Something strange is going on with the North Star

Page 3 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
About the first link that explains that there is a process we have to add new information. For example, people who have the gene mutation that leads to 6 fingers and the finger develops well, they are better at tactile tasks such as a video game (this study was covered in an issue of science news if you are interested). Coincidentaly, this gene is also dominant and depending on the human sexual selection, may take over the population.
That doesn't sound like significant new functionality. All the code for fingers was already there.

The second article in that context refers to the fact that a F1 hybrid between the hominids with 23 chromosomes and those that didn't would have less fertility, meaning that it widened the gap between human ancestors and chimpanzee ancestors.
True, but that doesn't resolve the issue of how such a mutation could become widespread in a population to begin with. You need that first before you can start talking about reproductive barriers with presumed ancestors.

So, calculate the odds of such a random mutation happening. Determine if that mutation results in a homozygous or a heterozygous individual. Determine the size of the population. Determine the odds of having a viable offspring with an average mate in the population. Determine the odds of that individual meeting another homozygous or heterozygous carrier of the same mutation.

And then decide whether it really makes sense to propose that the same sort of thing happened over and over again for millions and millions of years, to produce all life as we have it on the earth today. Personally, I don't think it's possible. I don't think the resulting odds are high enough for all of this to occur.

We certainly can't point to where we can see this happening today in the here and now, can we? Without using CRISPR?

They aren't that flat. I live in Maryland, so I have seen/visited sideling hill many times. The rock layers are certainly not flat there. Boundaries are very compressed so they appear flat but up close that is out of the picture. If you are wondering why rack changes quickly in the layers is because large changes on Earth occur to separate GTS periods and ages.
Point me to a picture of a significant erosional feature between layers of the geologic column.
 
That doesn't sound like significant new functionality. All the code for fingers was already there.


True, but that doesn't resolve the issue of how such a mutation could become widespread in a population to begin with. You need that first before you can start talking about reproductive barriers with presumed ancestors.

So, calculate the odds of such a random mutation happening. Determine if that mutation results in a homozygous or a heterozygous individual. Determine the size of the population. Determine the odds of having a viable offspring with an average mate in the population. Determine the odds of that individual meeting another homozygous or heterozygous carrier of the same mutation.

And then decide whether it really makes sense to propose that the same sort of thing happened over and over again for millions and millions of years, to produce all life as we have it on the earth today. Personally, I don't think it's possible. I don't think the resulting odds are high enough for all of this to occur.

We certainly can't point to where we can see this happening today in the here and now, can we? Without using CRISPR?


Point me to a picture of a significant erosional feature between layers of the geologic column.
I am going to address points in descending order.

Small changes like that would become favored if it gained a survival advantage. The more animals who could reproduce more, longer because they had the mutation for a sixth finger, that sixth finger would become dominant in the population. Just small changes like this can compile when populations are separated. Evolution is the shift in allele frequency in a population. those changes can compile untill different species emerge.

Improbable Destinies is a great, aproachable book that explains convergent evolution. (and the world is a spheriod in that book)
This resource should explain that traits can become dominant in a population due to selective pressures.

As long as the allele still survives, you can mate with someone without it and still pass it on. Consider this: Did you inherit traits from your parents? Grandparents? Did they all have the same trait to pass it down to you? What if that trait made you have more kids? Would they pass down the trait?

I need you to think about this not personaly, but using the plethora of science journals to support your arguements. I'll even accept creation science journals (they are very easy to disprove).

Yes we can see populations changing today:

The only resources I could find about gaps in the geologic column are creationist ones and one from 1988. Although they do exist, and are called uniconformities. Honestly, did you attend 8th grade?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PodCastAllLangs
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
How would you define religion?
Not sure at the moment. But I do think an atheist demonstrates that he is defending his religious beliefs when he declines to test those beliefs using the scientific method.
Small changes like that would become favored if it gained a survival advantage. The more animals who could reproduce more, longer because they had the mutation for a sixth finger, that sixth finger would become dominant in the population. Just small changes like this can compile when populations are separated. Evolution is the shift in allele frequency in a population. those changes can compile untill different species emerge.
I don't hear you answering my questions. For example, you made no attempt at giving any sort of odds for, say, a homozygous individual having a chromosomal fusion mating with another individual having the same mutation. Theory is nice, but at some point the theory has to be tested, or it becomes outside the realm of science.
Improbable Destinies is a great, aproachable book that explains convergent evolution. (and the world is a spheriod in that book)
On what specific page does it give the calculations I asked for?
As long as the allele still survives, you can mate with someone without it and still pass it on.
Not necessarily, which is what one of your sources pointed out when it raised the possibility of fertility issues. You have to be able to have a viable offspring in order to pass on the mutation, and if that mutation hinders chromosomal division, then there will be selection pressure against being able to pass on that mutation, because having a viable offspring will be less likely.

That's why homozygous individuals are the goal. As long as two homozygous individuals meet and marry, they won't have the fertility issues that heterozygous individuals will have, when you're talking about mutations involving chromosomal number.
What if that trait made you have more kids? Would they pass down the trait?
And thus there ought to be selection pressure toward living longer, and yet man today dies far sooner than Abraham did. The recent increase in longevity today is supposed to be due to improvements in cleanliness, not genetics.

