Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Son Goku wrote:A few pages back I would have said Orrorin tugenensis instead of apes, but by now, especially with JC's ridiculous responses to my QFT posts, I've given up being exact.
...as evidenced by your use of the word "few" here
0 -
-
bonkey wrote:There seems to be some dissent about how these figures are being interpreted.
Dissent in scientific community?
How does that fit into the grand-atheists-"down with God"-evolution-is-always-correct-Christians-are-always-wrong theory
0 -
It's the femi-nazi lesbians, they're always up to no good.Wicknight wrote:Dissent in scientific community?
How does that fit into the grand-atheists-"down with God"-evolution-is-always-correct-Christians-are-always-wrong theory0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight wrote:Dissent in scientific community?
How does that fit into the grand-atheists-"down with God"-evolution-is-always-correct-Christians-are-always-wrong theory
It's uncannily like the way Creationists like to reference the research they claim can't be published...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Originally Posted by J C
Those are two of hundreds of different tests
…..and they(radiometric tests) are ALL founded on equally shaky, unproven (and circular) assumptions!!!!
JimiTime
Hi JC, Can this point be ellaborated on a point by point basis? If I may suggest a format.
1.The test used eg. Carbon dating : what is its shaky unproven assumptions?
2. test used. what is its shaky unproven assumptions.
Etc etc.
I am curious.
Hi JimiTime
Apologies for the delay – but I was away for the past week, and not following the thread.
Radiocarbon Dating IS the most accurate radiometric dating method – and it is reasonably accurate for dating organic matter with ages up to a few thousand years.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of it will convert back to 14 N in 5,730 +/- 40 years. That is the half life of 14C is 5,730 +/- 40 years.
In two half lives or 11,460 years only one quarter will be left and theoretically after 60,000 years less than one thousandth of the original 14C will remain.
However, when it comes to Radiocarbon Dating, things are not quite that simple.
Firstly, plants discriminate against CO2 molecules that contain 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected from the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere and so they test “older” than they really are (based upon atmospheric ratios of 14C : 12C when they were alive).
Secondly, different plants discriminate differently against 14CO2 and this adds further complexity to interpreting radiocarbon “dates” involving plant tissue remnants.
Thirdly, the ratio of 14C : 12C in the atmosphere has not been constant – for example, it was higher before the industrial era, when massive burning of ‘fossil fuels’ released vast quantities of CO2 that was depleted in 14C. This makes things that lived during this time period appear “older” in terms of carbon dating.
Fourthly, the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C being produced. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the Sun’s activity.
Fifthly, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere and the magnetic field varies by up to 100% between different locations on Earth.
The overall strength of the Earth’s magnetic field has also been rapidly decreasing – and this decline has been confirmed to be exponential and with a half life of only 1400 years – i.e. the magnetic field is declining at a rate 50% in 1400 years – and so significantly more 14C is now being produced than in the past, making old plant material look even “older” than it really is.
Direct measurement of historically dated objects, such as, for example, plant material in graves of accurately dated tombs, enables the 14C ratio in the atmosphere to be determined historically, and so calibration of the ‘carbon clock’ is possible for the past few thousand years.
My big reservations aren't with Radiocarbon Dating however, my primarily reservations are in relation to radiometric ROCK dating – where very serious dating discrepancies have occurred with many rock samples of known recent ages!!!
ALL radiometric dating methods are based upon the following unproven ASSUMPTIONS:-
1. That the starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much daughter isotope was there).
2. That decay rates remained constant.
3. That the systems were closed so that no parent or daughter isotopes were added or lost throughout the period that that rock has existed
These unproven and unprovable ASSUMPTIONS prevent any reliable dating conclusions being drawn.
Indeed, there are many examples of known recently formed rocks being radiometrically dated at millions of years old.
For example, rock samples taken from submarine lava flows from Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, which are known to have occurred in the 1950’s, have been radiometrically ‘dated’ at 4 million years old.
Equally, the K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand during 1949, 1954 and 1975 produced radiometric ages that varied from 0.27 to 3.5 MILLION years old!!
