Something strange is going on with the North Star

[Pickle]

Radioactive dating cannot give an exact year, but all the radioactive dating tests we have done are consistent with the the others. All it takes to disprove it would be finding a fossil rat in the Precambrian-yet not once have we found fossils that are anachronistic. Considering that all animals were around at the same time according to creationists, why wouldn't we find these anachronistic fossils?

That's not true, as I've already pointed out. A difference in the dating of Triassic samples of a factor of at least 760 by no means constitutes consistency.

Re: anachronistic fossils, consider that I explicitly pointed out the difference by a factor of at least 760, and you responded that all tests were consistent with each other. Given the nature of human bias, an anachronistic fossil could stare many evolutionists in the face, and they would not see it, or would argue it doesn't exist, or would come up with some ad hoc explanation around the evidence. It's the nature of human bias.

There are multiple theories out there that attempt to explain why certain fossils tend to be found in certain layers. Which is correct, I cannot say.

But I can say this: The lack of significant erosional features between certain layers of the geologic column, despite the passage of supposedly millions of years between layers, and despite the fact that evolutionists propose that missing layers between those layers entirely eroded away, indicates that the layers instead were laid down so quickly one on top of the other, there wasn't time for significant erosion to occur between layers. And that collapses the geologic time scale of evolutionists to the point that the various animal life had to coexist.

 

[Pickle]

What was the rebuttal?

I do not recall any direct rebuttal against that particular paper, but I could be wrong.

But to give you an example of how bad the "rebuttal" was, the guy tried to say that Po-218 halos might be Rn-222 halos, since Rn-222 rings are indistinguishable from Po-210 rings. Well, that is true for biotite, but isn't true for fluorite. And since he claimed to have read the book and published reports, which contain photographs that clearly show this is the case, he should have known that.

Another major error was proposing a Rn diffusion hypothesis as an explanation for Po halos, without ever once addressing the lack of fossil alpha recoil tracks near halo centers. That lack is part of the published evidence, and any hypothesis that can't explain that lack is inadequate.

Yet another major error was saying that a particular critic's alternative hypothesis involved Rn diffusion, when that hypothesis instead involves re-crystallization with the Po becoming emplaced as the crystal grows, instead of Rn diffusion. So not only did the author not understand the material he was trying to rebut, he also did not understand the arguments of others on his own side.

Or else, he understood it all and was just blowing smoke.

 

[QuantumCorvax]

@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.

 

[Pickle]

@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.

If your points were really valid, certainly you would have made some sort of effort to give an evolutionary alternative to the scientific phenomena I mentioned. That you did not suggests that you don't have a clue how to do so.

As one example, if you really think the geologic column was laid down over millions and millions of years rather than very rapidly through a cataclysmic global flood, then by all means explain how millions of years of erosion can go by, followed by significant deposition, without leaving significant erosional features between those two layers, features that are absent in the Grand Canyon area, despite evolutionists assuming that 12 millions years in one instance, and 100+ million years in another, passed by.

Let me put it this way: If you expect me or anyone else to just accept your pontifications as truth without critical thinking, without independent analysis and testing, then it is your approach, not mine, that would tend toward intellectual stagnation, slavery, and the propagation of religious fallacies.

 

[Nytowl223]

btw Pickle... in all my 50 years your explanations have to be some of the most logical, educated answers I've heard in a VERY long time... lol smh sheesh. I'd be shocked if Icarus didn't come back with family members or something to make his case sound worse. lol Cause you can't argue the facts that you gave... God bless you. (but i still love science... lol You need to be a scientist, geez.)

In all my well OVER 50 years [did you want a pat on the back for living 5 decades?] it's the same absurdity I have seen innumerable times, of trying to shove one deity or another in where it simply does not belong. Please, the both of you truly DO need to stop insisting a square peg must fit into a round hole, if you just use a BIG enough deity!

LOL, although, it is pretty funny, watching those who somehow can believe in a planet only 6K or so years old, according to their magic book [that fallible men wrote, mind you], yet discuss the various reasons every civilization that has been around since the end of the last Ice Age began melting enough glaciers to cause massive flooding had a flooding story or 5 to tell, and then try to shove one of the stories from their magic book into ALL of those different civilizations' stories, including those who had never seen a white man before this millennia, and THEN try to figure out how to fit something as demonstrably much, much older as the Grand Canyon into the same stories! Just the mental gymnastics a mind has to try to go through to attempt such an absurdity is... well, as long and drawn-out as an Olympic floor dance exercise, and as simple as the old, anti-science answer of "Goddidit."

