i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote WhatshallIcallmyself
"Interesting article Recovering. As usual talk origins has addressed most of this creationist nonsense."
What's interesting is how evolutionists howl to the moon about "peer review" and then turn around link to non peer reviewed sites like "talk origins", recommend non peer reviewed books by Dawkins etc.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote recovering
"What if I told you that your expert specifically attempts to refute all forms of radiometric dating. Would you be suprised ? I told Cofty I Would Be Laying A trap for you! . . . You See Baumgardner indeed attempts to refute all forms of radiometric Dating. . . " End Quote
The article about Siccar Point that we have have been discussing was not even written by John Baumgardner, but instead was written by Tas Walker. He never specifically mentioned radiocarbon dating in that article, yet you implied that he did, and made a big straw man argument about it.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote recovering
"Can't you read? What do you think radiometric dating is?"
The general term "radiometric dating" does not always (or even usually) refer specifically to the radiocarbon technique with its specifics. Once again Once again, nowhere in the article the author did not even specifcially mention radiocarbon dating, so all of your claims on that regarding him such as "He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used . . . " are a big straw man argument.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
My quote feature is not woking so I will manually quote:
Quote recovering:
"Hooberus there is a logical error in the cited work you have provided. The author of the article says that the methodology used to date the site by scientists is flawed. He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used the accepted age of the site is incorrect. He has missed the mark , he obviously does not understand how radiocarbon dating works.
1 Radiocarbon dating only works on specimens 70000 years old and younger.
2 Radiocarbon dating needs the specimen to be a carbon based. biological specimen." End Quote
Once again, no where in the article the author did not even specifcially mention radiocarbon dating
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote from recovering:
"Right here. Did you not read your own evidentiary citation?
Most people think the idea of billions of years comes from radiometric dating. But clearly that’s not true, since this dating method was not developed until the beginning of the 20th century, about 100 years after Hutton died. Hutton based his idea of an old earth on an assumption. It was not a discovery. He assumed that the same slow processes eroding the Scottish highlands in the present formed the ancient rocks by the North Sea in the past. So an old earth is the outworking of an unbiblical philosophy (cf. 2 Peter 3:3–7)."
There is nothing there (or in the rest of the article) that is specifically about the "radiocarbon" technique. So your accusation about radiocarbon specifics and the authors knowledge is bogus. Perhaps its you that needs to be a better reader.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Hooberus there is a logical error in the cited work you have provided. The author of the article says that the methodology used to date the site by scientists is flawed. He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used the accepted age of the site is incorrect. He has missed the mark , he obviously does not understand how radiocarbon dating works.
1 Radiocarbon dating only works on specimens 70000 years old and younger.
2 Radiocarbon dating needs the specimen to be a carbon based. biological specimen.
Where in the article does he discuss carbon dating?
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
You also left out subduction in your 'explanation'. This is the process where those sedimentary layers sink lower into the crust due to the build up of layers upon them. When they are deep enough they are then lithified due to the pressure and temperatures that they encounter at such depths (the pressures and movements so deep in the Earth also twist and turn these strata...). After a long while the environment changes and the area of overlain strata then experiences a period of erosion and when the upper layers disappear this allows the older layers to raise back up to the surface (the crust floats on the mantle...).
For those who are interested, The work of Dr. John Baumgardner deals with this and its relationship to the biblical flood. The peer reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly also has a lot of geological articles for those who are interested.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
That is entirely impossible in the time frame of a biblical flood. It requires millions of years not thousands. The Old Red Sandstone was laid down 350 million years ago.
You asked for a creationist explanation, and I gave you a brief one. Here is more detail for those who are interested.
http://biblicalgeology.net/Geological-Histories/Icon-Unmasked.html
Those who are interested can then compare it with your assertions.
No prior assumptions are required to conclude that an unconformity is evidence of deep time. The physical evidence speaks for itself.
If all this geological evidence of "deep time" speaks for itself, then why was there a need to come up first with the "principal" (apriori philosophy) of Uniformitarianism ?
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
And a bonus question for "young-earth" creationists...
How do you explain geological features like the unconformity at Siccar Point? 25
An unconformity is not "proof" of a long time period, but instead of an erosional event. Sediments laid down by water, uplifted, and later eroded and overlain by other sediments laid down by are perfectly consistent with the Biblical flood.
Hutton assumed the philosophy of "uniformitarianism" to generate his "deep time". Uniformitarianism apriori denies Biblical history, and the flood.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
This is just gibberish.
No its not. By perfect selection in one generation I was referring to total selection against all the other types in one generation. Which is what you did in your Monkey scenario. Your selection coefficient was 1.
"Denoted as s, the selection coefficient is a number between zero and one. If s = 1, selection against the genotype is total, and it makes no contribution to the next generation." https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Selection_coefficient.asp
As I said before: To have perfect selection in one generation, you had to pay the price of the elimination of the other 9,999 in that same generation (destroying your population) for the evolutionary scenario to work. Your example tried to have the benefit of perfect selection, without the price. There is a cost to selective replacement that must must be paid. In this case the cost in the real world would indeed be the lives of the other 9,999. I was simply showing that an evolutionists own "rosy example scenario" when adjusted for reality runs into trouble.
