The assumptions behind evolution?

[Ouroboros]

Mount ST. Helen is an example of recent layering placed very rapidly. Local observation showed this but geologists insisted it was wrong and dated samples showing the apparent age.

Link please.

In majority of the cases, the strata was not created by lava, if I understand it right. The dating of layers made from lava can be dated correctly. I don't remember which method was used, but it was mentioned in one of the classes I took. I'd have to find my books... too much work.

Many fossils have been shown with half eaten fish protruding from the mouth, also a fossil half way through a birth. Something has happened very quickly and set up the exact chemicals to preserve such.

So?

 

[AllanV]

There are a number of unknowns but the basic concept is fairly easy to understand. But are you bringing into question these events or are you simply stating them as mysterious?

I do not think they are that mysterious. The dinosaurs are not as old as their dating suggests. And the layers of sediment were placed down quickly.

There are some scriptures that seem to state a huge creature at the time of Job. It had a tail the size of a cedar and drank rivers.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I do not think they are that mysterious. The dinosaurs are not as old as their dating suggests. And the layers of sediment were placed down quickly.

There are some scriptures that seem to state a huge creature at the time of Job. It had a tail the size of a cedar and drank rivers.

Do you seem to think that the amount of sedimentation is the issue? Layers are simply a good way of keeping track what timezone you are in. There is no credible evidence out there to suggest that the darting was wrong.

 

[AllanV]

I see.

Since we have the DNA from Neanderthals, and they've been compared, why hasn't there been any confirmation about this so called loss of genes? It should be easy to prove him right or wrong, but is there a test that has confirmed this yet?

I have a science degree from 30 years ago, and went back to school for a second degree a few years ago.

Dating methods are in question through new ways of looking inside the cell.

The loss in DNA is very tiny and barely noticeable, but there was some talk of junk DNA but it is now understood as mostly all used. The overall effect though is genetic entropy. Therefore there is a set number of generations that could be achieved.

I don't know whether I am qualified any more because technology and the improvements are continuing at a fast rate. The information in the last 10 years is difficult to keep up with.

 

[AllanV]

Problem one, C14 method doesn't extend beyond 50-60,000 years, so for it to show 100,000 years is obviously wrong. Secondly, it's imperative to maintain a very high standard when doing these tests. Some million tests have been done over the years, and no other one is showing such ridiculous result. The explanation is most likely misuse of the machine (not using with operating parameters) or polluted sample.


It's extremely rare, and in those cases it's obvious that the tree penetrated the layers. The answer is often very simple if one uses his brain.

All I am doing is relating what many people mostly from the scientific community are saying. They have to be peer reviewed and not many are willing to expose what these scientists are saying as incorrect.

The figure 100 thousand years that was offered was an outside figure but I understand your need for more accuracy.

Evidently there are many scientists who are able to bring new information to the table but it will not be discussed.
It is like a crime scene. Forensic science is improving and this aids research and getting correct answers. But some do not want to look back over old assumptions.

 

[AllanV]

There are other ways to solve those problems than to drown children, babies, and pregnant women. Is abortion okay when God does it?

It is a difficult question. If a type of person is jeopardizing existence of every one with their behavior then what must be done. It is not a decision I would want to make and therefore I suppose my life would be taken by them.
The Eternal God cannot die but He can bring an end to everything at any moment in what we call time.
Therefore I will align myself with Him.

 

[AllanV]

Link please.

In majority of the cases, the strata was not created by lava, if I understand it right. The dating of layers made from lava can be dated correctly. I don't remember which method was used, but it was mentioned in one of the classes I took. I'd have to find my books... too much work.


So?

I watched a documentary on the eruption. There was some local input. It is probably an hour long. Did you watch the you tube video of John Sanford? There are others as well.

There is always an assumption everything is very old. Instead of looking at the evidence impartially which is almost impossible there is an assumption made.

 

[AllanV]

Do you seem to think that the amount of sedimentation is the issue? Layers are simply a good way of keeping track what timezone you are in. There is no credible evidence out there to suggest that the darting was wrong.

I think there is some credible evidence but it is said to be biased but the idea we have now is already biased and set against the new evidence.

It seems layers can be put down over weeks. The action around a large volcano cannot be underestimated. The volumes of material are large and they come out of the earth. The layers are put down. Trees are blown over and defoliated being sheared off at the ground and get caught in the layers.

The grand canyon must have been a rapid occurrence. A river would have to flow up hill in the beginning which is clearly impossible. The plateau must have acted like a dam and the initial flow cut the canyon. But how quickly the layers were put there is another question.

 

[Shad]

While he has so many things wrong this isn't one of them.

brain waves can be read and used to create an image of what I am actually looking at.