There are numerous other examples including the remains of trees that were radiometrically ‘dated’ at c40 THOUSAND years BP and clearly buried under basalt that flowed over them - which was radiometrically ‘dated’ at c 40 MILLION years BP. Could I remind you that this difference IS 100,000% !!!
In a study by Dr Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research, Basalt rocks from the Uinkaret Plateau of The Grand Canyon (which most Evolutionist Geologists accept are only thousands of years old) had the following DIFFERENT ages ‘established’ by radiometric dating :-
Six Potassium-Argon ages.............from 10,000 to 117 Million years.
Five Rubidium-Strontium ages........from 1,270 to 1,390 Million years.
One Rubidium Strontium isochron....1,340 Million years.
One Lead-Lead isochron................2,600 Million years.
CiDeRmAn
So, what, in your estimation qualifies as "Conventional Science"?
I mean where do you draw the line between what is conventional and what is not
‘Conventional Science’ is the body of scientific knowledge, which has been discovered and accepted by ‘Conventionally Qualified Scientists’.
‘Conventionally Qualified Scientists’ are scientists qualified in one or more scientific disciplines by a recognised conventional state-approved third-level academic authority.
CiDeRmAn
Seeing as science is a continuum of logic from Newtonian laws of motion to M-theory, combining the insights of both quantum, string and relativitistic physics, how do you split that up into what christians find digestable and what they don't?
Being a Christian, has NO effect on what I find ‘digestible’ as a scientist.
As conventional physics has progressed it has become more speculative and almost metaphysical in some of it’s conclusions.
As a scientist I accept repeatably verifiable phenomena – but I keep an ‘open mind’ on all other speculative theories (like the Higgs Boson for example).
In the case of macro-Evolution the evidence against it is so overwhelming as to effectively invalidate it as a Scientific Theory (for people of all faiths and none).
CiDeRmAn
How do you as christians come to term with the fact that the very device you are posting to threads on is working according to well nderstood atomic and quantum behaviour, predictable due to our understanding of the deep structure of the universe?
If a particular part of modern science is not in keeping with your beliefs, have you examined your belief system to see if it is consistent with observable data? After all that is the essence of the scientific method.
The reason that computers work in a predictable ordered way is that they operate in accordance with intelligently designed information dense programmes that are analogous to the ordered information dense systems observed in living organisms.
Could I ask you if you have actually examined YOUR evolutionary beliefs in the light of the SCIENTIFICALLY observed information dense, tightly specified living organisms that populate our planet?
Figures like 10^130 for the odds of randomly producing the sequence for a specific protein or 10^40,000 for producing the specific biochemical sequences for an amoeba are dramatic proof AGAINST Materialistic Evolution when we consider there are only 10^82 electrons in the entire postulated ‘Big Bang’ Universe.
Materialistic Evolution IS actually the idea that is growing increasingly out of line with the findings of modern science!!!:D
JimiTime
Here is what I propose.
1. Avoid 'evolutionists are stupid because', 'creationists are stupid because' type scenarios.
2. Anything other than evidence and things of the like(your discretion required) that may wind someone up, don't say it. (e.g. i find it funny how..., etc etc)
3. If anyone does fire some mud, break the circle and don't fire back.
An excellent idea.
However, could I point out that I have NEVER referred to Evolutionists as ‘stupid’ nor have I called them liars or questioned their scientific standing or their qualifications.
As you have correctly pointed out such Ad Hominem attacks would add nothing to the debate.
However, my evolutionist opponents have not been as charitable in their comments about either myself or other Creationists.
Both Evolutionists and Creationists are intelligent people who have different views on the ‘origins question’ - and there are conventionally qualified scientists of high academic standing on both sides of the debate.:D
JimiTime
I would love to see this debate played out rationally. The only creation scientist I have observed is JC. JC does not seem to be deemed a scientist by his science peers (Son Goku etc). So maybe we should establish something first. The following questions are not accusations
JC, are you a scientist? Or are you a christian who has looked at ways of disproving evolution through science?
