• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Toppling Ten Fake Facts That Prop Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by nolidad, May 8, 2019.

  1. myst33

    myst33 Well-Known Member

    +873
    Czech Republic
    Christian
    Single
    You are repeating this over and over, but you are still ignoring very obvious allegorical language - rib, dust, talking serpent, evening/morning repetitions, trees etc. Its a symbolic, not a scientific language.

    Firmanent does not exist, its just an ancient idea to explain why water falls from sky sometimes and sometimes not. They thought there are waters above, a firm plate to hold it, with heavenly doors that are being open from time to time, which produces raining. They did not know about atmospheric pressure.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  2. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    I will try to answer this as it is lenghty and rewquires some research when I have more time!

    But you have old and falsified info here.
     
  3. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,638
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Well, let's see if you do better next time. As you see, your information, such as the opinion from Alan Feduccia, is outdated by new discoveries.
     
  4. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others

    Well maybe. But when we have feather like , and suggest and may indicate and could, it lets us know it is just guesses.

    Feduccia at least did experiments, observed, repeated, reported and had peer reviewed published papers showing those "feather like integuments" were far far better explained as frayed decaying skin!

    And even if they find a feathered dino- that just kicks the can further back.
     
  5. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    " In fact, two scientists from Bell Labs accidentally verified it, when they found the predicted microwave background radiation from the initial expansion."

    And the other explanations?
    Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?


    You: "You've been misled. Badly:

    First the lumps. Why is matter and energy distributed so unevenly when we observe the universe on scales ranging from the human-sized to the supergalactic? Why, in other words, should there exist huge concentrations of stuff — massive clusters of galaxies like the Virgo cluster, cosmic equivalents of New York City, teeming with energy and activity — separated by vast expanses of emptiness, nearly devoid of any matter at all?"

    So secular science is catching up here with Creation science. About time.


    YOu: "Fortunately, we can determine the strength of the Earth's magnetic field well into the past; it leaves traces in minerals that were melted and solidified at the time. Turns out, it fluctuates a lot over time; sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. The guys who fed you that one were just profoundly ignorant of the way it works."

    Wrong again about the scientists, but that is Okay- I expect that.
    Magnetic Field Data Confirm Creation Model

    You : "This only happens were there is both nitrogen and radioactive materials in the area. Nitrogen, when struck by ionizing radiation, will form carbon-14. So not surprising. Diamonds, for example, often have nitrogen atoms in their crystal lattices, and kimberlite, in which diamonds form, contains uranium and thorium isotopes."



    Here, kearn form evolutionists that thorium and uranium do not add carbon 14!


    You : "Because the iron/nickel core of the Earth is still liquid, and therefore moves by convection, which produces a magnetic field. Mars once had a magnetic field, but when the core solidified, it stopped."

    So glad you were on Mars with a magnetometer! Yes the earths core is a dynamo- but it cannot explain massive wild swings in teh field and even reversals in the field!


    You: "Because carbon-14 is produced when nitrogen is impacted by ionizing radiation, both of which are present in the Earth."

    then we should not be able to test anything with accuracy then! How do we know how much C-14 present in the earth was added to a fossil??? Sauce for the goose......



    You: "You've been misled about this, as well.
    One of the main objections to radiometric dating (on the part of young earth creationists) is that radiometric ages do not agree with each other or that contamination renders ages meaningless. In fact, the claim is partially true. Early mass spectrometers were not as sensitive as machines today and the methods for separating, cleaning and analysis were less sophisticated. Although ye-creationists like Snelling talk about contamination of isotopic systems as if it were a foreign concept to modern geology, most geochronologists routinely check for possible contamination using a variety of methods. In addition, geologists recognized that rocks could be contaminated with excess daughter or parent or loss of parent/daughter that would also affect the age as determined by radiometric methods. Creationists have seized upon these discoveries and held them forth as evidence that radiometric dating is inaccurate. But is this the case? Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption that each system has a different half-life (derived from the decay 'constant' which is simply the length of time it takes for 1/2 of the radioactive parent to decay to a stable daughter). In addition to variable half-lives, each mineral will 'close' at different temperatures (closure, is simply defined as the point where no daughter/parent is lost or gained*). There are a number of different methods that geologists use to check for loss/gain and these are incorporated into most analyses (isochron methods, stepwise degassing etc). If radiometric decay rates are not constant and rocks behave as open systems, it would be the exception, rather than the rule, for ages to agree with one another. Here are a few examples in the recent literature of radiometric age determinations on the same rocks (using different isotopic methodsa).
    One of the main objections to radiometric dating

    Now learn the rest of the story:

    How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates
    Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory

    Many assumptions go into radio decay rates. It has been empirically shown decay rates can be altered by little and even by a factor of 10.

