A Challenge To All Creationists

[Shad]

Here is a graphic showing how I prove that
a solar system forms by the Sun's twin going nova

You mean how you took an existing solar system, dropped another sun, remove the planets which refuted your model then let the simulation go. I am impressed.... Now where are reviews of your model?

 

[Jose Fly]

Since these discussion always end up in a vicious circle, if you want to continue, I need some information.

So you're going to ignore my questions while demanding that I answer yours. Sorry, I don't play those games.

Please answer: If you truly believe you have a valid scientific case against the evolution, why haven't you presented it to the scientific community? Why restrict it to anonymous postings in a religious internet forum?

Do you believe matter, energy and life are eternal, IOW have always existed? You say they have, give me the reason(s) your beilieve that.

Given that time itself didn't come into existence until the big bang, there was no "time in which neither matter nor energy didn't exist".

What isotope(s) are you referring to and what element are you testing for and what method of testing was used to established the age?

Congruent results from radiometric testing of isotopes that decay via different mechanisms are not uncommon. For example, testing of meteorites consistently gives ages of between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old, including results from K-Ar (which decays via electron capture) and Rb-SR (which decays via beta decay).

So the question for you is, what mechanism affects these two independent different processes in exactly the same way, such that they give congruent results?

 

[omega2xx]

So you're going to ignore my questions while demanding that I answer yours. Sorry, I don't play those games.

Please answer: If you truly believe you have a valid scientific case against the evolution, why haven't you presented it to the scientific community? Why restrict it to anonymous postings in a religious internet forum?



Given that time itself didn't come into existence until the big bang, there was no "time in which neither matter nor energy didn't exist".



Congruent results from radiometric testing of isotopes that decay via different mechanisms are not uncommon. For example, testing of meteorites consistently gives ages of between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old, including results from K-Ar (which decays via electron capture) and Rb-SR (which decays via beta decay).

So the question for you is, what mechanism affects these two independent different processes in exactly the same way, such that they give congruent results?

Asking is not demanding. Answer my question or this discussion is finished for me.

 

[Jose Fly]

Asking is not demanding. Answer my question or this discussion is finished for me.

Um.....I did answer your questions. Try and pay better attention.

 

[omega2xx]

Um.....I did answer your questions. Try and pay better attention.

Yes sir I will do my best obey your orders. Do I have to salute you?

You are right, you did answer my question but you were wrong. DNA does not determine what characteristics the offspring gets. The characteristics are determined by the gene pool of the parents. No gene for bones, no bones.

So ask me any question you want and I will answer it or admit I don't know.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are right, you did answer my question but you were wrong. DNA does not determine what characteristics the offspring gets. The characteristics are determined by the gene pool of the parents. No gene for bones, no bones.

The DNA is the string of genes. The gene for bones is in the DNA, so, by extension, the DNA determines the bone and all the characteristics, or phenotype as it's called. Now, the relationship between the genes/DNA and phenotype is very complex. One single gene can affect many different aspects of the phenotype expression, also, several genes can be involved in a single expression. But, it's true that it's not just 100% DNA/genes, some epigenetic influence from environment also affects the expression.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes sir I will do my best obey your orders. Do I have to salute you?

Just trying to play fair. If you have an expectation that I will answer your questions, it's only fair that you answer mine as well.

You are right, you did answer my question but you were wrong. DNA does not determine what characteristics the offspring gets. The characteristics are determined by the gene pool of the parents. No gene for bones, no bones.

You're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say DNA doesn't determine characteristics of offspring, but then you go on to say that characteristics of offspring are determined by "the gene pool" and "gene for bones".

You do realize that "gene pools" and "genes for bones" are made up of DNA, don't you?

So ask me any question you want and I will answer it or admit I don't know.

I've asked several that you haven't answered. To repeat....

If you truly believe you have a solid scientific case against evolution, why haven't you presented it to the scientific community?

You claimed fish fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood. I'm asking how that is so (i.e., how did those fossils get there).

Is the sodium chloride in my body is different than the sodium chloride outside my body? What happens when I urinate? Do the chemicals in my urine die as they leave my body?

What mechanism affects these two independent different processes (K-Ar and Rb-Sr decay) in exactly the same way, such that they give congruent results?

 

[omega2xx]

The DNA is the string of genes. The gene for bones is in the DNA, so, by extension, the DNA determines the bone and all the characteristics, or phenotype as it's called. Now, the relationship between the genes/DNA and phenotype is very complex. One single gene can affect many different aspects of the phenotype expression, also, several genes can be involved in a single expression. But, it's true that it's not just 100% DNA/genes, some epigenetic influence from environment also affects the expression.

The genes have DNA but it is the genes that determine the characteristics. Not only that There are recessive genes and dominant genes. The kid will get the characteristic of the genes. The environment do not affect the genes in general. If the mother recieived a high dose of radiation, thta might cause a mutation but that will only distort the chararacterisic in some way.

 

[Ouroboros]

The genes have DNA but it is the genes that determine the characteristics.

You mean, the DNA has the genes. Also, some research suggests that the folding of the DNA affects phenotype expression as well, so it's the DNA and the genes in the DNA.

Not only that There are recessive genes and dominant genes. The kid will get the characteristic of the genes. The environment do not affect the genes in general. If the mother recieived a high dose of radiation, thta might cause a mutation but that will only distort the chararacterisic in some way.

Actually, mutations can happen in many different ways. Retro virus for instance. And enough changes will have larger change of the expression. Many experiments have confirmed this.

 

[omega2xx]

Just trying to play fair. If you have an expectation that I will answer your questions, it's only fair that you answer mine as well.

Agreed, but if I ask the question first, I expect it to be answered before they ask me one.

You're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say DNA doesn't determine characteristics of offspring, but then you go on to say that characteristics of offspring are determined by "the gene pool" and "gene for bones".

The gene has DNA, but it does not determine the characteristic. This is clear because we know there are recessive genes and dominant genes, and the kid will get the characteristic of the dominant gene. I did not say the gene pool for bones deteramins the characteristic. I said i the gene pool does not include the gene for bones the kid will never have bones.

You do realize that "gene pools" and "genes for bones" are made up of DNA, don't you?

Of course. With few exceptions all living things aDNA. The DNA can tell if thesubject has bones, but it does not determine
if the kid has bones.

I've asked several that you haven't answered. To repeat....

If you truly believe you have a solid scientific case against evolution, why haven't you presented it to the scientific community?

How do you know I haven't?

You claimed fish fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood. I'm asking how that is so (i.e., how did those fossils get there).

The were left there when the waters receded. I don'; think I said that was evidence for creation. I think I ask someone how they explained it.

Is the sodium chloride in my body is different than the sodium chloride outside my body? What happens when I urinate? Do the chemicals in my urine die as they leave my body?

What difference does it make? Are you offering that as evidence of evolution?

What mechanism affects these two independent different processes (K-Ar and Rb-Sr decay) in exactly the same way, such that they give congruent results?

There are at least 2 problems with dating methods with the possible of Carbon 14, that will cause an inaccurate result. You don't know the amount of the element you are testing was originally in the sample and you don't know if it has been affect by ans outside force, such as radiation, that might have caused some of the element to leak out.

I think there is one more problem but I don't remember what it is.

I think it is that you will not get congruent results. Sometime the results are not even in the same ball park. The first 2 I mentioned will give an older reading.

 

[Ouroboros]

There are at least 2 problems with dating methods with the possible of Carbon 14, that will cause an inaccurate result. You don't know the amount of the element you are testing was originally in the sample and you don't know if it has been affect by ans outside force, such as radiation, that might have caused some of the element to leak out.

That's true. There are problems with C14, which is why proper testing is not done only with C14 but with other methods as well. There are more than 50 different methods of dating, and they don't have all the same problems. So by comparing many methods for a sample, you can find the errors and correct them. It's like a puzzle. When all pieces are put together, they form a picture, and that picture is very clear, stating that the Earth is extremely old and so are the fossils in the strata.

C14 can only be used on organic matter less than 50-60,000 years. Anything older has to be tested with other methods. Also, C14 has been compared to methods that are more short in time frame, to calibrate it for environmental changes and such. So C14 isn't too bad anymore. But it's not the only method used.

 

[omega2xx]

You mean, the DNA has the genes. Also, some research suggests that the folding of the DNA affects phenotype expression as well, so it's the DNA and the genes in the DNA.

No, I mean the genes have DNA. All things have DNA, with a couple of exceptions. Suggest" means there is some doubt. It is really irrelevant, if the parents do no have the gene for bones, it will no have the DNA for bones. Think about this. The guess of what the first life form was, did not have bones. How could it eve have a kid with bones?

Actually, mutations can happen in many different ways. Retro virus for instance. And enough changes will have larger change of the expression. Many experiments have confirmed this.

I know. In fact it is doubtful we know all the things that cause mutations.

 

[omega2xx]

That's true. There are problems with C14, which is why proper testing is not done only with C14 but with other methods as well. There are more than 50 different methods of dating, and they don't have all the same problems. So by comparing many methods for a sample, you can find the errors and correct them. It's like a puzzle. When all pieces are put together, they form a picture, and that picture is very clear, stating that the Earth is extremely old and so are the fossils in the strata.

C14 can only be used on organic matter less than 50-60,000 years. Anything older has to be tested with other methods. Also, C14 has been compared to methods that are more short in time frame, to calibrate it for environmental changes and such. So C14 isn't too bad anymore. But it's not the only method used.

I don't have a problem with dates given from C14 testing. but even those the accuracy declines rather rapidly after 20,000 years.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I mean the genes have DNA.

No. Completely wrong.

The DNA contains genes. Not the other way around.

All things have DNA, with a couple of exceptions. Suggest" means there is some doubt. It is really irrelevant, if the parents do no have the gene for bones, it will no have the DNA for bones. Think about this. The guess of what the first life form was, did not have bones. How could it eve have a kid with bones?

By many small mutations through many generations. It started with exo-skeletons like with the trilobites.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't have a problem with dates given from C14 testing. but even those the accuracy declines rather rapidly after 20,000 years.

C14 is fairly accurate, but it's not exact. But still, using other methods (preferably use 3 different methods when dating) just in case one or the other were affected by contamination or such. When dating our planet, we're not using C14 at all. It can't be used for it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Agreed, but if I ask the question first, I expect it to be answered before they ask me one.

Agreed.

The gene has DNA, but it does not determine the characteristic. This is clear because we know there are recessive genes and dominant genes, and the kid will get the characteristic of the dominant gene. I did not say the gene pool for bones deteramins the characteristic. I said i the gene pool does not include the gene for bones the kid will never have bones.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense at all. You're basically saying that books are made up of words, not letters, even though we all know words are made up of letters. Similarly, genes are made up of nucleotides (DNA), and one's nucleotide sequence (genome) determines one's characteristics (phenotype).

There's a fundamental rule in biology...genotype determines phenotype. I strongly suggest you read that page.

How do you know I haven't?

Fair enough.....so have you presented your case against evolution to the scientific community?

The were left there when the waters receded. I don'; think I said that was evidence for creation. I think I ask someone how they explained it.

You claimed to me that fish fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood. My question is, how did those fossils get on mountaintops? If the mountaintops were under water, did the fish all die and get buried on the mountaintops? If so, how did the sediment stay at the tops of the mountains?

What difference does it make? Are you offering that as evidence of evolution?

No, it was in response to your claim that the elements in my body are "living". So my question remains, is the sodium chloride in my body different than sodium chloride outside my body? Does it die when I urinate?

There are at least 2 problems with dating methods with the possible of Carbon 14, that will cause an inaccurate result. You don't know the amount of the element you are testing was originally in the sample and you don't know if it has been affect by ans outside force, such as radiation, that might have caused some of the element to leak out.

I think there is one more problem but I don't remember what it is.

I think it is that you will not get congruent results. Sometime the results are not even in the same ball park. The first 2 I mentioned will give an older reading.

You didn't answer the question at all. Again, K decays to Ar via electron capture and Rb decays to Sr via beta decay. Electron capture and beta decay are completely different, independent processes. Radiometric dating of meteorites using these two sets of isotopes consistently gives results of 4.5-4.6 billion years old. My question is....what mechanism do you propose that would affect both of these decay rates in exactly the same way such that they generate congruent results?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

DNA does not determine what characteristics the offspring gets. The characteristics are determined by the gene pool of the parents. No gene for bones, no bones.

Wow! No science at all in school!

 

[gnostic]

DNA does not determine what characteristics the offspring gets. The characteristics are determined by the gene pool of the parents. No gene for bones, no bones.

You do realise that you are wrong, don't you?

A gene contained a sequence of nucleic acid (NA), which is either RNA or DNA.

Each gene contains nucleic acid (or sequence of NA). You can't talk of "gene" without talking about DNA or RNA, because these acids are parts of the gene.

And what you are referring to characteristics or trait of the child inheriting from the gene pool of parents, you are actually talking about allele, not gene.

 

[gnostic]

Wow! No science at all in school!

That seems to be the case.

 

[omega2xx]

No. Completely wrong.

The DNA contains genes. Not the other way around.

Actually it is not wrong, but It is irrelevant. If the parents do not have the DNA, with the gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. That in itself refutes evolution. The species can't jump the fence and become a different species. DNA and genes, no matter who is in control, will not allow it.

By many small mutations through many generations. It started with exo-skeletons like with the trilobites.

That is not provable and you know it. Something without a skeleton will never produce an offspring with one., and you have no links connecting the 2. Time will not change the laws of genetics.