I have said it before, and I say it again that I am a Conventionally Qualified Scientist.
Thankfully, it was the National University of Ireland that determined that I am a conventionally qualified scientist, and not Son Goku.
Whether Son Goku accepts my scientific abilities is about as relevant as whether he accepts that the Earth is spherical.
If he accepts it then it makes little difference – and if he doesn’t accept it, then the only person on whom it reflects badly is Son Goku himself!!!:D
0 -
Wicknight
Mutation that can and do produce an increase in genetic material have been observed. A few times actually.
mmm……….so increases in genetic material have been observed only “a FEW TIMES actually” (emphasis mine).
Firstly, could I point out that increases in genetic material DON’T necessarily result in increases in genetic information – indeed there are many genetic DISORDERS that result from increased genetic material being present in the cell.
Secondly, isn’t it amazing that the supposed ‘engine of macro-Evolution’ i.e. increasing genetic material has only ever been observed in a VERY FEW highly debatable instances, and most of the time it results in deleterious conditions in the individual so affected.
If macro-evolution of primordial slime to Man were true, then we should expect to be ‘swamped’ in millions of examples of unambiguous increases in genetic information – rather than an increase in genetic material being observed only “a few (very debatable) times actually.”:D
Wicknight
Who said faith was supposed to be easy? If it was easy it wouldn't be faith
I agree that GREAT faith is required to rationally sustain a belief in the macro-evolution of pond slime to Man, because it is so preposterous!!!:D
…..However, Jesus Christ confirmed that we required VERY LITTLE faith to believe in Him.
In Lk 17:6 He said “if ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say onto this sycamine tree. Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea and it should obey you” (KJV).
The clear implication of these words is that the (small) AMOUNT of faith required to trust in Jesus Christ isn’t the issue – it is our WILLINGNESS to place our faith in Him, which is the problem.
Wicknight
How do you know the Bible isn't a test, to see if you would still believe in God once it was shown to be not literal or flawed?
If the Genesis Account of Creation WAS shown to be non-literal or flawed, your idea might have some merit – but because the Genesis account is fully scientifically supported, this issue doesn’t arise.:cool:
Robin
What about the idea that god created a process which created DNA + RNA? Isn't that even more impressive than just making something? I presume that you don't believe that god carves out rivers and mountains and instead, that god created the processes that allow them to happen. If so, how come arriving at DNA + RNA through some process is different from arriving at rivers and mountains through some process?
If some process creating DNA + RNA de novo were observed, then your idea might have some merit – but because DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA and many other complex bio chemicals in order for it to replicate, your question simply doesn't arise.
God’s primary physical involvement with the Universe was during Creation Week – and so all physical processes like river formation and living systems follow the Laws instituted by God during Creation Week, and therefore the indirect result of His Divine Creation Fiat.
The original Creation of matter and life occurred on a ‘once off’ basis during Creation Week and that is why we currently don’t observe the spontaneous creation of either matter or life.:eek:
Wicknight
Stars that appear to have exploded hundreds of thousands of years ago and who's light has only just reached us in the last 150 years, would have actually never existed in the first place. If you want to explain that I'm all ears.
If you are really 'all ears' then please listen!!!:D
Evolutionist Cosmologists are probably as wrong about their unfounded belief in ‘hundreds of thousands of light years Supernovae’ as their Biologist colleagues are about their equally unfounded belief in ‘millions of years fossils’.:eek:
Scofflaw
How did you explain the nylon-digesting frame shift mutation?
A perfect digestion system for conventional substrate becomes an imperfect digestion system for Nylon substrate via a dramatic frame shift - so what!!!
It is actually evidence of the enormous genetic diversity pre-programmed into the genome of even a ‘humble bacterium’ by an omnipotent God!!!!:D
Scofflaw
the only way you can explain 99.99% of (Evolutionists) not finding evidence for Genesis is a deliberate conspiracy of global extent and immense power.
Not really!!!!