    The Radiometric Dating Game

    You: "One of their common practices, is to take a very recent sample of hardened lava, which contains xenochrysts (material that remained unmelted in the eruption). This then would give an ancient date for the eruption, and creationist would do a victory lap. "

    Easy to allege- impossible to prove. for the ages are not in the hundreds or even tens of millions. But I think experts like Snelling and Austin know how to collect proper samples.
     
  6. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    You : " Because it doesn't often give incorrect dates. (assuming one isn't ignorant of how to sample, or trying to deliberately get a bad result)"

    Once again a subtle ad-hominem attack against the veracity of YEC scientists.


    YOu : "That requires finding the source of the error. Such as Gentry's inclusion of xenochrysts in dacite taken from Mt. St. Helens. In his case, it appears to have been intentional, not an error."

    And your fact based evidence for you allegation is....?

    Also xenocrysts are crystals within a rock and not a rock.


    YOu: "For The First Time, Scientists Have Made Synthetic DNA

    22 FEB 2019

    Earth might have a dizzying array of life forms, but our biology ultimately remains a solitary data point - we simply don't have a reference for life based on DNA different from our own. Now, scientists have taken matters into their hands to push the boundaries on what life could be like."


    Very ingenious indeed! Great deal of intelligent design needed. But it isa not self replicating so it is not "life".


    You : "In fact, you share most of your genes with earthworms. And if you look at all the phyla, you find that you get the same family tree with genetics that Linnaeus got with phenotypes over a hundred years ago. And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent."

    Yes Dna is DNA and it is all AGCT. But every creatrure has qualitative differences that set them apart. Common design for common purposes from a Designer, different designs for different purposes.


    You: "No, that's false. Even your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, admits:
    Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
    https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf"


    You pulled that quote out of its context. He is citing others confirmations while at the same time rejecting inter genus, family, order phyla and kingdom transitions. Very disingenuous of you!


    You : "If so, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Each step, as Wise notes, appears as a slightly different kind; when they are all lined up, we see completely different kinds at the beginnings and ends of the series."

    Despite the very limited resources of creationists, they have been able to debunk though evolutionst s themselves, the whale, horse pig and elephant "transitions." All agree of great variation within a kind- but that variation does not produce a new family or der etc.


    You : "The statement says much about the lack of integrity on the person who wrote that misrepresentation. In fact, there are often disagreements about details, but as genetic data accumulates, we see general agreement on major forms."

    Actually we have 0, nada ancient DNA! we have modern Dna but none going back more than several millenia and that is scarce.

    Nearly all transitonal forms are based on morpholical similarity of the fossils, not Genetic similarity.


    You : " In fact, Barry Hall discovered that a culture of E. coli evolved an new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in a few months. A population of Italian lizards evolved a new digestive organ as well as other new features in a matter of years. Would you like to learn about those?"

    Yes I would love to see what was written and supposedly discovered.


    YOu ; "See no. 6, above. You've been misled, once again."

    We shall see.



    YOu : " They lied to you about that. The reason Pakicetus was considered a whale ancestor was it had the skull of a whale. It was somewhat surprising that a whale would have legs, but since then, more fossil species of whales with legs have been found, showing the evolution of these animals. Would you like to see some examples that show how various features evolved over time?"


    http://www.educationalbiofacts.com/images/R-S382-Melon-Headed-Whale-e.jpg

    



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Pakicetus_Canada.jpg


    Seems whales have a big difference.

    Once agsain similar design does not makean early form.
     
  7. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    You : "You were misled again. Basilosaurus, for example had hip bones and vestigial leg bones. And since we occasionally see vestigial legs on dolphins or whales, (in neither case are they needed for mating) your belief is demonstrably wrong."


    What they were vestigal for is purely speculative based on a presupposition that evolution is true.

    But basilosaurus had no pelvic girdle so those hip bones are just like modern whales- needed for mating!