Scientists extract images directly from brain ~ Pink Tentacle

Such research is a boon for evolution, not his argument. His point was a non-sequitur. Dreams would be real to the person in question. Observing the dream would make the dream a fact for this person which would make it not longer an opinion. However this does not mean the dream represents reality but a fiction within reality. Just as movies can be fiction while still being in reality does not mean reality is represented. Take Jupiter Ascending for example. A movie with facts about reality wrapped up by a layer of fiction. This does not mean the fiction represents reality. As per his views of fictional/reality comparison is flawed and pure sophistry to avoid his burden of proof and lack of explanatory power for his views.

 

[Ouroboros]

There is always an assumption everything is very old. Instead of looking at the evidence impartially which is almost impossible there is an assumption made.

All evidence points to an old Earth. It's not an assumption. It's solid fact. Rejecting all the evidence is just silly.

 

[Shad]

You don't have to understand much of anything because it is just a procedure, you have to correctly follow the procedure.

If a decision is made between x and y and x is chosen, then the question "what made the decision turn out x instead of y?", can only be answered by making a new decision between p and q, related to the original decision. If then p is chosen, then the opinion is that p made the decision turn out x instead of y.

That explains how forming an opinion works. It is the basic logical structure of all subjectivity, like saying what is beautiful, but also belief in God.

So it means that being forced to a conclusion in matters of opinion, forced by evidence, or forced by a tyrant, produces a logical error. An opinion is only logically valid if 1. the conclusion is chosen, 2. the conclusion is about what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

You have to try to be exact, just like with all other knowledge, it doesn't work with some kind of impressionist take on things. For example, you can define choosing in terms of making one of alternative futures the present, or define it in terms of making a future the present or not. It's unclear which is more fundamental, but it obviously matters which one is correct.

Logically valid does not mean logically sound. For a position to be logical both principles must be met. Hence why evidence is used. Logic is not about subjectivity or relativity, it is about truth or true statements. Once you attempt to prove an opinion is logical you are already down the road towards fact

 

[AllanV]

All evidence points to an old Earth. It's not an assumption. It's solid fact. Rejecting all the evidence is just silly.

More and more of the evidence is shown to be tainted by presumption by people who deny God.
Molecular science can't admit it. All the branches of biology and genetics are showing evidence of design.

An experience of God shows that everything that is seen is made to appear instantly.
We have our being and presence in God. But mans mind is developed from a biological form that will die. Everyone is bonded in the mind by familiar ability to place emphasis on words to penetrate the subconscious and this then produces feelings. This is regarded as impure and predatory.
This must be hereditary and learned ability. There is something of a hypnotic suggestion taking place to perpetuate wrong ideas by ungodly people.

 

[gnostic]

I do not think they are that mysterious. The dinosaurs are not as old as their dating suggests.

Then please, tell us when these dinosaurs were dated?

Please also cite your sources from scientific sources, and not some pseudoscience creationist websites or youtube video.

 

[McBell]

All the branches of biology and genetics are showing evidence of design.

Really?
Please present some of this "evidence of design".

 

[AllanV]

Then please, tell us when these dinosaurs were dated?

Please also cite your sources from scientific sources, and not some pseudoscience creationist websites or youtube video.

This issue of the dinosaur blood cells is very recent and two separate studies have been done and no doubt more will be. You Google and do the research with out my bias.

Already your last comment is not showing any professionalism and has your bias.
But perhaps this is the professional approach.
Dr John Sanford is keeping some balance to the discussion and says he has the evidence with many others.

 

[AllanV]

Really?
Please present some of this "evidence of design".

Darwin put out a theory and with modern genetics and cellular biology it is proving impossible. In the last decade and even presently there is more relevant evidence.

Try to keep up.

 

[McBell]

This issue of the dinosaur blood cells is very recent and two separate studies have been done and no doubt more will be. You Google and do the research with out my bias.

Already your last comment is not showing any professionalism and has your bias.
But perhaps this is the professional approach.
Dr John Sanford is keeping some balance to the discussion and says he has the evidence with many others.

This Dr John Sanford?

Kansas Evolution Hearings: John Sanford and Robert DiSilvestro​

 

[McBell]

Darwin put out a theory and with modern genetics and cellular biology it is proving impossible. In the last decade and even presently there is more relevant evidence.

Try to keep up.

Keep up with what, exactly?
so you make the claim that there is evidence of design but are completely unable to present any?

Bold empty claims do not help your position.
And no, I have no interest in "keeping up" with your bold empty claims.

 

[AllanV]

This Dr John Sanford?

Kansas Evolution Hearings: John Sanford and Robert DiSilvestro​

That is him, Did you read it? That wouldn't be nice to go through. His answers had balance but the questions were bias.
I have a deep respect for Dr John Sanford.

 

[AllanV]

Keep up with what, exactly?
so you make the claim that there is evidence of design but are completely unable to present any?

Bold empty claims do not help your position.
And no, I have no interest in "keeping up" with your bold empty claims.

You are loosing all your so called evidence of no design. Keep up.