Because the hostility amongst Evolutionists against Creationism is quite open, it is obvious that ‘not finding evidence for Genesis’ isn’t a conspiracy amongst Evolutionists – it is merely a result an obvious and overt bias on their part.
I would also point out that because less than 1% of conventional scientists are directly concerned with Evolution, and the remaining 90 odd percent don’t study it in any detail, the vast majority of Evolutionists simply accept Evolution as an ‘Article of Faith’.
Wicknight
The idea that there is some widespread atheists conspiracy to hide the "truth" about creation within mainstream science is laughable to the point of totally absurdity.
Again I agree!!
Because the hostility towards Creation is quite OPEN, I don’t think that there is a CONSPIRACY amongst Evolutionists to HIDE the “truth” – it is more like a refusal to ACCEPT the truth.
Equally, less than 1% of conventional scientists are directly concerned with Evolution – and the remaining 90 odd percent just accept Evolution as an ‘Article of Faith’.
Wicknight
Why does science suggest the Earth is actually a big ball of compressed stellar rock and gas from a star that exploded 5 billion years ago, when we know the Earth and everything in it was created by God over a 6 day period for us to live on?
An interesting question!!!
Wicknight
Why does science suggest that the universe is 10 billion years old, when the heavens were created by God on the 2nd day of creation?
An interesting question!!!
Wicknight
Why is science claiming that humans evolved from older species approx 150,000 years ago when we know humans were created by God in the garden of Eden 10,000 years ago?
An interesting question!!!
Wicknight
Why is science claiming that all life on Earth evolves due to mutation and natural selection when we know that God made all life in one go during the 6 days of creation?
An interesting question!!!
Wicknight
at the back of all this that it is the work of Satan, after all Satan is known as the "Great Deciever"
An interesting conclusion!!!!
Well, well, Wicknight - you do ask some pretty fundamental questions, don't you??? :eek: 0 -
-
Yeah, omgz, lolz, e.t.c.J C wrote:I have said it before and I say it again that I am a Conventionally Qualified Scientist.
Thankfully, it was the National University of Ireland that determined that I am a conventionally qualified scientist and not Son Goku.
Whether Son Goku accepts my scientific abilities is about as relevant as whether he accepts that the Earth is spherical.
If he accepts it then it makes little difference – and if he doesn’t accept it, then the only person on whom it reflects badly is Son Goku himself!!!:D
However you said before that you were part of an elite group of creation scientists that were trained in all branches of science, in order to study origin questions. However the NUIs offer no such programmes.
So what is your actual qualification?
And these claims would be?As conventional physics has progressed it has become more speculative and almost metaphysical in some of it’s conclusions.
The Sun produces Cosmic rays? When did it become that energetic?Fourthly, the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C being produced. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the Sun’s activity.0 -
-
J C wrote:.mmm……….so increases in genetic material have been observed only “a FEW TIMES actually” (emphasis mine).
Considering that it is such a rare event (so rare that Creationists claim it actually doesn't happen and is impossible) I think the fact that science has observed it a few times in the last 5 years is pretty good going. Of course science only has to observe it once to disprove the Creationists claim that it cannot ever happen (because God won't let it?)J C wrote:Firstly, could I point out that increases in genetic material DON’T necessarily result in increases in genetic information – indeed there are many genetic DISORDERS that result from increased genetic material being present in the cell.
Well that depends on how you define "information". As has been mentioned before the Creationist definition of "information" is nonsense because it requires the existence of God and intelligent design. If on the other hand you define information as the data stored in the genetic material of a creature then increase in genetic material is an increase in genetic information, and is the only requirement for evolution to take place.
Constantly re-defining "information" once the requirements that Creationists say can never happen have been shown to happen is an old Creationists trick JC, well documented and very tiresome at this stage.
No, considering macro-evolution is a very slow process, with "jumps" like these being very very are and uncommon events. Otherwise we would be chaning into new species all the time, which we aren't. As I said it is pretty amazing that we have seen this already, considering we have only been looking for the last 20 years or so.J C wrote:Secondly, isn’t it amazing that the supposed ‘engine of macro-Evolution’ i.e. increasing genetic material has only ever been observed in a VERY FEW highly debatable instances and most of the time it results in deleterious conditions in the individual so affected.