The Bible pictures mankind living nearly 1000 years on a vegetarian diet, and the lifespan declining rapidly after the addition of meat to the diet. Today's standard American diet (S.A.D.) has departed even further from the Edenic ideal by all the processing, which lowers the amount of fiber and certain nutrients consumed. If evolution is true, one would think that Americans would have mutated by now so that they can live off Big Macs without heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer, and obesity being so high. The fact that a plant-based whole-foods diet is still the best points to the authenticity of the Bible's account, and calls into question evolutionary theory.

But you can ignore the last two paragraphs and just deal with the following, if you wish.

Another issue, besides odds, is the postulated time frame. http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1976-coalified-wood.htm is a 1976 article in Science which states, "... this is more recent by at least a factor of 270 than the minimum (Cretaceous) and more recent by a factor of 760 than the maximum (Triassic) geological age estimated for the introduction of U into the logs (12, 17, 18)."

That is a comment on the U/Pb ratio in coalified wood samples, and the possibility of adding U to or removing Pb from the samples was ruled out. Thus, there is a problem with the atheistic/skeptic/evolutionist's postulated time frame.

Any 8th grader ought to be able to see the problem. But a much older person whose mind is already made up about what religious beliefs he wants to hold will have more difficulty considering the obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hellopunyhumans
Not sure at the moment. But I do think an atheist demonstrates that he is defending his religious beliefs when he declines to test those beliefs using the scientific method.

I don't hear you answering my questions. For example, you made no attempt at giving any sort of odds for, say, a homozygous individual having a chromosomal fusion mating with another individual having the same mutation. Theory is nice, but at some point the theory has to be tested, or it becomes outside the realm of science.

On what specific page does it give the calculations I asked for?

Not necessarily, which is what one of your sources pointed out when it raised the possibility of fertility issues. You have to be able to have a viable offspring in order to pass on the mutation, and if that mutation hinders chromosomal division, then there will be selection pressure against being able to pass on that mutation, because having a viable offspring will be less likely.

That's why homozygous individuals are the goal. As long as two homozygous individuals meet and marry, they won't have the fertility issues that heterozygous individuals will have, when you're talking about mutations involving chromosomal number.

And thus there ought to be selection pressure toward living longer, and yet man today dies far sooner than Abraham did. The recent increase in longevity today is supposed to be due to improvements in cleanliness, not genetics.

The Bible pictures mankind living nearly 1000 years on a vegetarian diet, and the lifespan declining rapidly after the addition of meat to the diet. Today's standard American diet (S.A.D.) has departed even further from the Edenic ideal by all the processing, which lowers the amount of fiber and certain nutrients consumed. If evolution is true, one would think that Americans would have mutated by now so that they can live off Big Macs without heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer, and obesity being so high. The fact that a plant-based whole-foods diet is still the best points to the authenticity of the Bible's account, and calls into question evolutionary theory.

But you can ignore the last two paragraphs and just deal with the following, if you wish.

Another issue, besides odds, is the postulated time frame. http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1976-coalified-wood.htm is a 1976 article in Science which states, "... this is more recent by at least a factor of 270 than the minimum (Cretaceous) and more recent by a factor of 760 than the maximum (Triassic) geological age estimated for the introduction of U into the logs (12, 17, 18)."

That is a comment on the U/Pb ratio in coalified wood samples, and the possibility of adding U to or removing Pb from the samples was ruled out. Thus, there is a problem with the atheistic/skeptic/evolutionist's postulated time frame.

Any 8th grader ought to be able to see the problem. But a much older person whose mind is already made up about what religious beliefs he wants to hold will have more difficulty considering the obvious.
Like for S.A.D acronym.
I'm going to assume that you thought I wasn't an 8th grader who became an atheist a few years ago, however I take that as a compliment. Of course, if you could prove to me a God exists, I would happily become religious again.


I don't want to just spit out the same information as in the links above, so I provided them for your personal enjoyment. But I do want to highlight some interesting points:
The granite that contains some of his Polonium halos is in an area with urainum veins and Myrmekite, a mineral that shows rock replacement. His work has even been refuted by other creationists and has never truly refuted claims against him. (he can't anymore because he died excactly 3 months ago) Our radiometric dating methods and types have diversified and improved since 1976, (just like biodiversity in the past 3.5 billion years) and his claims are simply outdated and widely refuted.

Robert Gentry is not a PHD. While that does not stop him from being right, that is an interesting little factiod on him. He also was a YEC and had obvious biases going in to his study.

If you do not have a definition of religion, you can't claim something to be a religion. Just as if you don't know what a hat is, you can't say that something is or isn't a hat. Your beliefs are impossible to test using the scientific method. Religion is an unfalsifiable belief in a supernatural element of nature.

Scientific Theory is not just speculation, but a body of evidence and laws in a particular topic. For example, gravitational theory is something most people accept (the bible doesn't), but is even less certain then evolutionary theory. Evolution does not mean big bang, abiogenesis, or athiest. Athiest is the answer to the "god" question, evolution is an explanation of biodiversity.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oweUN-GaN3M


People with differing chromosome counts can reproduce. Does the fact that Chromosome 2 is fused non-human ape chromosomes 12 and 13 not show in itself, that this happened? Homozygous individuals are not needed for this because it happens at gamete fusion. I must stress again, the article shows that it would widen the gap between humans and chimp relatives, not stop the human relatives from reproducing. People with an extra chromosome 21 can pass down that trait to their kids.