    Besides even evolutionist shave finally admitted the intentional hoaxes used in the whale series! Drawing in limbs that were not there, drilling holes in skulls, etc.etc.


    You : "Australopithecines. Interestingly enough, it's much harder to get creationists to all agree on which of these fossils are humans and which are apes. Would you like to take the challenge yourself?"

    That would be you being decieved. "Lucy" is still the subject of debate in evolutionist circles- the Johannsen ites still hold her to ber the trunk which men and ap[es diverged- while most others just accept her as an extinct ape!

    You ; "They are transitional in many other ways as well. Would you like me to show you some more of them?"

    Well these pics show "lucy" more related to ardipithecus just as one would expect.


    You : '10. Humans and Chimps Share 98% Genetic Identity
    Depending on how you do the analysis, our genes line up between 98 and 92%. If you use non-coding DNA (which creationsits call "junk DNA"), it's more like 85%. But what ever way you do it, humans and chimpanzees are genetically more alike than either is related to any other ape."


    You should update your material- it has now been dropped to 80% and even as low in 75% when even greater DNA strands are studied.

    But and here is the big thing- even where we share genetic identity- there is a large qualitative difference between men and chimp. one example is hair. Chimp and man have "identical" coding for hair (though we not as much) but the Kind of hair is vastly different and forensic study can easily differentiate the two.


    And you just simply lie about creationists calling non coding DNA junk DNA- that is strictly an evolutionist thought that has been denied by ICR, AIG and most members of CRS (at least that I have read). They have always held to the belief that non coding DNA was not an evolutionary remnant!
     
  8. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,638
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You've been misled again. Experiments have shown that one can induce scutes to form feathers.

    What experiments do you think he did? Show us those.

    (declines to show any)

    The usual.

    Nope. As you learned, the experiments showed that feathers and scutes are genetically and biochemically equivalent.

    Barbarian observes:
    In fact, two scientists from Bell Labs accidentally verified it, when they found the predicted microwave background radiation from the initial expansion."

    The red shift also shows the expansion due to the big bang.



    From your link:
    However, the third argument, the existence of the CMB radiation, is a successful prediction of the Big Bang. We observe very faint but uniform electromagnetic radiation—radiation not associated with particular stars or galaxies—coming from all directions in space, and the intensity of this radiation is brightest in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Big Bang scientists interpret this to be the oldest light in the universe, light emitted when the universe became cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. As the universe expanded, the wavelengths of these traveling photons were stretched so that most of them had wavelengths corresponding to the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of this CMB radiation (as a function of wavelength or frequency) very closely matches the intensity of the radiation given off by an ideal emitter/absorber that physicists call a blackbody. Such a blackbody would have a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins, or about -270° Celsius (Figure 1).

    You were just telling us how smooth it all is. Now the story changes. Is there anything that you're sure about?

    Barbarian observes:
    Fortunately, we can determine the strength of the Earth's magnetic field well into the past; it leaves traces in minerals that were melted and solidified at the time. Turns out, it fluctuates a lot over time; sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. The guys who fed you that one were just profoundly ignorant of the way it works."

    Well let's take a look...

    The record of the strength and direction of Earth’s magnetic field (paleomagnetism, or fossil magnetism) is an important source of our knowledge about the Earth’s evolution throughout the entire geological history. This record is preserved by many rocks from the time of their formation. The paleomagnetic data have played an instrumental role in deciphering the history of our planet including a decisive evidence for continental drift and global plate tectonics. The data have also been crucial for better understanding the problems of regional and local tectonics, geodynamics, and thermal history of our planet.

    The paleomagnetism of rocks of the ~1.1 billion year old North American Midcontinent Rift have been intensively studied since early 1960s (for example, see a review in Halls and Pesonen, 1982). The rifting began during an interval of reversed polarity of geomagnetic field. The reversely magnetized lavas (the Siemens Creek formation of Powder Mill group, the lowermost part of North Shore volcanics, Osler volcanics, and the lower part of Mamainse Point formation) are found in many locations around Lake Superior (see figure from Nicholson et al., 1997, below).

    Paleomagnetism

    You messed up once again.

