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
"Hooberus
You refuse to see that your experts conclusions are flawed . What if I showed you that even your so called experts admitted that they where incorrect with regards radiometric dating? Would that be enough to persuade you?"
You refuse to admit your previous clear misrepresentation here about the Siccar Point article so why should anyone trust what you have to say on any other subject?
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
"Hooberus i was unclear indeed the author was
Tas Walker . However he also tries to discredit radiometric dating see here
http://thecreationclub.com/the-fatal-flaw-with-radioactive-dating-methods-tas-walker/
So now we have discredited both your experts"
Once again:
He never specifically mentioned radiocarbon dating in that Siccar Point article, yet you implied that he did, and made a big straw man argument about it.
That he elsewhere wrote specifically about radiocarbon dating does not excuse your false accusation about the Siccar Point article, nor does it "discredit" him.
Evolutionists just cant stand anything that questions their version of history. They always do anything they can to attack any author, article, or source that disagrees with them. Its just one source attack after another.
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 ?