What is actually funny is that Creationists can't let something go.
You have stated that an increase in genetic information producing new genetic code forming during replication, rather than just a re-arrangement of preexisting genetic material, is impossible, and therefore macro-evolution can never happen You are wrong.
Of course I don't expect you to accept this, I have always expected you to backtrack, state that that wasn't what you were talking about, attempt to re-define what you meant by "information", claim that science is mis-leading the results, claim that just because it happens once or twice doesn't prove it happened a lot over the history of the Earth, etc etc.
Which, surprise surprise, you are doing now. But you just come across looking silly.
No actually we wouldn't, since change between species (macro-evolution) is very slow taking a very long time to actually happen. Which is why we don't see new species evolving appear every few years.J C wrote:If macro-evolution of primordial slime to Man were true, then we should expect to be ‘swamped’ in millions of examples of unambiguous increases in genetic information
It only has to be observed once to prove that it is possible (and to disprove the Creationists claim that it is impossible). It has been observed more than once, it has been shown to be possible.J C wrote:– rather than an increase in genetic material being observed only “a few (very debatable) times actually.”
The same mutation process that allows micro-evolution to happen also allows macro-evolution to happen. Of course it was only ever Creationists who claim this couldn't happen, despite never actually giving a reason why it was impossible.
Don't they look a little silly now?
There is no such thing as an "Evolutionists Cosmologist" :rolleyes:J C wrote:Evolutionist CosmologistsJ C wrote:are probably as wrong about their unfounded belief in ‘hundreds of thousands of light years’ as their Biologist colleagues are about their belief in ‘millions of fossil years’.:eek:
No actually they aren't. My scientific evidence for this. Why AnswersInGensis of course!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp
Even your own religious movement accepts that the universe is billions of light years wide. You must be pretty desperate JC when you can't even get AiG to back you up.
So what?? So it proves you are talking nonsenseJ C wrote:A perfect digestion system for conventional substrate becomes an imperfect digestion system for Nylon substrate via a dramatic frame shift - so what!!!
So God programmed life to evolve through evolution. Finally something JC that might actually make sense and fit with science.J C wrote:It is actually evidence of the enormous genetic diversity pre-programmed into the genome of even a ‘humble bacterium’ by an omnipotent God!!!!:D
Oh it is quite open, because Creationists lie and misrepresent evidence and scientific findings, as has been documented a number of times on this thread alone.J C wrote:Because the hostility towards Creation is quite OPENJ C wrote:An interesting question!!!
Well JC, the answers is (promise not to tell anyone) "because it is"0 -
-
-
Son Goku
The fact is certain humans are born with these tail like structures, what do Creationists make of these tail like structures. Their existence isn't an evolutionary fairy-tale, even though the link to ape ancestors might be.
In other words what do you think they are?
It is technically called a 'Caudal Appendage'. It is typically a 2 inch long fleshy growth on the lower back.
Evolutionists like to claim that it is a vestigial tail even though it has virtually none of the distinctive anatomical characteristics of a tail.
The following link gives the facts about Caudal Appendages
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro07.html
In summary, it states the following:-
All true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column.
All true tails also have muscles, which permit some movement of the tail.
There has never been a single documented case of an animal tail lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of a human Caudal Appendage having any of these features. In fact, Caudal Appendages are merely fatty outgrowths of skin that are located in the wrong place on the back to be a tail!
Originally Posted by BBC
Humans show major DNA differences
Scientists have shown that our genetic code varies between individuals far more than was previously thought.
A UK-led team made a detailed analysis of the DNA found in 270 people and identified vast stretches in their codes to be duplicated or even missing.
...
"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12% of the genome.
……and other Evolutionists claim that we share 98% of our genome with Chimpanzees.