    Barbarian observes:
    This only happens were there is both nitrogen and radioactive materials in the area. Nitrogen, when struck by ionizing radiation, will form carbon-14. So not surprising. Diamonds, for example, often have nitrogen atoms in their crystal lattices, and kimberlite, in which diamonds form, contains uranium and thorium isotopes."

    (video)

    It doesn't say what you claim it does.

    Barbarian observes:
    Because the iron/nickel core of the Earth is still liquid, and therefore moves by convection, which produces a magnetic field. Mars once had a magnetic field, but when the core solidified, it stopped.

    The Mars Surveyor carried a magnetometer, and confirmed that no magnetic field is generated by the planet. However, solar wind does produce a very weak magnetic field at least at times.

    Presently, the field is moving at historically rapid rates. It moves a little more than about 1/1000 of the Earth's diameter per year. The last flip was about 785,000 years ago. If you think that's wild, then we've found one problem.

    Barbarian observes:
    Because carbon-14 is produced when nitrogen is impacted by ionizing radiation, both of which are present in the Earth

    At least not with a source of energetic neutrons about. Fortunately, there aren't many of them, meaning that such sources would be a tiny portion of the C-14 from most sources. So it would generally produce levels close to the limits of the method. And would therefore be obscured by more recent carbon.

    Diamonds are very, very old, so such new C-14 can give misleading readings.

    To be sure, we have to calibrate it with a known standard. Although the cosmic ray level is reasonably constant, it's not absolutely so. But lake varves can give us a gold standard:
    Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology

    Yep. You're going to be seeing a lot of stuff for the first time, here.

    One of the main objections to radiometric dating (on the part of young earth creationists) is that radiometric ages do not agree with each other or that contamination renders ages meaningless. In fact, the claim is partially true. Early mass spectrometers were not as sensitive as machines today and the methods for separating, cleaning and analysis were less sophisticated. Although ye-creationists like Snelling talk about contamination of isotopic systems as if it were a foreign concept to modern geology, most geochronologists routinely check for possible contamination using a variety of methods. In addition, geologists recognized that rocks could be contaminated with excess daughter or parent or loss of parent/daughter that would also affect the age as determined by radiometric methods. Creationists have seized upon these discoveries and held them forth as evidence that radiometric dating is inaccurate. But is this the case? Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption that each system has a different half-life (derived from the decay 'constant' which is simply the length of time it takes for 1/2 of the radioactive parent to decay to a stable daughter). In addition to variable half-lives, each mineral will 'close' at different temperatures (closure, is simply defined as the point where no daughter/parent is lost or gained*). There are a number of different methods that geologists use to check for loss/gain and these are incorporated into most analyses (isochron methods, stepwise degassing etc). If radiometric decay rates are not constant and rocks behave as open systems, it would be the exception, rather than the rule, for ages to agree with one another. Here are a few examples in the recent literature of radiometric age determinations on the same rocks (using different isotopic methodsa).
    One of the main objections to radiometric dating



    In some extremely high-energy environments, some (but not all) isotopes can increase rates of decay. But that's of no use to creationists. Such environments would have fried all living things on Earth. Two different ways. First, the environment itself, and second, by the isotopes releasing huge amounts of radiation over a short time. So that excuse fails, too.

    Show us anything natural case on Earth where there was a ten-fold increase. What have you got?

    Barbarian observes:
    One of their common practices, is to take a very recent sample of hardened lava, which contains xenochrysts (material that remained unmelted in the eruption). This then would give an ancient date for the eruption, and creationist would do a victory lap.

    Although Austin claimed that he took precautions to avoid laboratory contamination and that he and his team removed the obvious xenoliths from the dacite sample, Austin's own words refute Swenson's illusions that the dacite mineral/glass 'fractions' were suitably 'pure' enough for testing the validity of the K-Ar method. Specifically, Austin admits that most of his fractions are impure when he includes the term 'etc.' after most of the mineral 'fractions' in his table (see above). That is, his 'fractions' were really mixtures of volcanic glass, various mineral phenocrysts (including pyroxenes, amphiboles, metal oxides, and/or zoned plagioclases) and even possible xenocrysts. Furthermore, Austin's descriptions in the following statements clearly indicate that he FAILED to adequately separate the phenocrysts and possible xenocrysts from the volcanic glass. Austin admits:


    'Although NOT a complete separation of non-mafic minerals, this concentrate included plagioclase phenocrysts (andesine composition with a density of about 2.7 g/cc) and the major quantity of glass (density assumed to be about 2.4 g/cc). NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SEPARATE PLAGIOCLASE FROM GLASS, but further use of heavy liquids should be considered.' [my emphasis]


    Because Austin did NOT separate the plagioclase from the glass, we would expect this sample to contain a mixture of young glass, plagioclases with relatively old calcium-rich cores and moderately old sodium-rich rims. Because Austin clearly understands the heterogeneous composition of this 'fraction', he should have known that a K-Ar date on this mess would be meaningless. Again, the mineral textures, as well as the laws of chemistry and physics, dictate that the calcium-rich plagioclase cores grew at higher temperatures before the sodium-rich rims and that glasses only formed once the melt erupted at the surface.


    Austin also states:


    'The 'heavy-magnetic concentrate' also had glassy particles (more abundant than in the 'heavy-nonmagnetic concentrate'). Mafic microphenocrysts within these glassy particles were probably dominated by the strongly magnetic Fe-Ti oxide minerals. The microscopic examination of the 'heavy-magnetic concentrate' also revealed a trace quantity of iron fragments, obviously the magnetic contaminant unavoidably introduced from the milling of the dacite in the iron mortar. No attempt was made to separate the hornblende from the Fe-Ti oxides, but further finer milling and use of heavy liquids should be considered.'


    At this point Austin admits that the iron mortar probably contaminated his sample. Although the contamination might have seriously affected any iron analyses, K and Ar analyses may not have been affected.


    The description of another one of Austin's 'fractions' indicates that it is also highly impure:


    'The 'heavy-nonmagnetic concentrate' (DOME-1H) was dominated by orthopyroxene with much less clinopyroxene, but had a significant quantity of glassy particles attached to mafic microphenocrysts and fragments of mafic phenocrysts along incompletely fractured grain boundaries. These mafic microphenocrysts and fragments of mafic phenocrysts evidently increased the density of the attached glass particles above the critical density of 2.85 g/cc, which allowed them to sink in the heavy liquid. This sample also had recognizable hornblende, evidently not completely isolated by magnetic separation.'


    In another example of inadequate mineral/glass fractionation, Austin admits:


    'The 'pyroxene concentrate' (DOME-IP) was dominated by orthopyroxene and much less clinopyroxene. Because it was composed of finer particles (170-270 mesh), it contained far fewer mafic particles with attached glass fragments than DOME-IH. This preparation is the purest mineral concentrate.'


    Notice that Austin admits that the pyroxene aliquot was RELATIVELY pure. He DOES NOT claim that the pyroxene IS pure.
    Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  9. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,638
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Because it doesn't often give incorrect dates. (assuming one isn't ignorant of how to sample, or trying to deliberately get a bad result)

    Notice that the YEC got caught doing exactly that. He carelessly let it slip in his report.

    That requires finding the source of the error. Such as Gentry's inclusion of xenochrysts in dacite taken from Mt. St. Helens. In his case, it appears to have been intentional, not an error.

    Gentry's report in which he admits he didn't purify the sample to remove xencrysts in the rock.

    They would have to be. They are unmelted rock in the matrix of hardened lava. Hence Gentry, by including them, got a result older than the eruption. No one is surprised by that. It would happen every time if you didn't remove the unmelted material.


    For The First Time, Scientists Have Made Synthetic DNA

    Learning from creation, which is not designed, is not "intelligent design."

    (Sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

    Barbarian observes:
    In fact, you share most of your genes with earthworms. And if you look at all the phyla, you find that you get the same family tree with genetics that Linnaeus got with phenotypes over a hundred years ago. And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.[/quote]

    Which is like saying that you and water are made of atoms, so you are water. It's not the chemicals that matter; it's the code. And most of the genes you have are also shared by earthworms. You and earthworms are more similar to each other than either of you is to a tree. And the three of you are more genetically similar to each other than any of you is to a bacterium.

    But you are genetically more similar to a sea urchin than you are to an earthworm. And you are genetically more similar to a fish than to a sea urchin. And you are gentically more similar to a newt than to a fish. And you are genetically more similar to an alligator than to a newt. And you are genetically more similar to a fox than to an alligator. And you are genetically more similar to a lemur than to a fox. And you are gentically more similar to a gorilla than to a lemur. And you are genetically more similar to a chimpanzee than to a gorilla. And you are genetically more similar to a Neandertal than you are to a chimpanzee. And you are genetically more similar to a great-great-great uncle than you are genetically similar to a Neandertal. And you are genetically more similar to your brother than you are gentically similar to a great-great-great uncle.

