• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Certainly it doesn't exist. There are thousands if not millions, of species in between.

It never fails to amaze me how far from reality, and science, the Creationist/ID crowd must venture, cloaked in purposeful ignorance, to validate their lies.

BTW junior, facts are a measurable quality that stands up to the Scientific Method. Evolution has, indeed, stood up to those rigors for many years, while Creationism, especially the biblical kind, falls flat on it's face before it leaves the starting gate.

Words are cheap. And I would not even be stupid enough to imagine that Creationists are more or less prone to lie than anyone else, except perhaps that they are answerable to GOD for any lies and Creationists know this full well. Evolutionists (it would seem) are only answerable to themselves and no one else...

Facts are reality that stand up to eternity and never change.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Radiometric dating, the time required for peaks and valleys to form, making sense of biology, archaeology, geology and history.

It would seem Radiometric dating can be greatly affected by water (the FLOODperhaps) infiltration.


Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization. 4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Yes, there is.
And your denial of it only shows your ignorance of evolutionary biology.

While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Words are cheap. And I would not even be stupid enough to imagine that Creationists are more or less prone to lie than anyone else, except perhaps that they are answerable to GOD for any lies and Creationists know this full well. Evolutionists (it would seem) are only answerable to themselves and no one else...

Facts are reality that stand up to eternity and never change.

Name one fact that this was true for...

Now back to the age of the Earth - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It would seem Radiometric dating can be greatly affected by water (the FLOODperhaps) infiltration.
Where? How? And in which way?


Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
We know the decay rate because we see it happen.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
False. Incorporation of daughter elements from outside sources shows up in the data plots and is extremely easy to spot.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
Why?

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
??? That doesn't make sense.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).
But no matter how the data is analyzed, chimps are genetically more similar to humans than they are to gorillas or other apes, and genetic distances among the primates reflects phylogenetic relationships that were established long before sequencing data was available.

How do you account for that?
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
Words are cheap. And I would not even be stupid enough to imagine that Creationists are more or less prone to lie than anyone else, except perhaps that they are answerable to GOD for any lies and Creationists know this full well. Evolutionists (it would seem) are only answerable to themselves and no one else...

Facts are reality that stand up to eternity and never change.

Words are indeed cheap, such as yours.

Facts tend to be quite expensive at times. what with paying archaeologists, storing fossils, all those tests and everything else.
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
It would seem Radiometric dating can be greatly affected by water (the FLOODperhaps) infiltration.


Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization. 4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.

Radiometric dating is indeed effected by certain conditions. It works best in dry environments, such as the Middle East.

However, there is a pelthora of dating techniques, and when they all point to the same thing, such as no WWF and a 4 billion year old Earth, then those facts are confirmed.
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).

A human being who has a transplant must take drugs to keep their body from rejecting the transplanted organ, so your plagerized reply is moot. A human will reject another human's heart, at times violently. Xenotransplants have been used successfully in the past as "bridge transplants", a temporary measure until a suitable human doner organ was found but a chimp's heart, for example, is smaller than ours and unsuitable more due to size than rejection. Xenotransplants was halted due to pressure from animal rights groups.

BTW, speaking of DNA, when we can look at ours, and theirs, and find that one of our genes is two of theirs fused together, and can give the approximate location where it is fused as well, again, your palgerism falls short.

It is proper to include the link when using other people's work. Your nonsence is found here...
Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

Concerned that the source would eiminate any credibility, which, BTW, it does all on it's own?

BTW, a PhD does not a microbiologist or genetisist make, and the two authors of your article are known Creationists, one fo the Predisent of your source, so they have zero credibility.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).
Quote mining is a dishonest practice used by many Creationists. The so called "quote" you provided was first posted by Harun Yahya, a fundamental Muslim Creationist known for twisting scientific papers and quoting out of context.

Roy Britten, is a well known evolutionary biologist.


"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.

Note also, though, that evolution has not been uniform throughout the genomes, so estimates of human-chimp divergence which consider only part of the genome can give different results (Britten 2002, Chen et al. 2001).

"It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.
The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.
But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single "letter" differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.
But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. "Insertions" occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, "deletions" mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species.
Together, they are termed "indels", and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.
When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.
But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences.
"We're not any more different than we were," says Britten. "But we see a bit more divergence than before because insertions and deletions are taken into account. It almost triples the difference."
The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says.
But the differences were equally split between "junk" regions that do not have any genes, and gene-rich parts of the genome, suggesting they may be evenly distributed.
Britten thinks it will be some time before we know what it is about our genes that makes us so different from chimps. He thinks the real secrets could lie in "regulatory" regions of DNA that control whole networks of genes. "It'll be a while before we understand them," he says"
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Human-chimp DNA difference trebled - 23 September 2002 - New Scientist
 
Last edited:

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Radiometric dating is indeed effected by certain conditions. It works best in dry environments, such as the Middle East.

However, there is a pelthora of dating techniques, and when they all point to the same thing, such as no WWF and a 4 billion year old Earth, then those facts are confirmed.

And so the pelthora of dating techniques might just all point to the FLOOD as a common factor.
 
Last edited:

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
And so the pelthora os dating techniques might just all point to the FLOOD as a common factor.

None do, sorry.

You're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that there was no WWF.

Not enough water on the planet, no fossil evidence, no pauses in ancient writings when said flood supposedly occured (around 2,200 BCE when using the biblical timeline). And certainly the entire Noah myth can hardly be termed a fact as well.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
So apparently "LittleNipper" is going to do the creationist two-step, i.e. post a bunch of bald assertions and ignore all responses.

Gee, haven't seen that before, have we?
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
None do, sorry.

You're just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that there was no WWF.

Not enough water on the planet, no fossil evidence, no pauses in ancient writings when said flood supposedly occured (around 2,200 BCE when using the biblical timeline). And certainly the entire Noah myth can hardly be termed a fact as well.

I must totally disagree. There is plenty of water on earth to cover a smoother surfaced planet. And it is very likely this planet had much less rugged turaine then today. Our planet presently exhibits the damage caused by both the FALL and the FLOOD. The FLOOD likely was about 1000 years after the FALL. The story of Naoh is the most scientific of all the related stories concerning the GREAT DELUGE. You need to get over the idea that this planet is billions of years old and that life is a "natural" occurence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Egypt

http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Fi-Go/Floods.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark
 
Last edited:

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
I must totally disagree. There is plenty of water on earth to cover a smoother surfaced planet. And it is very likely this planet had much less rugged turaine then today. Our planet presently exhibits the damage caused by both the FALL and the FLOOD. The FLOOD likely was about 1000 years after the FALL. The story of Naoh is the most scientific of all the related stories concerning the GREAT DELUGE. You need to get over the idea that this planet is billions of years old and that life is a "natural" occurence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

Flood Stories from Around the World
Love the Talk Origins link.;)

I dare you to provide any geological evidence at all of a World Wide Flood.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
"40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago "

It just goes to show that "bandwagon" argments are so much bunk.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I must totally disagree. There is plenty of water on earth to cover a smoother surfaced planet. And it is very likely this planet had much less rugged turaine then today.
Not if there was dry land before the flood (and presumably there was, as Noah et al. weren't described as aquatic organisms). The reason it is "dry land" is because there's not enough water on the earth to cover it. If there were enough water to cover it, it wouldn't be "dry land".
 
Top