You do not need to mate with someone with the same genetic traits as you to produce kids with that trait. I mentioned 8th grade because this year my science class covered genetics and heredity. It is not very hard to understand. Even my YEC tablemate was able to understand it.

Modern humans in America have not had time to adapt to the big mac. We have however, developed the ability to drink milk past infancy. Because of modern medicine, we cheat and make natural selection different. Fat people still have kids because we can live without running from large predators today.
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
I don't want to just spit out the same information as in the links above, so I provided them for your personal enjoyment.
I find it wearisome to read alleged rebuttals that do not rebut, in links provided by people that do not understand the material being rebutted, nor the rebuttal itself. I say that after having to deal with it over and over again. Thus, I much prefer dialoging about the actual research, or the actual points made in the rebuttal.
But I do want to highlight some interesting points:
The granite that contains some of his Polonium halos is in an area with urainum veins and Myrmekite, a mineral that shows rock replacement.
You are citing the work of someone who has had trouble getting his theories published in peer-reviewed journals, and thus resorted to creating his own publication. I don't have a problem with that, but how do you know that the claims being made, even on this point, are valid, if other scientists in the field reject his theories?
His work has even been refuted by other creationists and has never truly refuted claims against him.
By all means, get specific. What part has been refuted? I gave you a link to a article in Science. Are you saying that a later report by other scientists, creationists or not, have proven that the U/Pb ratios in coalified wood samples from those strata aren't too high?

Note that I said nothing about Polonium halos. The U/Pb ratios came from U halos, not Po halos. You're trying to refute a different argument than what I've thus far made. I could have made an argument about Po halos, but I didn't.

I repeat, "rock replacement" is Collins' argument against Po halos in Precambrian rocks, not against U/Pb ratios in coaified wood.
Our radiometric dating methods and types have diversified and improved since 1976, (just like biodiversity in the past 3.5 billion years) and his claims are simply outdated and widely refuted.
If this was really true, you'd be having a much easier time articulating that refutation. Absolutely nothing in this sentence refutes the data found in that Science article.
Religion is an unfalsifiable belief in a supernatural element of nature.
Didn't I indicate as much when I said your theory would need to be testable?

But note that evolution is in line with pantheistic thought, because it gives a divine attribute to nature itself, the power to create. So unless you provide a way to falsify your belief in nature being able to create itself, you've just put your beliefs into the realm of religion.
People with differing chromosome counts can reproduce. Does the fact that Chromosome 2 is fused non-human ape chromosomes 12 and 13 not show in itself, that this happened?
All it does is give a logical basis for a hypothesis to be formed by someone who wants to degrade their humanity by saying they are the son of an ape or a worm instead of the Creator of the universe. It doesn't prove that hypothesis true.

If calculated and observable odds falsify the hypothesis, then it's falsified, no matter how nice it sounds.
Homozygous individuals are not needed for this because it happens at gamete fusion.
There will tend to be fertility issues until you have a husband and wife who are both homozygous. This is standard genetics. The reason why bananas are edible and seedless is that many or most of the bananas sold today are triploid. So are seedless watermelon. Triploid = three sets of chromosomes. The seeds don't form. It's a reason why mules are infertile, because the mule has an odd number of chromosomes, not an even number. Of course, you might be able to find exceptions to what I'm saying. But it still poses a huge problem for random mutations being the sole cause of all the genomes in existence today.

In short, I think it's a belief in bigger miracles than I believe in. And I do believe in miracles.
You do not need to mate with someone with the same genetic traits as you to produce kids with that trait. I mentioned 8th grade because this year my science class covered genetics and heredity. It is not very hard to understand.
Then maybe you should ask why your 8th grade teacher kept you in the dark as to the fertility problems associated with differences in chromosomal number, especially since anyone familiar with plant genetics would know what I said above about bananas and watermelon. And of course a biologist should know that mules are infertile, and why they are.

So why were you kept in the dark?
Modern humans in America have not had time to adapt to the big mac.
Ex. 15:26 promised the Israelites that they would not suffer from the diseases God had put upon the Egyptians if they obeyed Him. Paleopathologists tell us, after dissecting and x-raying thousands of mummies, that the early dynasties were largely vegetarian, ate unrefined foods, got exercise, and were the picture of health. The later dynasties ate refined foods, lots of meat, and lived a sedentary lifestyle. They had the same diseases we have today, including diabetes.

That fits a biblical model, not an evolutionary model, unless you want to say that there hasn't been enough time since the later dynasties to adapt to Big Macs.

If it takes so long to evolve to the point of being able to not get diabetes when eating a diet high in refined foods and meat, then how long of a time frame does one need for all the postulated evolutionary changes to take place?

Our bodies are incredible machines. On the cellular level, we've got lots of complex molecular machines. Even viruses are complex molecular machines. If this was known when Darwin first proposed his theory, it would never have gotten any traction. And all this came about by blind chance, random mutations? What an astounding miracle!
 
I would like to give a slightly longer rebutal to your atheism and the scientific theory of evolution are a religion. First off, theistic evolutionists do exist, so do not say that atheism is directly coningent on evolution. Telling an atheist that athiesm is a religion is like telling a theist that you aren't a true christian because you wear mixed fabrics or are gay. You can't tell someone what they think.

Athiesm means that they hold the stance that a God doesn't exist. Religion is directly contigent on gods and the supernatural. Again, is bald a haircut, is mute a dialect?


The same website has the rebutal by the creationist. Do some digging, man.

WE ARE APES. NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION YOU BELIVE YOU CAN'T SAY HUMANS AREN'T APES. YOU ARE AN APE. I AM AN APE. YOUR PARENTS ARE TAXONOMICALLY APES. ARE YOU A MAMMAL? ARE YOU AN ANIMAL?
If you are a tailess primate, you are an ape. That is an unrefuted scientific fact. Being the son of an ape makes you human. If we are made in god's image, god is an ape.

Miracles are magic, genetics is not.

Can I have a citation on the Egypt's dynasties claim? I would need to do some source reasarch into that.

The radiohalos article you linked (only source I've seen so far, good job) completely ignores the fact that the lithification process takes a few million years and little to no decomposition. If creation week had all current bugs created soon after plants, there would be no way coal could form. Because bark was such an effective way of defense before various creatures adapted to penetrate it, the carboniferous period has about 90% of are current coal deposits. (information about coal deposits from https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Coal_formation
and Improbable Destinies)
Wood would just sit there without being decomposed or broken down by insects, leading to burial events that created massive coal seams. If some urainium intrusion occured, he states that it would have to be while the coal in question was still in peat/early lignite state. "occurred prior to coalification when the radionuclide transport rate was relatively high and the matrix still plastically deformable. " If you are disputing the coal formation process, you have some guts sir. If you can explain that lignite coal to Bitlimous coal is super-mega-hyper-ultra-uber-fast, I would advise you to point that out to the Nobel committee.
 
As I said before, modern medicine has allowed us to cheat the system and survive. We no longer have to adapt because our brains do it for us. Sexual selection is all that is left for us and even that doesn't matter very much. A fat person can be treated for the various complications it causes and fat people have kids.
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
1. A theistic evolutionist by definition is a skeptic, and so if I say 'atheists and skeptics," I am taking in the gamut of those who dabble in this sort of science fiction.

2. Instead of proving a link to Snelling, state what specific points you think in his reply constitute an actual rebuttal.

Snelling's preferred theory is/was that certain Precambrian rocks be Flood rocks. And yet at the same time he accepted as valiud Gentry's published findings about the lack of fossil alpha recoil tracks near Po halo centers. Thus Snelling's theory called for isotope migration while the temperature was above the annealing point, and isotope decay after the temperature had dropped below the annealing point.

Remember, Po218's half-life is but 3 minutes. Are you sure you want to seriously consider Snelling's theory as a rebuttal to Gentry's findings on Po halos?

But, again, I didn't raise the issue of Po halos in Precambrian rocks. I raised the issue of U/Pb ratios in U halo centers in fossil-bearing strata.

3. I am not an ape. I am a child of God. Apes and elephants and giraffes were all created on Friday too, but man was created separately and later that day, and, apparently, differently, according to the record.

4. I never said that genetics is a miracle. I said the sort of changes to genetic code that evolutionists, whether atheists or skeptics, are proposing, happening all by blind chance, is in the realm of the miraculous.

5. "Can I have a citation on the Egypt's dynasties claim?" It's all in a slide program I bought decades ago. The old-fashioned slides. "Mysteries of the Mummies," 1984, revised 1987, done by Loma Linda University School of Health.

6. "The radiohalos article you linked (only source I've seen so far, good job) completely ignores the fact that the lithification process takes a few million years and little to no decomposition."

Sounds like an assumption that would need to be proven. But at any rate, are you speaking of the sediment to coalified wood is found in, or the coalified wood itself? If the latter, then consider the experiment presented in Gentry's Young Age video which falsifies that assumption.

7. "Wood would just sit there without being decomposed or broken down by insects, leading to burial events that created massive coal seams." Another unproven assumption.

8. "If some urainium intrusion occured, he states that it would have to be while the coal in question was still in peat/early lignite state." The article nowhere states this, right? Within a Flood model, this would not be the case, right? Water-soaked logs during a global flood would not have to be turned into peat before being converted to coal after being buried, right?
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
If I have not addressed a point of yours yet, please list those this is getting quite unweildy.

You still have not addressed the issue of fertility obstacles to mutations that affect chromosomal number taking over a population of creatures that reproduce sexually. The above link doesn't discuss the problem at all, from what I could see.

And why would it? Evolutionists are going to be reticent to deal with serious problems to their theory because of the religious/philosophical presuppositions underlying that theory. And then there is the issue that the serious problems won't even be seen, because they aren't supposed to be there.

First identify a change that has to occur. Then identify the odds of that change happening spontaneously. Then whether or not there would be fertility issues. Then whether that change really could take over the population within the postulated time frame.

Or, you could start with trying to come up with the total number of changes that had to take place between point A and point B. Since the human genome has 3.2 billion base pairs, could we oversimplify things by postulating 3.2 billion changes between the first living thing and man? And then if we postulate that one change took over the population every year, evolution would be possible.

And that sentence contains two absurdities, that one change could occur per year, and that one change could take over a population each year.

The only thing left to attack in this hypothetical oversimplification is the number of proposed changes. But I wouldn't be surprised if evolution in the end demands something similar to that number. And if you think that number wrong, then what would be the correct number, including all the many proposed changes that got changed again and again and again?
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org....nd-medication_robertsonian-translocation.aspx seems to show that 2/3's of pregnancies when one parent has a balanced Robertsonian translocation will not result in a seemingly normal child.

I don't think the chart there is the one I found before, but I found something along these lines previously that was quite helpful in showing the problem I'm talking about.

https://academic.oup.com/labmed/article/44/3/254/2657784 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27478773 describe two cases of homozygous carriers of such translocations, and how out of 8 pregnancies between the two couples in question, one child was born.

You can imagine that if the translocation swapped code between two chromosomes rather than fused two chromosomes, there could also be serious fertility consequences.

And this is talking about translocations of existing information. It's not even talking about the adding of new information to the existing code. I would expect the addition of significant new information, if such is even possible, to result in the same sort of fertility issues, unless both mates were homozygous.
 
Last edited:
I have said before, people with mismatched chromosomes are able to reproduce. In, a way, we are broken primates. Our jaws are so weak that we don't need the muscle anchors on our skull. But in turn, our skull could expand without the need for a ridge anchor, giving us bigger brains.

Again, athiesm is not evolutionism or skepticism. Science is skeptical in nature, questioning the standing explanation.

If you can only point out possible inconsitencies in radiometric dating, that does not prove your point. We have other types of dating.

How would you explain genetic simalarity and the plethora of transitional species Identified in the fossil record? No matter what the chances are, we have Fused chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13. There are telomere codes in the middle of our chromosome 2. The fact that that exists is not rebutted by "maybe they couldn't reproduce" because it's evident that it did. After all, we exist, and we have this fused chromosome.

Most of our genetic code is virus DNA and leftover pseudogenes from our ancestors. Genetic varience can copy entire genes, so 3.2 billion single neucleotide changes is not an exact number. In the article about elephants before, a rare mutaion in elephants was passed down as those with tusks were killed for Ivory, and could not be as successful as those without. That is a mutation the gives a survival advantage against thier biggest predator.


You are an animal, like all the others, giraffes, apes, whatever. You can't prove that we are taxinomically not animals.
Here's a checklist:
1. You are alive
2. You are multicellualar
3. You are a eukaryote
4. You don't have a cell wall
As I assume you are not a robot, you qualify. Welcome fellow old world monkey, to kingdom animalia!

Some codes would remain the same, like that for ribosomes.

There are no flood sediments that cover the earth. However, the Iraqi floodplan, where your ludicrous stories were writen, there was a flood of the Exact depth as in the Holy Fables. There is not enough water in the water cycle to flood the entire planet at that depth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PodCastAllLangs
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
I have said before, people with mismatched chromosomes are able to reproduce.
You're not dealing with the point raised. Mere assertions don't cut it, especially when I've made clear that I already know they can reproduce. Deal with the issue: Fertility is impaired, significantly.

And mules are sterile! So at some point, certain types of mismatching WILL prevent ALL reproduction. Some won't, and some will.
Again, athiesm is not evolutionism or skepticism. Science is skeptical in nature, questioning the standing explanation.
Again, you are ignoring the point, or misunderstanding it. A skeptic is someone who does not believe the Bible. Someone who believes in evolution does not believe the Bible, and thus falls into the category of a skeptic.

It's not just that they have to believe that God somehow got it wrong on Mt. Sinai when He declared in the hearing of 2 million people that He created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th day, and that that was why He commanded as a moral principle that all keep the 7th day as a day of rest, which is our Saturday. It's also that they have to believe that Paul got it wrong when he said that death entered into the world because of Adam's sin, since evolution demands that death existed long before there could have been an Adam. And there's other serious issues too.

If you can only point out possible inconsitencies in radiometric dating, that does not prove your point. We have other types of dating.
Then I suppose I win by default, if you refuse to deal with the data. If you cannot provide any explanation whatsoever why the U/Pb ratios in those coalified wood samples indicate a much younger age than what evolutionists assume, we should just agree that those ratios indicate a much younger age for that strata.
How would you explain genetic simalarity and the plethora of transitional species Identified in the fossil record?
Of course, a common Designer would result in genetic similarity. So would subsequent genetic manipulation that would result in what scientists call horizontal gene transfer.

But my understanding is that no transitional species have been identified, or at best, very few. What are often called transitional species are actually not supposed to be ancestors of what we see today.
No matter what the chances are, we have Fused chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13. There are telomere codes in the middle of our chromosome 2. The fact that that exists is not rebutted by "maybe they couldn't reproduce" because it's evident that it did. After all, we exist, and we have this fused chromosome.
Deal with the point raised rather than pretending that it doesn't exist. Science isn't supposed to work like what you are proposing. The apparently obvious results in an hypothesis which is then tested.

The test in this case is to demonstrate that fertility isn't significantly impaired and that the mutation can take over the population in the assumed time period, and that this process can be repeated thousands or millions of times in the course of the earth's history, with other chromosomes and parts of chromosomes.

I think "... because it's evident that it did ..." is a faith-based statement, not an evidence-based statement.
Most of our genetic code is virus DNA and leftover pseudogenes from our ancestors.
I highly doubt that you've ever personally verified this. I think you've copied this assertion from a revered pantheist guru.
Genetic varience can copy entire genes, so 3.2 billion single neucleotide changes is not an exact number.
Didn't I allow for that? One would think that CAT turning into TCG could have had an intermediary step of TGT, especially if we're talking about 100% random mutations. That's why I referred to "proposed changes that got changed again and again and again."
You can't prove that we are taxinomically not animals.
You said before that we are apes. Now you're changing the topic to whether we are animals.
There are no flood sediments that cover the earth.
Really, you are barred from making such an assertion until you deal with that coalified wood article. Why? Because that article provides hard evidence that the strata under discussion in it were laid down at the same time, and that the coalified wood was once soggy logs that were all soggy at the same time.