    And we know this illustrates common descent, because we can check it on organisms of known descent.

    And you and your brother have differences. But the genes still show common descent.

    Here, you've confused homology with analogy.(bats and birds show analogous structures that creationists call "common design") Common descent doesn't necessarily show analogous structures. human arms, batwing, dolphin flippers have structure that shows common descent, but not analogous structures. Creationists would consider sharks and dolphins having "common design", when in fact genetics and homologous structures show them more closely related to humans.

    Even your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, admits:

    Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
    https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf"

    He's merely showing you that the fossil record, with it's many lines of transitional forms, is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." He's an honest creationist. Of course he thinks that there will someday be a creationist explanation for all this, and says so. He's just too honest to deny the truth; the many transitional forms are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

    There's really no point in denying the fact. I included the link so anyone can go and see. Dr. Wise continues:

    At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
    ibid p. 219


    Barbarian observes:
    If so, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Each step, as Wise notes, appears as a slightly different kind; when they are all lined up, we see completely different kinds at the beginnings and ends of the series.

    See above. Dr. Wise disagrees with you. And he actually knows what he's talking about.

    Barbarian observes:
    The statement says much about the lack of integrity on the person who wrote that misrepresentation. In fact, there are often disagreements about details, but as genetic data accumulates, we see general agreement on major forms."

    You were lied to about that, also...

    Neandertal DNA perhaps 170,000 years old:
    Oldest Neanderthal DNA Found in Italian Skeleton

    See above.

    You're still confusing analogy with homology. Until you can get your arms around the concept, you're going to keep on walking into walls.

    not Genetic similarity.

    In fact, Barry Hall discovered that a culture of E. coli evolved an new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in a few months. A population of Italian lizards evolved a new digestive organ as well as other new features in a matter of years. Would you like to learn about those?"

    In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.


    In my book I quoted evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma's description of these experiments:


    "Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]
    ...
    Does Barry Hall's ebg system fit the definition of irreducible complexity? Absolutely. The three parts of the evolved system are:


    (1) A lactose-sensitive ebg repressor protein that controls expression of the galactosidase enzyme
    (2) The ebg galactosidase enzyme
    (3) The enzyme reaction that induces the lac permease


    Unless all three are in place, the system does not function, which is, of course, the key element of an irreducibly complex system. Behe quotes a single sentence from Hall's 1999 Paper (FEMS Microbiology Letters 178: 1-6) to the effect that "reacquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new beta-galactosidase function." The quote is accurate, but Hall is describing only the enzymes directly involved in lactose metabolism (number 2 in my list above), not the regulatory parts that make the pathway function (numbers 1 and 3). In the very same paper Hall wrote:


    "Genes for enzymes with new or improved catalytic activities do not arise from random DNA sequences; they evolve from existing genes whose products exhibit activities that are more or less related to the "novel" activity."


    As I wrote in Chapter 5 of my book, the well-matched parts of the newly evolved system include both the new enzyme and both new regulatory steps:


    "Lactose triggers a regulatory sequence that switches on the synthesis of an enzyme that then metabolizes lactose itself. And the products of that successful lactose metabolism then activate the gene for the lac permease, which ensures a steady supply of lactose entering the cell. Irreducible complexity."


    The fact that each of these parts were scavenged from pre-existing genes doesn't compromise this example a bit. At the time Hall deleted the true galactosidase gene, not one of these three components existed in its final, functional form. Mutation and selection produced each of them, not from scratch as Behe would demand, but from pre-existing genes. As Meléndez-Hevia and his co-authors paraphrased Jacob in their study of the Krebs cycle "evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists" [ J Mol Evol 43: 293-303 (1996)].


    In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.
    ...
    “As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”


    Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.
    ...
    Change in diet also affected the population density and social structure of the Pod Mrcaru population. Because plants provide a larger and more predictable food supply, there were more lizards in a given area on Pod Mrcaru. Food was obtained through browsing rather than the active pursuit of prey, and the lizards had given up defending territories.


    “What is unique about this finding is that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and function of a species, but also influence behavioral ecology and natural history,” says Irschick.

    Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

    Barbarian, regarding Pakicetus:
    They lied to you about that. The reason Pakicetus was considered a whale ancestor was it had the skull of a whale. It was somewhat surprising that a whale would have legs, but since then, more fossil species of whales with legs have been found, showing the evolution of these animals. Would you like to see some examples that show how various features evolved over time?"

    (long string of digits)

    Some modern ones do. But as you see, they retain much of the skull anatomy of Pakicetus, one of the earliest whales.

    Here's an early illustration from Philip Gingerich, the discoverer:
    [​IMG]

    Because of the very primitive whale skull, he suspected (correctly) that it was able to walk on land. Others suggested a more whale-like body, but Gingerich was correct.

    I already showed you the evolution of blowholes. Would you like to learn about the evolution of auditory sensing in whales?
     
  10. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,638
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You were misled again. Basilosaurus, for example had hip bones and vestigial leg bones. And since we occasionally see vestigial legs on dolphins or whales, (in neither case are they needed for mating) your belief is demonstrably wrong.

    No. They are vestigial because they no longer serve the original purpose of walking. That's what a vestigial organ is. As Darwin pointed out, often vestigial organs become useful or some other function, as seems to be the case in Basilosaurus.

    As you learned, it's directly observed. So no presupposition necessary.

    You're wrong, again. Bones from a Basilosaurus skeleton:
    [​IMG]
    Top bone is the pelvis. Next is the femur. Then the tibia and fibula, and then the carpals, metacarpals and phalanges.

    Show us those. Like Gingerich's reconstruction above, scientists make certain to show reconstructions as inferred. Here's another, of Ambulocetus:

    [​IMG]
    Notice the actual bones found were stippled in, and the reconstruction (which turned out to be remarkably accurate as new specimens were found) is not stippled.

    [​IMG]

    Barbarian observes:
    Australopithecines. Interestingly enough, it's much harder to get creationists to all agree on which of these fossils are humans and which are apes. Would you like to take the challenge yourself?

    Well, let's take a look...

    (see table at link)
    As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to agree on which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Now we're even seeing the phenomenon of creationists who can't quite decide if an individual skull is human or ape - and yet they're quite sure it can't be an intermediate (see the footnotes for examples).

    Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals, as does Line in a 2005 article reviewing the hominid fossil record. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)

    It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.

    Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case.

    No, that's wrong. Lucy is not our direct ancestor, but is very close to such an ancestor. Why? Because Australopithecines are so precisely transitional between other apes and humans. This is why your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits that the "hominid series" is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

    They are transitional in many other ways as well. Would you like me to show you some more of them?"

    Lucy is quite different. Australopithecines had feet very much like ours. Ardi had a somewhat opposable big toe, indicating a much more arboreal life than Lucy's. Ardi could walk upright, but not as well as Australopithecines.

    In short, Ardi is far more like a forest ape than Lucy is, but already shows numerous adaptations for bipedal movement and human-like hand capabilities.

    Barbarian observes:
    10. Humans and Chimps Share 98% Genetic Identity
    Depending on how you do the analysis, our genes line up between 98 and 92%. If you use non-coding DNA (which creationsits call "junk DNA"), it's more like 85%. But what ever way you do it, humans and chimpanzees are genetically more alike than either is related to any other ape.

    Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels

    Roy J. Britten
    PNAS October 15, 2002 99 (21) 13633-13635

    Abstract

    Five chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences (described in GenBank) have been compared with the best matching regions of the human genome sequence to assay the amount and kind of DNA divergence. The conclusion is the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%, and there is an additional 3.4% difference due to the presence of indels. The gaps in alignment are present in about equal amounts in the chimp and human sequences. They occur equally in repeated and nonrepeated sequences, as detected by repeatmasker (http://ftp.genome.washington.edu/RM/RepeatMasker.html).


    They can even do that for different geographical populations of humans. You think we are several different species?

    Nope. Scientists call it "non-coding" DNA. Creationists refer to it as "junk DNA." Scientists sometimes informally use the creationist term, but even half a century ago, there were papers on the functions of non-coding DNA.

    Some of it is, but much of it, perhaps most of it, has evolved new functions. The GULO gene, for example, which in primates, used to code for vitamin C, is broken and no longer functional.
     