Sounds like Evolutionists think that they are genetically closer to a Monkey than they are to their their Mother-in-Laws!!!!:eek:
I haven't seen the Monkey - so I couldn't possibly comment!!!!!:D
Scofflaw
the claim that I was specifically interested in here was the creationist claim that we are "tightly specified", and that even small changes in our DNA makeup would be fatal. See JC's posts about the amazing complexity and huge information-denseness of human DNA, and how it's unbelievably exact
Of course there is genetic variation between individual Human Beings – but this variation IS always within tight constraints – a Human Being is always a Human Being and an Oak Tree is always an Oak Tree.
The apparent paradox is illustrated by the following analogy.
There are considerable differences between different car models – but each car is so tightly specified that if just one part is missing or in the wrong place the car will be useless!!!
There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their sequences ARE indeed observed to be tightly specified.
For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.
Son Goku
The Sun produces Cosmic rays? When did it become that energetic?
When it was Created.:D
……and if you don’t believe me, can I quote from Wikipedia on the matter:-
“Cosmic Rays originate from energetic processes on the SUN all the way to the farthest reaches of the visible universe.”
Scofflaw
This is a fair summary of some of the known issues with radiocarbon dating. However, JC fails to mention that radiocarbon dates have been cross-checked against dendrochronology (the tree-ring record) that goes back up to 10,000 years - I suspect he is glossing over this because that's more than 6000 years.
Firstly, please note that whether it’s 10,000 or 6,000 years it is ‘a far cry’ from the millions of years that Evolutionists talk about!!
Secondly, extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute.
Dendrochronology can only definitively age individual trees – any apparent overlap in the ring pattern between timber samples from different trees may be due to a coincidence of localised conditions in the growth patterns at two different times rather than proof of similar age.
The oldest tree to be aged using Dendrochronology was a Bristlecone Pine aged 4,867 years when it was cut down in 1963 – thereby giving a germination date of 2,904 BC. This is currently the maximum age established by Dendrology. However, even this age comes with a ‘health warning’ because multiple growth rings have been observed within the one year in some Pine species and this Bristlecone Pine is likely to be somewhat younger than it’s number of rings suggests.
The age of this tree is also interesting in that it coincides with the approximate aftermath of Noah’s Flood, i.e 2,500 +/- 300 years BC.:cool:
Wicknight
My scientific evidence for this. Why AnswersInGensis of course!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp
Even your own religious movement accepts that the universe is billions of light years wide.
Firstly, I am an independent person with no ties to AIG.
Secondly Wicknight, I must say you SEEM TO BE exhibiting evidence of a ‘Pauline Conversion’ – actually quoting AIG no less – other Atheists please take note – say but the words “I believe on Jesus Christ” and you will be saved!!!!!
Thirdly, I actually believe that the Universe is INFINITE – so billions of light years are no problem to me – it is the claim that OBSERVED Supernovae are at such distances that I reject. :cool:
Wicknight
So God programmed life to evolve through evolution. Finally something JC that might actually make sense and fit with science.
Wicknight, you ARE exhibiting evidence of a ‘Pauline Conversion’ – an Atheist now saying that GOD programmed (i.e. Created) life, whatever next!!!!
Originally Posted by Wicknight / JC
Why is science claiming that humans evolved from older species approx 150,000 years ago when we know humans were created by God in the garden of Eden 10,000 years ago?
An interesting question!!!
Wicknight
Well JC, the answers is (promise not to tell anyone) "because it is"
…..because it is…….
………….true that God created Adam and Eve!!!!
Welcome to Creation Science, Wicknight
…………..and your secret is safe with me – I promise not to tell anybody, especially those Secular Humanists that you used hang around with!!!!!;)
Wicknight
It is well understood that radiometeric dating can gives dates that are a million years off, but science nor Creationists by the way, have ever put forward a process that can produce radiometeric dating that is billion of years off.
In the study by Dr Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research, Basalt rocks from the Uinkaret Plateau of The Grand Canyon (which most Evolutionist Geologists accept as only thousands of years old) had the following DIFFERENT ages ‘established’ by radiometric dating :-
Six Potassium-Argon ages from 10,000 to 117 Million years.