Therefore, the sedimentary layers under discussion in that article ARE flood sediments. Now if you want to assert that Jurassic and Triassic sediments aren't found around the world, if that's what you're trying to say, then please clearly say so.
However, the Iraqi floodplan, where your ludicrous stories were writen, there was a flood of the Exact depth as in the Holy Fables. There is not enough water in the water cycle to flood the entire planet at that depth.
So ludicrous, and yet it's the only model that explains what we see today in geology. Just a coincidence?

Maybe you should start by reading the Bible for yourself. The account has a lot of water coming from beneath the earth, and thus your point about the water cycle is irrelevant. Secondly, the upheaval evident in the account and in geology makes it clear that there are a lot of mechanisms that would permit the entire earth to be underwater. All you have to do is have mountain building take place later in the flood event, and you can end up with sea-life fossils on Mt. Everest. You'd have to assume that pre-flood mountains were up to a certain height, and seas were up to a certain depth and capacity, and no fluctuation of these heights and depths took place during the Flood, before your point would mean anything.

And then we would be left wondering how everything got buried rapidly through water action, rapidly forming the geologic column, just thousands of years ago, saince that's what the scientific evidence shows, if there never was a Noah's Flood.
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
Interesting. So it is clear that at least some evolutionists recognize the challenge of the issue I've raised.

Does this article state anything about the odds of such mutations being able to take over a population?

When we talk about genomes, we're talking about a code that we do not fully understand. Even today, much of the research on human genetics is devoted to genes we already know something about. My prediction is that when we finally crack the entire genetic code, if we ever do, we'll conclude that there is no way that something this complex just happened by blind chance.

Our scientists had expensive techniques to do genetic engineering with, until CRISPR was discovered already working within cells. So we copied and altered the CRISPR process, and now genetic engineering is much cheaper and easier.

An evolutionist might conclude that blind chance is far smarter than hundred or thousands of scientists slaving away trying to figure things out on their own. I won't, obviously. But it is still true that scientists had to copy what was already there before they had a cheap way to do genetic engineering.

See if you can find someone who has confirmed in the laboratory that what the article is saying is plausible. If no laboratory has, then perhaps we need to consider the possibility of intentional tampering. That would get rid of the problem of fertility altogether.

If bananas were genetically tampered with in ancient times, the animals could have been tampered with too. The origins of edible bananas are a puzzle, and much time and thought and theorizing has been given to that topic. It is evolution that says that ancient man was dumber than he is today, not creation. Except that selection pressure regarding intellectual traits would have disappeared after man started congregating in cities, says one evolutionist in a published paper.
 
About animals, you need to find a level in which you do not accept your classification. Where is that level?

I have read the flood myth, and here is a biblcal interperetation so you will have less prejudice against it.

About odds, that doesn't matter as much when we look at the past. What are the chances that you would drink at the exact time you did? Not likely, anything could happen.


Complexity does not denote design. By that logic, God would have to be created, leading to a paradox I'll call the Intelligent design of intelligent designers.


There you are, how much of that is genes that control things? About 25,000 sequences.
Grains of rice have 40,000.

I think... because It is evident that it did, is an evidence based statement. If you see a dead body with a knife wound, it is evident that someone killed that person. If a woman gives birth, then it is evident that they had sex.

I am not conceding to you that radio
 
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
About animals, you need to find a level in which you do not accept your classification. Where is that level?
It doesn't hurt to question any classification that a skeptic might propose, given their false assumptions.
I have read the flood myth, and here is a biblcal interperetation so you will have less prejudice against it.
The summary at the top included this sentence: "From a scientific perspective, a universal flood, flood geology, and canopy theory are entirely without support."

What an incredibly ignorant statement! Written in 2002, long after that Science article. Not once does the words "halo" or "Gentry" or "coalified" appear anywhere in the article. Thus, this article does nothing to refute that Science article which provides a geologic basis for concluding that a worldwide flood created most of the geologic column.

I read nothing more after reading such a stupid statement, a statement both you and I know is false.
About odds, that doesn't matter as much when we look at the past. What are the chances that you would drink at the exact time you did? Not likely, anything could happen.
If you need 3.2 billion changes take over a population to get from the original life to man, and the proven rate is an average of one change every 10 years, then evolution becomes untenable within the postulated time frame, because life isn't supposed to have been here 32 billion years ago.

And it's a catch 22. If you have the average length of time too short, evolution should be seen today. IOW, we should be able to identify a mutational change that is taking over an entire population in the here and now, within the human race if the average rate of change is too short.
What is your point? I have no idea which item here was meant to answer my question.

The summary at the top states, "... but it is not the most recent common ancestor of all birds nor is it a direct ancestor of any species of bird alive today." And thus you now have a source you trust saying the same sort of thing I did. Even an item identified as a transitional fossil isn't necessarily believed by evolutionists themselves to be an ancestor to a present-day species. And that leaves the true transitional species, if it existed at all, unidentified.

I suspect that if you research it to the point of discovering why they say a transitional fossil isn't an ancestor, you will discover some serious problems, such as the transitional fossil being "later" than that which it should be an ancestor of.
Complexity does not denote design.
When that complexity involves an intricate, not yet fully translated, computer-like code, and informational system, it most certainly does. If you disagree, then conduct an experiment involving blind chance, and see if you can produce such a system.

There you are, how much of that is genes that control things? About 25,000 sequences.
Grains of rice have 40,000.
I think you'd better do some more research. Genes are "a sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that encodes the synthesis of a gene product, either RNA or protein.." Therefore, the parts of the genome that just control are the parts that don't encode, and thus those parts aren't genes.

Still, a relatively recent article stated that most research today is done on genes that we already know a lot about, resulting in current knowledge about other genes not being all that much, despite the decades that have passed.
I think... because It is evident that it did, is an evidence based statement. If you see a dead body with a knife wound, it is evident that someone killed that person. If a woman gives birth, then it is evident that they had sex.
Your statement about the fusion of chromosomes was faith-based, because it was based on the unproven assumption that humans and chimpanzees are related by descent, that life on earth has been here for millions of years, and that "macro-evolution" has occurred, three items you believe by faith, having not personally witnessed those three things.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2020
34
5
55
Visit site
I have read the flood myth, and here is a biblcal interperetation so you will have less prejudice against it.
I stated in my response, "I read nothing more after reading such a stupid statement, a statement both you and I know is false." You might object to my wording, but it's true nonetheless.

You earlier gave an illustration about a body with a knife wound. Now suppose that body was found in the trunk of your car, you live alone, and the murder weapon was found still covered in blood in your kitchen sink. What would you think if your lawyer at the trial said, "These is no evidence that the defendant committed this crime"? Of course, you could have been framed, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence against you.

I don't know whether there is any other field where the opposing side pretends there is no evidence like this. It's weird, and comes across as disingenuous. Maybe it's a knee-jerk reaction because one's religious beliefs are threatened.

You read the paper that described (a) U/Pb ratios from various strata that support a short chronology, (b) how the U infiltration had to take place prior to coalification, (c) how U remobilization or Pb mobilization can't explain this phenomenon, and (d) how widespread occurrence of dual halos in Jurassic and Triassic samples "can actually be considered corroborative evidence" that the U infiltration was due to a single tectonic event.

A single tectonic event. A single event that caused U infiltration of soggy logs that are now coalified wood in both Jurassic and Triassic strata, which would mean that the soggy Jurassic and Triassic logs were buried at the same time, not at two points in time millions of years apart from each another.

Therefore, you do know as well as I do that the author of that ignorant statement was wrong, and that there is scientific support for a worldwide flood, even if evolution is the preferred model, and even if evolution turns out to be true in the end (which really would be impossible). Just because someone doesn't like a conclusion doesn't give him or her license to pretend that evidence for that conclusion doesn't exist.
 
@Pickle
sorry bro, but you are circling in the same way, while not realizing it should be a spiral. Basic issue from theistic people.
Your Christianity is a 1:1 re-build from what the Egyptians were participating. Just, it has been manipulated after politics, misused by the Empire of Rome.
That means, the backstory of ANY current terrestrial religion is the recreation of a story around astronomic happenings. Ultimately, it does not matter, if it is Christianity, Islam, Jews, Witnesses of Jehovah, whatever it is.
It´s just that, at least the Egyptians, Mayans, Aztecs were smart enough to stay realistic and call their gods for example the sun, and the moon. Also they have build symbolism around it but at least their knowledge was far above what we are having nowadays. Horus and Ra for example, or Teonanacatl for Aztecs.
This one-way thing, like having only one god overall is very misleading. Fuelling the monotheistic egoism in people´s mentality. Like two kids debating whether the one or other Lego house is the better one then the other while booth are from the same source, ya understand?
To come with your bible stuff all the time..... why do these Christians don´t get the point after so many hundreds of years??? I mean... all you are doing is repeating the same verses from the bible, wherever you do it, and start to build up some science-fictions around your opinions build by your religion. And again, this has been created through a monotheistic egoistic view that nowaday´s religions are creating.

You Christians will never agree in how powerful a human´s mind can be. Now look at quantum-physics. Once a Christian falls into a higher category of consciousness, immediatly a huge border-brick is falling down. BAMM, must be god... case closed and done.

No man. Sorry to ell you but, your religion and your bible are misleading anti-humanistic actions fuelling modern slavery the finest ever.
It’s sad to see these comments sections of people arguing about religion and blaming all 2 billion Muslims and our religion for the recent new political movements sweeping the East. I wish you all peace. The North Star is changing a lot as it constantly burns gas. We rely on these stars for navigation here in the Islamic Sultanate of Qarsherskiy. Our ancestors did and we do and ethnic Qarsherskiyans always have used these stars for navigation. One day they’ll supernova, I believe only Allah ﷻ is Eternal and the stars will all die someday.
 
As far as the science concerning the North Star, a triple star system, commonly called Alpha Ursae Minoris (α UMi), is the closest relatively bright star to the north celestial pole. It lies at an estimated distance between 323 and 433 light years (99 to 133 parsecs) from Earth and has an apparent magnitude that varies between 1.86 and 2.13 and Polaris is the closest Cepheid variable star to Earth. Polaris is around 4000 times brighter than our sun.

The North Star Polaris is not actually flickering. It is a bright trinary star system with a yellow giant (Aa) ~ 5 times more massive than our Sun, a yellow F6 (Ab) star ~ 1.26 Sols, and a third (B) class star ~ 1.39 Sols.

Aa is a cepheid variable star* which goes through cycles of months or years where its brightness increase and decreases, but this is not happening fast enough to appear as flashing.

Polaris sits above Earth’s north polar axis so it appears to be stationary in the sky in relation to our Earth’s rotation. If you take a multi-hour time elapsed photo of the night sky in the northern hemisphere, other stars will appear as curved lines, but Polaris will appear a stationary dot.

When Polaris appears to flash, it is most likely exhibiting fluctuating thermal distortions, or scintillations, in the atmosphere deflecting Polaris’s light to your eye. This is happening fast enough that it could appear that the star is flashing.

See: https://www.britannica.com/place/Polaris-star

See: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Polaris-North-Star-flashing?share=1

See: https://explainingscience.org/2020/09/25/the-changing-pole-star/

* Cepheid variable star: one of a class of variable stars whose periods (i.e., the time for one complete cycle of brightening and dimming) of variation are closely related to their luminosity and that are therefore useful in measuring interstellar and intergalactic distances as standard candles.

Most Cepheid variable stars are spectral type F (moderately hot) at maximum luminosity and type G (cooler and Sun-like) at minimum. The prototype star is Delta Cephei, the variability of which was discovered by John Goodricke in 1784. In 1912 Henrietta Leavitt of Harvard Observatory discovered the aforementioned period-luminosity relationship of the Cepheids.

Cepheids are now considered to fall into two distinct classes. The classical Cepheids have periods from about 1.5 days to more than 50 days and belong to the class of relatively young stars found largely in the spiral arms of galaxies and called Population I. Population II Cepheids are much older, less luminous, and less massive than their Population I counterparts. They fall into two groups—W Virginis stars with periods greater than about 10 days and BL Herculis stars with periods of a few days.

Classical Cepheids exhibit a relation between period and luminosity in the sense that the longer the period of the star, the greater its intrinsic brightness; this period-luminosity relationship has been used to establish the distance of remote stellar systems. The absolute magnitude of a classical Cepheid can be estimated from its period. Once this is known, the distance of the star can be deduced from a comparison of absolute and apparent (measured) magnitudes. Population II Cepheids likewise obey a period-luminosity relationship, but it is different from that of the classical Cepheids. Since Population II Cepheids are less luminous than classical Cepheids, they are less useful as distance indicators.

See: https://www.britannica.com/science/Cepheid-variable

The North Star, Pole Star or Polaris – is famous for holding nearly still in our sky while the entire northern sky moves around it. That’s because it’s located very close to the north celestial pole, the point around which the entire northern sky apparently turns. Although it’s a common belief, Polaris is not the brightest star in the nighttime sky. In fact, it’s only the 48th brightest star. But you can find it easily, and, once you do, you’ll see it shining in the northern sky every night from Northern Hemisphere locations.

Even when the full moon obscures a good deal of the starry heavens, the North Star is relatively easy to see. That fact has made this star a boon to travelers throughout the Northern Hemisphere, both over land and sea. So finding Polaris means you know the direction north.

Best of all, you can readily find Polaris by using the prominent group of stars known as the Big Dipper, called the Plough in the United Kingdom, which may be the Northern Hemisphere’s most famous star pattern. To locate Polaris, all you have to do is to find the Big Dipper pointer stars Dubhe and Merak. These two stars outline the outer part of the Big Dipper’s bowl. Simply draw a line from Merak through Dubhe, and go about five times the Merak/Dubhe distance to Polaris.

Even when the full moon obscures many stars, the North Star is relatively easy to see. That has made this star a boon to travelers throughout the Northern Hemisphere, on both land and sea. Finding Polaris means you know which direction is north.

Best of all, you can readily find Polaris by using the prominent group of stars known as the Big Dipper, which may be the Northern Hemisphere’s most famous historical star pattern. To locate Polaris, all you have to do is to find the Big Dipper pointer stars Dubhe and Merak. These two stars outline the outer part of the Big Dipper’s bowl. Simply draw a line from Merak through Dubhe, and go about five times the Merak/Dubhe distance to Polaris.

The Big Dipper is an object formed by seven bright stars in the constellation of Ursa Major, known as the Great Bear. It is one of the most recognizable star patterns in the night sky. This asterism is well-known in many cultures and goes by many other names, including the Plough, Charles' Wain, the Wain, the Northern Waggoner (In 1584 the Dutch pilot Lucas Janszoon Waghenaer published a volume of navigation principles, tables, charts, and sailing directions, which served as a guide for other such books for the next 200 years. These "Waggoners" as they came to be known, were very popular; and in 1588, an English translation of the original book was made.
Also see Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, Book I, Canto II, Stanza 1, lines 1-5,
"By this the Northerne wagoner had set
His sevenfold teme behind the stedfast starre,
That was in Ocean waves yet never wet,
But firme is fixt, and sendeth light from farre
To all that in the wide deepe wandring arre.),
also the Great Wagon, the Drinking Gourd, Northern Ladle, the Great Bear, Saptarishi, and the Saucepan.
Hartmann352