So, by all means, DO try to grab a bigger hammer and shove that square peg a little further into that round hole! I can promise I won't make fun of you anymore [it really is TOO easy, after all], but I WILL laugh enough to not need my situps for the day! Just... watch out for the splinters that will fly when you bash another corner off that square peg!

 

[Pickle]

In all my well OVER 50 years [did you want a pat on the back for living 5 decades?] it's the same absurdity I have seen innumerable times, of trying to shove one deity or another in where it simply does not belong. Please, the both of you truly DO need to stop insisting a square peg must fit into a round hole, if you just use a BIG enough deity!

LOL, although, it is pretty funny, watching those who somehow can believe in a planet only 6K or so years old, according to their magic book [that fallible men wrote, mind you], yet discuss the various reasons every civilization that has been around since the end of the last Ice Age began melting enough glaciers to cause massive flooding had a flooding story or 5 to tell, and then try to shove one of the stories from their magic book into ALL of those different civilizations' stories, including those who had never seen a white man before this millennia, and THEN try to figure out how to fit something as demonstrably much, much older as the Grand Canyon into the same stories! Just the mental gymnastics a mind has to try to go through to attempt such an absurdity is... well, as long and drawn-out as an Olympic floor dance exercise, and as simple as the old, anti-science answer of "Goddidit."

So, by all means, DO try to grab a bigger hammer and shove that square peg a little further into that round hole! I can promise I won't make fun of you anymore [it really is TOO easy, after all], but I WILL laugh enough to not need my situps for the day! Just... watch out for the splinters that will fly when you bash another corner off that square peg!

Do note that rather than resort to a scientific argument, you resorted to ridicule.

Case in point: You state that the Grand Canyon is demonstrably much, much older, and yet I already established that the Grand Canyon's strata is demonstrably much, much younger. If you want to gain any traction, you need to demonstrate how millions of years can go by without leaving the type of significant erosional features between the layers that we would expect to see. And this is all the more the case when evolutionists propose that extensive erosion happened between some of these layers.

It's an anomaly that has a very simple, scientific answer: The long ages are a fiction.

But your response does demonstrate one particular truth: The ultimate purpose of some of these theories is to do away with God. What you should ask yourself is why you feel compelled to do that, and to ignore the scientific evidence that goes contrary to the fictional myths you prefer to believe in.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

Perhaps a computer program could write code within the constraints of what works and could amount to 800 MB of data

 

[hellopunyhumans]

Actually, there's lots of evidence out there. For one thing, no viable mechanism has been identified that can produce the genetic changes required within the postulated time frame, changes that require the addition of significant new information and new functionality.

Now consider just one necessity, the change of chromosome number from one species to another. What would be the frequency of a random change in chromosome number? How would that affect fertility, of that individual and his or her offspring? What would be the odds of that individual mating with another that had the same change in chromosome number? What would be the odds of that change then becoming a dominant characteristic within an entire population?

The human genome is composed of 3.2 billion base pairs, which is the equivalent of an 800 MB computer program. No one who proposes that an 800 MB computer program came into being through random mutation would ever be taken seriously.

Polyploitey then mutations could develop seperate unique chromosones. It is well known that primate transition from 24 chromosomes to 23 chromosomes was due to the fusing of genetic information of two ancestral chromosomes into human chromosome 2. Also, mutations aren't part of computer science.

The viable mechanism is mutation. It exists. Take out a book on microbiology and learn about the different types of mutation. They produce new and different information and that is demonstrated.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

"This star system is weird in other ways."

Why should it be weird, rather than expected, that a star or solar system or galaxy out there somewhere doesn't conform to the fictional expectations of evolutionary theory?

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1; 53;1).

Soon or later these theories that seek to explain the universe from an atheistic or skeptic perspective will fail, even as theories about evolution on our planet have been falsified for decades.

Evolutionary theory seeks to explain biodiversity scientificly. The dating methods used on stars are imensely different then that used on rocks. Evolutionary theory is used in biology, not astronomy.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

No, man did not create the God of heaven who created heaven, earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture" (Psalms 100:3).

Darwinian evolution requires long periods of time. Yet the contact points between layers of the geologic column tend to be flat. Around the Grand Canyon are two layers that are supposed to differ in age by 12 million years, and another two layers that are supposed to differ by over 100 million years. During those lengths of time significant erosional features should have formed and then been buried within the geologic column, especially since evolutionists propose that intervening missing layers entirely eroded away. Yet such erosional features aren't there, and the contact points are instead quite flat.

This observable evidence points to rapid deposition. The layers were laid down so rapidly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers. And since these layers were deposited by some sort of water action, we need to have a catastrophic flood rapidly depositing the layers over large sections of the globe.

If you don't think this evidence affirms the existence of the God of the Bible, I would be most interested in hearing why it wouldn't. I can't think of any sort of scenario that could result in little or no erosion between layers of the geologic column, and rapid deposition of those layers over large areas of the globe through water action, within an atheistic or skeptic model of origins and history. But maybe you can think of an alternative, and if you can, I'd like to hear about it.

They are missing, but present in other places around the globe, or chould I say disk considering the bible says that the earth is a disk that stands on pillars, has corners, and has a giant bubble over it with holes in it to let the rain in. The interesting thing about index fossils is that when they are present at different sea levels due to geologic processes without other layers normaly near them, we can use them in the context of other layers that have those fossils and compare. This is how we get a GTS

 

[hellopunyhumans]

Sure, quoting Scripture does help. You asserted that all gods, including the God of the Bible, were created by men, and the Bible explicitly says that is not the case. While from your perspective that doesn't prove that claim to be true, it does shift the burden of proof, leaving you with the difficult task of proving your assertion to be true.

But please note that it appears that your religious biases are hindering you from understanding or answering my question. I fail to see how your comments explain the stark lack of significant erosional features seen between layers evolutionists date to be as old as 500 million years (https://creation.com/flat-gaps). Certainly the draining of lake Missoula wouldn't leave behind a lack of significant erosional features. And Eridu Genesis doesn't help your case, since it doesn't explain how the lack of significant erosional features can exist within an atheist or skeptic paradigm.

Surely attacking someone else's religious beliefs is easier than proving one's own, especially when geologic phenomena is one's bible, and those phenomena don't support one's views. But give it a try anyway.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". Lack of religion is not a religion, just like baldness is not a hairstyle.

 

[Pickle]

Polyploitey then mutations could develop seperate unique chromosones. It is well known that primate transition from 24 chromosomes to 23 chromosomes was due to the fusing of genetic information of two ancestral chromosomes into human chromosome 2. Also, mutations aren't part of computer science.

The viable mechanism is mutation. It exists. Take out a book on microbiology and learn about the different types of mutation. They produce new and different information and that is demonstrated.

Give an example of such a demonstration, not something merely hypothetical. I don't believe that has been done for significant, new information.

The fusing you propose, would it have affected fertility?

 

[Pickle]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". Lack of religion is not a religion, just like baldness is not a hairstyle.

You are incorrect. Theoretical atheism is the religious belief that there is no God.

 

[Pickle]

They are missing, but present in other places around the globe, ....

That doesn't really help evolutionists, does it? If significant erosional features between layers are missing in one locality despite the assertion that millions of years of time passed between those layers, and despite the assertion that enormous amounts of erosion occurred during that same time, it really doesn't help if significant erosional features can be seen somewhere else on the globe.

But you have my curiousity. Where on the globe can we find such features between layers?

 

[hellopunyhumans]

Give an example of such a demonstration, not something merely hypothetical. I don't believe that has been done for significant, new information.

The fusing you propose, would it have affected fertility?

Types of Mutations – Mt Hood Community College Biology 102

openoregon.pressbooks.pub

See insertion and deletion mutations

Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes

An international, peer-reviewed genome sciences journal featuring outstanding original research that offers novel insights into the biology of all organisms

genome.cshlp.org

this should explain human chromosome 2. It is a very informative paper.

 

[Pickle]

Evolutionary theory seeks to explain biodiversity scientificly. The dating methods used on stars are imensely different then that used on rocks. Evolutionary theory is used in biology, not astronomy.

Have you ever tried to tell atheists and skeptics that they shouldn't use the term "cosmic evolution" to refer to the development of both the universe and life on earth?

 

[Pickle]

Perhaps a computer program could write code within the constraints of what works and could amount to 800 MB of data

That's possibly what is happening. God may have built into the genetic code the ability to make some alterations, within limits. But your suggestion doesn't remove the necessity of a very smart programmer.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

That doesn't really help evolutionists, does it? If significant erosional features between layers are missing in one locality despite the assertion that millions of years of time passed between those layers, and despite the assertion that enormous amounts of erosion occurred during that same time, it really doesn't help if significant erosional features can be seen somewhere else on the globe.

But you have my curiousity. Where on the globe can we find such features between layers?

Circle you mean, follow your bible man.

Also, what features? Do you mean a lack of a middle layer meaning that at that specific time the area wasn't depositing layers or it was eroding layers? Frankly, the fact that some layers are missing in places supports that the Earth is old and a flood didn't happen because you'd expect a universal uniconformity. Instead, we find that in the place of origin of these fairy tales that a local flood on the iraqi flodplain of the depth of 22 cubits layed out in the bible (or is it 15, I'll have to consult my bible) occured and devastated mesopotaimian civilization.

That's possibly what is happening. God may have built into the genetic code the ability to make some alterations, within limits. But your suggestion doesn't remove the necessity of a very smart programmer.

True. That was a bad arguement about the nature of DNA. I kind of meant to say that if the life works that code will be saved and used again, in a sense.

 

[Pickle]

Types of Mutations – Mt Hood Community College Biology 102

openoregon.pressbooks.pub

See insertion and deletion mutations

Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes

An international, peer-reviewed genome sciences journal featuring outstanding original research that offers novel insights into the biology of all organisms

genome.cshlp.org

this should explain human chromosome 2. It is a very informative paper.

You seem to be avoiding the questions.

The first link gives no information whatsoever about mutation rates, the percentage of mutations that aren't harmful or fatal, the number of mutations necessary for creature A to evolve into creature B, the length of time allowed for creature A to evolve into creature B, and the frequency of fertility problems associated with what proportion of the necessary mutations.

Thus, random mutation is not demonstrated as being a viable mechanism in that source.

The second link states this:

"This gross karyotypic change may have helped to reinforce reproductive barriers between early Homo sapiens and other species, as the F1 offspring would have had reduced fertility because of the risk of unbalanced segregation of chromosomes during meiosis."

That was my point, right? So how did this mutation, if it really did occur, ever manage to spread throughout the population? How did two homozygous individuals with the same mutation ever meet, in order to overcome this fertility issue?

I may have missed something, but I couldn't find discussion in that paper that makes any attempt to address this issue.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

Have you ever tried to tell atheists and skeptics that they shouldn't use the term "cosmic evolution" to refer to the development of both the universe and life on earth?

It is more of a metaphor, I wish more people could pinpoint exactly what is evolution refering to.

 

[Pickle]

Also, what features? Do you mean a lack of a middle layer meaning that at that specific time the area wasn't depositing layers or it was eroding layers?

You're trying to address an issue before finding out what the issue is.

The layers around the Grand Canyon area are flat, with little or no erosion between layers, even when evolutionists assert that the contact point between layers represents 12 million years or 100+ million years, and even when they assert that intervening missing layers eroded away.

The fact that they are flat is evidence they were laid down so quickly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers.

If you are totally objective, without religious bias, you will respond by saying that that is a good point, and that you'll need to think about that one a bit.

If today's erosional processes occurred in the distant past, then we would expect to find within the geologic column valleys, ravines, and canyons, filled in with sediment when the next layers were deposited. The fact that the contact points between layers show little or no erosion is a problem for evolutionists that was published by scientists decades ago.

 

[Pickle]

It is more of a metaphor, I wish more people could pinpoint exactly what is evolution refering to.

The fact of the matter is that evolutinary theory, whether dealing with the cosmos or life on earth, uses similar assumptions. If one of those assumptions in the one is falsified, that undermines faith in the other as well.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

You seem to be avoiding the questions.

The first link gives no information whatsoever about mutation rates, the percentage of mutations that aren't harmful or fatal, the number of mutations necessary for creature A to evolve into creature B, the length of time allowed for creature A to evolve into creature B, and the frequency of fertility problems associated with what proportion of the necessary mutations.

Thus, random mutation is not demonstrated as being a viable mechanism in that source.

The second link states this:

"This gross karyotypic change may have helped to reinforce reproductive barriers between early Homo sapiens and other species, as the F1 offspring would have had reduced fertility because of the risk of unbalanced segregation of chromosomes during meiosis."

That was my point, right? So how did this mutation, if it really did occur, ever manage to spread throughout the population? How did two homozygous individuals with the same mutation ever meet, in order to overcome this fertility issue?

I may have missed something, but I couldn't find discussion in that paper that makes any attempt to address this issue.

Sorry, I missed a few I will try to answer them here.

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.

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.

You are incorrect. Theoretical atheism is the religious belief that there is no God.

how would you define a religion?

The fact of the matter is that evolutinary theory, whether dealing with the cosmos or life on earth, uses similar assumptions. If one of those assumptions in the one is falsified, that undermines faith in the other as well.

Do it. Present it to a scientific journal and redeem you nobel prize.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

The fact of the matter is that evolutinary theory, whether dealing with the cosmos or life on earth, uses similar assumptions. If one of those assumptions in the one is falsified, that undermines faith in the other as well.

Evolutionary theory is a biological theory. Other adaptions of the word do not pertain to biological evolution.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

If you are totally objective, without religious bias, you will respond by saying that that is a good point, and that you'll need to think about that one a bit.

I did to another point of yours. About how my code statement made no sense to support my position.
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.