  11. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    "Questions to consider: If Earth is billions of years old, why does it still have a magnetic field? "

    This is like a bad joke made by someone who decided to skip highschool science class.

    @nolidad are you aware of magnetic reversals recorded in basalts of the Atlantic ocean?
     
  12. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    "Why is short-lived radiocarbon found in Earth’s natural resources that are supposedly millions of years old?"

    @nolidad
    This is a made up claim by young earthers that is non-credible. If you think you have an argument, then post your source.
     
  13. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Do I fear it? Not in the least! After I became a Christian I still strongly believed in Evolution. It wasn't until I went to a back to the beginnings seminar hosted by ICR, that I began a real study of origins and science and became a YEC based on both models of origins and compared to the proven laws of science.
     
  14. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    MAgnetic reversals are not a depletion of the magnetic field. Right now we have empircal observable science showing the depletion of the magnetic field.
     
  15. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    No it is a found fact by YEC scientists.

    Coal seams dated at a supposed 200,000,000 years by radiometric dating found to still have C14!

    As of this date many dino finds test for C-14 and date to <40,000 years.

    Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
     
  16. myst33

    myst33 Well-Known Member

    +873
    Czech Republic
    Christian
    Single
    "YEC scientist" is an antonym.

    Its just saying "these people are trying to find evidence for what they already believe in". But this is not science.
     
  17. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You are mistaken.

    We have observation of the magnetic pole shifting away from true north. It's not "depleting". If you think it is "depleting" show your source.
     
  18. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,480
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    "Conclusion: This C-14 data along with sedimentology, mineralogy, dinosaur depictions world-wide and recent CT-scans of some fossil human footprints with dinosaur trackssupport the words of Christ, of Scripture, of the Church Fathers and of all the Church Councils which speak of the fiat creation of the different kinds of spiritual and corporeal creatures, followed by a global flood."
    http://m.dinosaurc14ages.com/site/singnotes.htm


    Smh lol

    You're getting your leg pulled by some Alex Jones conspiracy nonsense. Sorry to break it to you.

    The link you provided is technically vague. It spends more time talking about how the analyses were rejected than it talks about the actual science backing the data. I don't see anything about corroborated data using alternate methods. I don't see anything about consideration of contamination from shellac.

    The authors are clearly religious fundamentalists set out with an agenda.

    Upon closer examination, the samples are giving varying ages, which indicates errors in the methodology. As stated above, corroborating data is not provided through other methods. Lab references are missing from samples.

    This all has young earth creationist conspiracy believers written all over it.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  19. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Well as I did not post that link, I can't respond to it. But it is a very vague link. The one I posted goes into great depth!

    The bones were tested from being in situ- not a museum.

    And shellac would not yield a date that old!

    Well it is not uncommon for differing labs to give differing dates for the same sample!

    And there is no other test to validate C-14 for very young ages! The labs are posted in teh dates and samples!

    And your response has all the earmarks of an old earth hissy fit to it! I already know those who are wed to their indoctrination into old earth/ old universe/ biological evolution will howl everytime YEC scientists show that old dates have serious problems to it!

    all sorts of accusations and allegations are made but no evidence to substantiate the ad-homiunem attacks are ever found when the technical stuff is put forth!

    The simple fact is these samples were taken from the ground. Labs prepare the samples for testing.

    YEC paleontologists and geologists go to the same labs that evolutionists go to! There should be no reading of C-14 whatsoever in these samples! The fact there is shows there is a huge problem with old ages.

    also finding soft tissue samples now in over 40 dino samples (some as old as 500MY) has thrown the whole field in disarray and forced them to come out with some real cockamamey hypotheses as to how soft tissue could remain anywhere from 71 to 500 MY.
     
  20. nolidad

    nolidad Well-Known Member

    +140
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others

    And what do you think evolutionary scientists do??? they are not out there looking to reprove whjat they already believe in!
    that is not science either!

    And if you ever bothered to look at AIG or ICR and their statement- they both declare that Creation is a matter of faith. THey also declare the BB and biological evolution to be a matter of faith.

    Creation and the ascent of man from an organic soup are both beying the bounds of true science.

    But once again, verifiable observable , validated science lends more support to the Creation model than to the bb/evolution model of origins!
     
Loading...