hip is NOT for upright gait

It is. Notice the angle of the femur at the acetabulum. It can only fit in a hominid orientation. No way to dodge the fact.

Wow, you can tell all that by a 2 dimensional picture, with pieces laid out STRATEGICALLY to appear a certain way?

Yep. But I actually know somethings about primate anatomy, and you clearly don't. It's not just the hip. The angle of the femur itself is inward. It's obvious to anyone has any idea of functional anatomy.

The only thing I notice is the willingness of evolutionists to believe things like "twisted during fossilization" and ".87" ratios and "human knees" found with what any honest person would conclude is an ape.

You're getting overexcited again. Hominids are just apes that walk upright. It's not just Lucy, BTW; there are dozens of hominid fossils, many of which confirm the upright stance. Would you like to see some of those?

Yes, we all know how trustworthy the "confirmations" of evolutionary scientists are

Sorry, but "they are lying! " doesn't work for you.

like when they "confirmed" mammoths to have lived 40 million years before man.....

Even when I was a student, scientists found mammoths to have first appeared about 5 million years ago, and died out maybe 4,000 years ago. You've been badly misled there.

Mammoth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

as well as your wish to undermine the Bible - is the wishful thinking.

More accurately, it's a false accusation on your part. The Bible is God's word. But you aren't God. Try to keep that in mind. You have a new interpretation of what it says, but I assume you are sincere and not trying to undermine God's word.

Peter said in the last days there will be people who would arise not able to cope with the truth of a coming fiery judgment, but in order to get rid of that fiery judgment, they would have to also get rid of the previous watery judgment

That's not what it says. If you have to adjust God's word to make it fit your needs, isn't that a tip-off?

2 Peter 3:6 Οπότε ο κόσμος που ήταν τότε, ξεχειλισμένος από νερό, χάθηκε:

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

Peter uses the greek "κόσμος", (known world) same as used for:

Luke 2:1 Και συνέβη ότι εκείνες τις ημέρες βγήκε ένα διάταγμα από τον Καίσαρα Αυγούστου, να εγγραφεί ολόκληρος ο κόσμος.
"And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled."

The word meant "the known world" not the entire Earth But nothing about getting rid of the flood to get rid of fire.

 

[Phoneman-777]

It's not an assumption; it's a fact. Perhaps you don't know how to calculate information?

Suppose 2 alleles for a gene, each with a frequency of 0.5. The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30. (0.5 X log(0.5))X2
Suppose a chance mutation for that gene occurs and eventually all three alleles have a frequency of about 0.333. Then (0.333 X log(0.333))X3, or about 0.48. An increase in information.

See above. You've been badly misled about that. Perhaps you're confusing "information" with "useful mutation." We have a very large number of those. Would you like to learn about some of them?

"Suppose a chance mutation occurs and eventually all three alleles have..." is a massive supposition, friend. I think you've been royally misled to believe improbabilities that might as well be impossibilities actually happen. Information has never been shown to come from any other causative factor except information, just like life can't come from anything non-living.

Why do you think the Blind Watchmaker was written? To tell Creationists, "Who cares? We're here, therefore it happened" which is arrogance at the highest level. You don't want to admit it, but you actually think a tornado going through a junkyard can assemble jets, space shuttles, and satellites. The math doesn't lie, friend.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Suppose a chance mutation occurs and eventually all three alleles have..." is a massive supposition, friend.

Pick a different ratio. I made them equal so it would be easier for you to follow the math, but it works with any change. Pick any ratio for the three alleles, and it will always show an increase in information. Do you see why?

I think you've been royally misled to believe improbabilities that might as well be impossibilities actually happen. Information has never been shown to come from any other causative factor except information,

As you have just learned, that's a false assumption. We can show mathematically that any new mutation in a population genome results in an increase in information. Perhaps you don't know how information is calculated. Would you like me to show you?

Why do you think the Blind Watchmaker was written?

Don't care. Never read it. I'm just pointing out the fact. In fact, Claude Shannon, who first showed how to calculate information, first showed how it worked in biology. And work it does. It permits the internet to work, and tells us how to reliably send information across billions of kilometers of space with very low-powered transmitters. Would you like me to show you that?

You don't want to admit it, but you actually think a tornado going through a junkyard can assemble jets, space shuttles, and satellites.

No, you've confused chaotic processes with information. This is why you keep walking into walls. Because you don't understand anything about information and how it increases, it looks to you like nature building human constructions.

No wonder you're confused. If you have a decent grounding in high school math, I can walk you through it. Would you like me to do that?

 

[Phoneman-777]

As you learned, there was no worldwide flood and even witthout that, according to "flood geoloists" the reduced iron deposits are in pre-flood strata.

Would you care to retract that statement? Archean and the lower Proterozoic are considered to be above pre-Flood strata, yet looky here:

"Pebble and sand placer deposits of upper Archean and lower Proterozoic age occur in southern Canada, South Africa, southern India and Brazil. Some of these are known to be cemented by a matrix containing mineral grains of pyrite (FeS2) and uraninite (UO2). Pyrite has the reduced state of iron (without oxygen, but with sulfur) which is unstable as sedimentary grains in the presence of oxygen. Uraninite has the partly oxidized state of uranium which is oxidized to UO3 in the presence of the modern atmosphere. These unstable mineral grains in gravel and sand concentrates have been claimed by some geologists to indicate a reducing atmosphere at the time of deposition."

You can read the entire article which proves iron deposits don't require a Reducing Atmosphere for them to form - but since evolution knows the first molecules for life couldn't have survived in an oxidizing atmosphere, they can't afford to admit the truth.

Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?

After reviewing evolutionists' speculations on the origin of life, Clemmey and Badham say, "... the dogma has arisen that Earth's early atmosphere was anoxic,..."1 By "anoxic" they mean an atmosphere without free oxygen gas (O2), very different from the oxidizing mixture we breathe. The...

www.icr.org

I notice you still aren't able to tell us what the scientific definition of biological evolution is. Which, as I told you, is what's causing you all this confusion. Why not spend a little time and learn about it, so you won't be having so much difficulty here?

Perhaps you missed it, so I'll restate it: Since there's no evidence for Biological Evolution why should anyone bother with defining a process that didn't occur?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Pick a different ratio. I made them equal so it would be easier for you to follow the math, but it works with any change. Pick any ratio for the three alleles, and it will always show an increase in information. Do you see why?


As you have just learned, that's a false assumption. We can show mathematically that any new mutation in a population genome results in an increase in information. Perhaps you don't know how information is calculated. Would you like me to show you?


Don't care. Never read it. I'm just pointing out the fact. In fact, Claude Shannon, who first showed how to calculate information, first showed how it worked in biology. And work it does. It permits the internet to work, and tells us how to reliably send information across billions of kilometers of space with very low-powered transmitters. Would you like me to show you that?


No, you've confused chaotic processes with information. This is why you keep walking into walls. Because you don't understand anything about information and how it increases, it looks to you like nature building human constructions.

No wonder you're confused. If you have a decent grounding in high school math, I can walk you through it. Would you like me to do that?

You're confusing facts based in reality with throwing up Scrabble letters into the air enough times to produce a full page of text.

The issue is not calculating information - it's the origin of it. Chancer mutations can't possibly account for the indescribable levels of information necessary for life. If Jesus were alive today, He'd say of the atheistic scientific community, "Verily, I've not seen such great faith, no not in all the world".

 

[Phoneman-777]

It is. Notice the angle of the femur at the acetabulum. It can only fit in a hominid orientation. No way to dodge the fact. Yep. But I actually know somethings about primate anatomy, and you clearly don't. It's not just the hip. The angle of the femur itself is inward. It's obvious to anyone has any idea of functional anatomy.

You keep dodging the fact that Johanssen said the "human" hip got bent during fossilization and is why it appears otherwise than human. But, I'm sure the suits were pressuring him to find something soon or risk having the cash cow dry up.

Sorry, but "they are lying! " doesn't work for you.

You're the one who makes wild, baseless claims about Creationists being dishonest, and yet you won't afford me the same courtesy despite the atheistic science community engaging in skulduggery time and time again?

Even when I was a student, scientists found mammoths to have first appeared about 5 million years ago, and died out maybe 4,000 years ago. You've been badly misled there.

A former 20 year atheist scientist and professor said in a presentation that wooly mammoths were originally dated to be 40 million years old (if I remember correctly) until they found spears stuck in one, and were faced with either dragging man all the way back to 40 million years ago (which they couldn't see doing, since we're the latest, greatest, most awesomeness thing to ever hit the scene) or bring the mammoths up from 40MYO to 2MYO - they chose to just sweep away 40MY just like that. Such reliable science that evolutionary theory is, I tell ya.

I think your university owes you a refund.

More accurately, it's a false accusation on your part.

I didn't accuse you of anything, did I?

The Bible is God's word. But you aren't God. Try to keep that in mind. You have a new interpretation of what it says, but I assume you are sincere and not trying to undermine God's word.

You refer to Creation and the Flood "new" ideas? My ideas go all the way back to the beginning - I can't make them any older.

That's not what it says. If you have to adjust God's word to make it fit your needs, isn't that a tip-off?

2 Peter 3:6 Οπότε ο κόσμος που ήταν τότε, ξεχειλισμένος από νερό, χάθηκε:

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

Of course, I was expounding on Peter's words, but that's EXACTLY what he said:

1. That people would scoff and say, "where is the promise of His coming, for all things continue since the beginning." - (UNIFORMITARIAN PRINCIPLE)

2. That they would be willfully ignorant of a world-wide Flood

What other reason to be willfully ignorant of the worldwide Flood except to deny any possibility of a coming fiery judgment?

Peter uses the greek "κόσμος", (known world) same as used for:

Luke 2:1 Και συνέβη ότι εκείνες τις ημέρες βγήκε ένα διάταγμα από τον Καίσαρα Αυγούστου, να εγγραφεί ολόκληρος ο κόσμος.
"And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled."

The word meant "the known world" not the entire Earth But nothing about getting rid of the flood to get rid of fire.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to command Noah to build and Ark and load a bunch of animals on it for a local Flood, rather than just lead Noah and the animals away from it like He led the animals to the Ark.

Peter was talking about the entire world so please stop pencil whipping the Greek, OK?

 

[The Barbarian]

You're confusing facts based in reality with throwing up Scrabble letters into the air enough times to produce a full page of text.

You still don't get it. Information is just the uncertainty of a message you haven't yet seen. Let's go over the basics:
1. if you are absolutely sure what an incoming message will say, the information in it is 0. You learn nothing from the message.

2. If you are somewhat uncertain as to what the message will be, the message will be a number between 1.0 and 0, but will not include 1.0 and 0.

In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes.

Where H is information and there are x alleles in the population.

Does that mean that random things like scrabble letters tossed on a surface have information? Yep. In fact, they have a great amount of information, more than a proper sentence would have. You might have to think about that for a bit to realize why. But if you can't see it, then I'll explain. Let me know.

So a new allele could be the result of a point mutation, and it might do something or it might no. As I said, you have about 100 mutations that were present in neither of your parents. Because proteins are so large, one amino acid switched out usually don't do anything measurable. But it's still new information and it increases the information in the population genome.

The issue is not calculating information - it's the origin of it.

The origin is in mutations. That was Mendel's discovery.

Chancer mutations can't possibly account for the indescribable levels of information necessary for life.

Right. That was Darwin's great discovery. Random mutation and natural selection. It's been directly observed to work. Would you like to learn about that?

If Jesus were alive today, He'd say of the atheistic scientific community, "Verily, I've not seen such great faith, no not in all the world".

You might think so, but of course, you aren't Jesus. Remember, He created things to work this way. So I'm pretty sure He wouldn't agree with you.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is. Notice the angle of the femur at the acetabulum. It can only fit in a hominid orientation. No way to dodge the fact. Yep. But I actually know somethings about primate anatomy, and you clearly don't. It's not just the hip. The angle of the femur itself is inward. It's obvious to anyone has any idea of functional anatomy.

You keep dodging the fact that Johanssen said the "human" hip got bent during fossilization and is why it appears otherwise than human.

Bones often get distorted, but as you see, the femur is not. And it clearly shows bipedal form. It's not merely the hip that shows us this. You've been misled about that.

But, I'm sure the suits were pressuring him to find something soon or risk having the cash cow dry up.

How much do you think paleontologists make from their work? You'd be rather disappointed. I promise you that such statments as yours gets quite a round of laughter in break rooms where they work.

You're the one who makes wild, baseless claims about Creationists being dishonest

Actually, I suggested that you were not being dishonest, but you believed things dishonest people told you. There's quite a list of that now. Should we review?

A former 20 year atheist scientist and professor said in a presentation that wooly mammoths were originally dated to be 40 million years old

Sounds unlikely. I'm pretty sure why there's no checkable link for that story. Don't trust everything someone says on the internet.

They lived from the Pliocene epoch (from around 5 million years ago) into the Holocene at about 4,000 years ago, and various species existed in Africa, Europe, Asia, and North America. They were members of the family Elephantidae, which also contains the two genera of modern elephants and their ancestors. Mammoths are more closely related to living Asian elephants than African elephants.

The oldest mammoth representative, Mammuthus subplanifrons, appeared around five million years ago during the early Pliocene in what is now southern and eastern Africa. Later in the Pliocene, by about three million years ago, mammoths dispersed into Eurasia, continuing to propagate into numerous subsequent species, eventually covering most of Eurasia before migrating into North America around 1.5–1.3 million years ago, becoming ancestral to the Columbian mammoth (M. columbi). The last species to emerge, the woolly mammoth (M. primigenius), developed about 400,000 years ago in East Asia, with some surviving on Russia's Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean, as well as possibly the Taymyr Peninsula on mainland Siberia, until as recently as roughly 3,700 to 4,000 years ago, still extant during the existence of the earliest civilisations in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Mammoth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd be open to any evidence of much older mammoths, of course. Notice that they survived on well into human times.

I think your university owes you a refund.

Turns out they got it exactly right. You were just given some number by a guy who apparently didn't know any more about it than you do. It's kind of amusing that he thought in order for humans to have hunted mammoths, they would have had to exist as far back as the first mammoths.

I didn't accuse you of anything, did I?

Phoneman-777 said:

as well as your wish to undermine the Bible - is the wishful thinking.

There you go. False accusation. Try to do better in the future.

Of course, I was expounding on Peter's words, but that's EXACTLY what he said:

So your claim is that the flood only extended to the territory known at that time? I thought you wanted a worldwide flood.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to command Noah to build and Ark and load a bunch of animals on it for a local Flood

Regional. Filled what is now the Black Sea. Yeah, a boat would have been a good idea.

1. That people would scoff and say, "where is the promise of His coming, for all things continue since the beginning." - (UNIFORMITARIAN PRINCIPLE)

That's not the uniformitarian principle. And it didn't exist in Biblical times. Again, if you knew something about the subject, this wouldn't be happening to you constantly.

Peter was talking about the entire world

I know you want to believe that, but Peter is using the same word Luke used for "the Roman Empire." So we know you're wrong.