Five Rubidium-Strontium ages from 1.270 to 1,390 Million years.
One Rubidium Strontium isochron 1,340 Million years.
One Lead-Lead isochron 2,600 Million years.
The rock was formed within the last few thousand years, but Potassium Argon tests aged it at as young as 10 THOUSAND years while a Lead-Lead isochron dated it at 2,600 MILLION years – sounds like the Lead-Lead isochron was ‘off’ by 2.6 BILLION years!!!!
Wicknight
If Creationist is correct then most rock on Earth are all the same date, 10,000 years. So how come the such wide spread of dating? Why does one rock appear to be 200 million years old, another appears to be 40 million years old, another appears to be 2 billion years old.
The SAME rock in my example above gave ‘dates’ ranging from 10 thousand to 2.6 billion years – the ROCK obviously isn’t wrong – it’s the radiometric assumptions that are clearly wrong!!!
Always place your trust in the ROCK – Jesus Christ is the ROCK of our salvation – and He loves you, Wicknight and He wants to save YOU !!!!
Wicknight
While Creationists are happy to point out the error rates in radiometeric dating (using ironically enough well documented scientific research and then claiming science are unaware of the issue) Creationists have never explained how this supports Creationists?
So, you accept that there are serious problems with radiometric dating then?
Such problems don’t directly support Creationism – but they do invalidate Evolutionist claims of ‘millions of years’!!!!:D
Wicknight
Even if radiometeric dating is wrong the Earth is still millions of year old,
Don’t go getting all ‘Evolutionisty’ on me – just when I thought you were becoming a Creationist!!!!;) 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
J C wrote:BBC wrote:Humans show major DNA differences
Scientists have shown that our genetic code varies between individuals far more than was previously thought.
A UK-led team made a detailed analysis of the DNA found in 270 people and identified vast stretches in their codes to be duplicated or even missing.
...
"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12% of the genome.
……and other Evolutionists claim that we share 98% of our genome with Chimpanzees.
Sounds like Evolutionists think that they are genetically closer to a Monkey than they are to their their Mother-in-Laws!!!!:eek:
I haven't seen the Monkey - so I couldn't possibly comment!!!!!:D
This is what's known in the trade as a "recent finding", or "new research". I understand your difficulty in grasping the idea, of course, what with your 2000-year old book being the ultimate authority and all.
In this case, the findings are compatible, although one of them is old, and the other one is new.J C wrote:Scofflaw
the claim that I was specifically interested in here was the creationist claim that we are "tightly specified", and that even small changes in our DNA makeup would be fatal. See JC's posts about the amazing complexity and huge information-denseness of human DNA, and how it's unbelievably exact
Of course there is genetic variation between individual Human Beings – but this variation IS always within tight constraints – a Human Being is always a Human Being and an Oak Tree is always an Oak Tree.
The apparent paradox is illustrated by the following analogy.
There are considerable differences between different car models – but each car is so tightly specified that if just one part is missing or in the wrong place the car will be useless!!!
There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their sequences ARE indeed observed to be tightly specified.
Yes, JC. That's exactly the kind of silly claim that this finding refutes. Let me summarise it for you, since I know you to be hard of thinking:
A. Scientific Observation: that the human genome differs between individuals by up to 12% by virtue of random duplication, shuffling, and deletion of multiple copies of genes.
B. Creationist Claim: that the human genome is 'tightly specified' - so tightly specified that if just one part is missing or in the wrong place the genome will be useless (exclamation marks to taste).
A contradicts B.
A is a fact, B is a claim.
B loses.
You cannot address this piece of intrusive reality, so you have fallen back on mantra-like recitation of how the human genome is tightly specified - in the face of the evidence.
Have you considered putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear youoo!" instead? Equally dignified, equally intelligent, and much shorter. I'll even indulge you a little - you can put your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la the human genome is tightly specified, it is it is it is" - well, that's what you're doing now, of course, so perhaps I am not so indulgent after all - just willing to accept reality.
summarily,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement