A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

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.

I know. The problems I mentioned refer to the other dating methods.

 

[omega2xx]

Agreed.

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).

Here is something I got from googling "genes determine characteristics." I couldn't find a link:
Genes are found on chromosomes and are made of DNA. Different genes determine the different characteristics, or traits, of an organism. In the simplest terms (which are actually too simple in many cases), one gene might determine the color of a bird's feathers, while another gene would determine the shape of its beak.Jan 15, 2003

I highlighted what is underlined. If you want to say DNA, chromosomes and genes make up every cell, that's fine but it does not solve your problem If that cell does not contain what is need for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. In the case of whale evolution you can't jump from the nosed of a land animal to the blowhole of a sea creature. They do not have the DNA--chromosome--gene for a blowhole.

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

I will break my rule and read it when I finish and I predict it will not change that genes determine characteristics.

Let me offer a definition of genotype and phenotype.

Genotype: 1. The fundamental heredity constitution of an organism. 2. Its breeding formula of GENES. 3. a group of organisms with a common heredity.

Phenotype: The observable heredity characteristics of the genotype with its environment. Organisms with the same phenotype look alike, but may breed differently because of dominance.
irrelevant. If the genotype does not have what is needed for bones, the phenotype will never have bones, so you article is irrelevant. I will read it and get back to you. You are trying to say that a book on engine repair will tell you how to fix a plumbing problem.

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

Of course not. Even if I had the right credentials, it would not be accept. As soon as they saw "God" it would be put in the round folder. Evolution driven magazines will not accept anything that even hints at "God did it." l believe they are afraid of competing ideas and might be shown scientifically that evolution is not scientific.

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?

You don't like my explanation, so give me yours.

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?

I don't know and don't care. It will not support evolution, no matter what it does.

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?

And you didn't answer mine. What was the original amount of the element you are testing for and how did you determine if some of it had been affected by an outside force, such as radiation and leaked out. If you dont know that, you date is not accurate and will be higher than it should be.

 

[omega2xx]

Wow! No science at all in school!

Right. Accept the non-scientific TOE or you can't understand science.

If you accept evolution, you must have been indoctrinated in our failed public school system.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

Everything you say is irrelevant. Whatever you want to contribute the characteristic to will not allow the gene, DNA, RNA, phenotype, genotype or anything else you want to throw into the pot. If they do not have what is necessary for bones, the parents will NEVER have a kid with bones .

Time and wishful hoping will not change the laws of inheritance. Mendal proved that.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

It doesn't refute evolution, first of all, it's just that you don't have an understanding of how it works.

Also, it is wrong that genes contain DNA. That's absurd. DNA contains genes. End of story.

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.

That's true that I can't prove it.

But there are species like cartilagious fish which doesn't have bones but only cartilage. It very well could be one of the stepping stones between no-bone/no-cartilage species and cartilage species, and then later bone. You have to think of it in steps, not in leaps. It's not like a non-bone gives birth to a bone species. Evolution doesn't support that idea. But rather, single, small changes of the genes making hardening skins, hair, etc. That in many generations become harder. So there's never a no-x giving birth to x, but rather no-x giving birth to no-x-with-1 who it turn gives birth to no-x-with-2, and so on. And as you know, adding 1 to 0, then 1 again to that 1, and then 1 to that 2, eventually you will get 100. You don't get 100 by adding a single 1 to a 0. That doesn't work. So think of it as a long process with many many small steps in between.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Right. Accept the non-scientific TOE or you can't understand science.

If you accept evolution, you must have been indoctrinated in our failed public school system.

No, but if you accept macroevolution as a proven fact you have been indoctrinated into the American public school system. Because they teach it as fact. Hint: It isn't fact, far from it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here is something I got from googling "genes determine characteristics." I couldn't find a link:
Genes are found on chromosomes and are made of DNA. Different genes determine the different characteristics, or traits, of an organism. In the simplest terms (which are actually too simple in many cases), one gene might determine the color of a bird's feathers, while another gene would determine the shape of its beak.Jan 15, 2003

I highlighted what is underlined. If you want to say DNA, chromosomes and genes make up every cell, that's fine but it does not solve your problem If that cell does not contain what is need for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. In the case of whale evolution you can't jump from the nosed of a land animal to the blowhole of a sea creature. They do not have the DNA--chromosome--gene for a blowhole.

And that's where evolution comes in. Mutations generate new genetic sequences, which confer new traits, which if they are selected for spread through the population. We see that happen all the time.

Of course not. Even if I had the right credentials, it would not be accept. As soon as they saw "God" it would be put in the round folder. Evolution driven magazines will not accept anything that even hints at "God did it." l believe they are afraid of competing ideas and might be shown scientifically that evolution is not scientific.

Do you understand why "God did it' isn't accepted in any scientific field?

You don't like my explanation, so give me yours.

You didn't give an explanation for how fish fossils ended up on mountaintops. Thus your original claim that fish fossils on mountaintops are evidence for a global flood remains nothing more than an empty assertion.

I don't know and don't care. It will not support evolution, no matter what it does.

That speaks for itself.

And you didn't answer mine. What was the original amount of the element you are testing for and how did you determine if some of it had been affected by an outside force, such as radiation and leaked out. If you dont know that, you date is not accurate and will be higher than it should be.

Remember our agreement, where we would answer whatever question is asked first? I've been asking you to identify the mechanism that would cause isotopes that decay via completely different processes to give congruent results. You've yet to answer.

And to answer your question, isochron dating does not require one to know the initial ratio of parent to daughter element. If it's off, it will show up as a non-linear plot in the results.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Right. Accept the non-scientific TOE or you can't understand science.

If you accept evolution, you must have been indoctrinated in our failed public school system.

No, I was educated in Canada's education system, in fact. It is presently ranked 10th best in the world -- somewhat ahead of the US (once among the best) at 29th.

I learned something else while being educated, too, and that is that science isn't what you seem to think it is -- and religion and 2000 year-old books written by people who couldn't tell a bat from a bird is at least a trillion miles away from anything we might call "science." And little I've seen you post on this topic has even addressed what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

And that's funny actually. People who refuse to study a topic, but claim more and deeper knowledge about it than thousands of others who have devoted entire lifetimes to the study of that topic. Hubris comes up short in describing that.

 

[Ouroboros]

And that's funny actually. People who refuse to study a topic, but claim more and deeper knowledge about it than thousands of others who have devoted entire lifetimes to the study of that topic. Hubris comes up short in describing that.

There is a psychological phenomenon that labels that behavior. Can't remember the word. Basically, people who have so little to no knowledge about a topic oversimplify it and thinks they know everything there is to know, and from that, they criticize people who have actual knowledge. It's a matter of being so incredible ignorant that they're even ignorant about the size, complexity, width, and depth of the topic. So reading a blog post is enough for them think themselves educated.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is a psychological phenomenon that labels that behavior. Can't remember the word. Basically, people who have so little to no knowledge about a topic oversimplify it and thinks they know everything there is to know, and from that, they criticize people who have actual knowledge. It's a matter of being so incredible ignorant that they're even ignorant about the size, complexity, width, and depth of the topic. So reading a blog post is enough for them think themselves educated.

Dunning-Kruger effect?

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

 

[omega2xx]

No, but if you accept macroevolution as a proven fact you have been indoctrinated into the American public school system. Because they teach it as fact. Hint: It isn't fact, far from it.

Nothing in the TOE can be proven. They have all been indoctrinated into beliving the TOE is science.

 

[omega2xx]

And that's where evolution comes in. Mutations generate new genetic sequences, which confer new traits, which if they are selected for spread through the population. We see that happen all the time.



Do you understand why "God did it' isn't accepted in any scientific field?



You didn't give an explanation for how fish fossils ended up on mountaintops. Thus your original claim that fish fossils on mountaintops are evidence for a global flood remains nothing more than an empty assertion.



That speaks for itself.



Remember our agreement, where we would answer whatever question is asked first? I've been asking you to identify the mechanism that would cause isotopes that decay via completely different processes to give congruent results. You've yet to answer.

And to answer your question, isochron dating does not require one to know the initial ratio of parent to daughter element. If it's off, it will show up as a non-linear plot in the results.

Any one who thinks a dog nose can become a whale blowhole is the poster child for stupidity.

If you can't discuss the subject without being insulting, go back to the third ground playground where you belong.

 

[omega2xx]

No, I was educated in Canada's education system, in fact. It is presently ranked 10th best in the world -- somewhat ahead of the US (once among the best) at 29th.

I learned something else while being educated, too, and that is that science isn't what you seem to think it is -- and religion and 2000 year-old books written by people who couldn't tell a bat from a bird is at least a trillion miles away from anything we might call "science." And little I've seen you post on this topic has even addressed what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

And that's funny actually. People who refuse to study a topic, but claim more and deeper knowledge about it than thousands of others who have devoted entire lifetimes to the study of that topic. Hubris comes up short in describing that.

First of all you don know if I have studied it and second, there are creaion scientist much more intelligent than anyone in this forum who also reject evolution. You don't even understand basic genetics because you were brainwashed in tour failed public school system.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Nothing in the TOE can be proven. They have all been indoctrinated into beliving the TOE is science.

With no creator some form of abiogenesis is a must. Now that's a wacky theory. I just don't understand why intelligent people honestly believe the Big Bang "somehow" produced the universe we see today, i.e. Romans 1:20.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anybody is less than intelligent. I just don't get it.

 

[omega2xx]

With no creator some form of abiogenesis is a must. Now that's a wacky theory. I just don't understand why intelligent people honestly believe the Big Bang "somehow" produced the universe we see today, i.e. Romans 1:20.

It's sort of like Peter's response when Jesus ask the disciple "who do you say that I am"? Peter said, where else can we go. No matter how absurd some evolution theology is, they have nowhere else to go.

Even some evolutionist have given up on the BB.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Jose Fly]

Any one who thinks a dog nose can become a whale blowhole is the poster child for stupidity.

If you can't discuss the subject without being insulting, go back to the third ground playground where you belong.

First, I don't see where I insulted you. All I see is you once again dodging questions.

Finally, I wonder if you even recognize the hypocrisy of chastising someone for being insulting, while simultaneously calling people stupid and third-graders.

 

[Jose Fly]

With no creator some form of abiogenesis is a must. Now that's a wacky theory. I just don't understand why intelligent people honestly believe the Big Bang "somehow" produced the universe we see today, i.e. Romans 1:20.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anybody is less than intelligent. I just don't get it.

Pretty simple really....the evidence supports the big bang model and it has generated numerous predictions that were later confirmed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

First of all you don know if I have studied it and second, there are creaion scientist much more intelligent than anyone in this forum who also reject evolution. You don't even understand basic genetics because you were brainwashed in tour failed public school system.

Well, well, well! Let's hear about those "creaion scientist much more intelligent." Who are they? Do they include those who were defeated soundly in a US court of law in Dover, PA? How did this vaunted "intelligence" let them down so badly -- in front of a Christian judge? Could it be that their arguments were not, in fact, quite as intelligent as they might have hoped? I don't think much of the superior intelligence that can only manage inferior arguments. Still, be that as it may, please give us the top 3 names of those you consider so "much more intelligent." That will give us all the opportunity to look up their body of work, examine their scientific publications in the areas in which they specialize, and see for ourselves whether they are so much brighter than the rest of us poor slobs.

Don't be shy! Name them.

Now, on the subject of what I understand (basic genetics), you are utterly unqualified to make any comment whatever -- since I have never written on genetics in any source to which you have access. So, it would appear that you have just made something up out of whole cloth, just to be nasty and smear me.

Do you include that in your "Christian values?" Where can I find that in the Gospels?

And since you have decided to label Canada's public school system as "failed," (especially in the 1960's when I was educated), please provide your evidence for such a claim. It would be important, I think, since many of Canada's finest contributors - in the sciences, in government, in religion, in medicine, in philosophy, in literature and so forth were educated in the same system. They might wish to know how it is you suppose that they were so "failed."

And finally, since you claim to know that I was "brainwashed," I think it only proper that you provide some evidence of that. Otherwise, it is at best merely a false accusation, at worst, libelous to me and to those who educated me.

If you have any decency at all, you will answer all of those questions. Or apologize for what you said. Or, as a last hope, see yourself for what you are.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

First of all you don know if I have studied it

Sorry, I forgot this part. Yes, I do know that you haven't studied it, because you don't have even a vague idea of what it (the Theory of Evolution) actually says.

Oh wait! Yes, I suppose you could have studied it -- and failed the course.


To all the other readers of this thread, please trust me -- I do know what the likes of omega2xx really want. They have zero wish to actually know anything about Evolution. They want it to go away and make their religious beliefs feel more comfortable "as is," without the need to interpret them in the context of the real world.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It's sort of like Peter's response when Jesus ask the disciple "who do you say that I am"? Peter said, where else can we go. No matter how absurd some evolution theology is, they have nowhere else to go.

Even some evolutionist have given up on the BB.

Keep up the good work.

Same to you, bro.