why are you so against YEC. like i said the most that i want is evolution to be taught as "correctly" warts and and all.
So describe precisely how evolution should be taught "correctly", as you apparently think that doing so will prove creationism.
why are you so against YEC. like i said the most that i want is evolution to be taught as "correctly" warts and and all.
- converging genomes amongst human skeletons as we move back in time.
- a mechanism by which humans slowly aged, in the past, and genetic evidence thereof.
You want it to be taught incorrectly: that it depends on "blind chance," that it is just some laymens' opinion about the history of life on Earth, and that it is as equally valid as Young Earth Creationism. None of these things are true, which is why schools don't and shouldn't teach any of them.
The first link is the best as it states that ATP synthase is essential for all DNA operations and DNA is essential to build ATP synthase and the 2 quotes I included in my post from that link to some extent summarize the most relevant point of that link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trev View Post
http://creation.com/atp-synthase
Some quotes from it
http://creation.com/immunoglobulin-and-gene-duplication
http://creation.com/facilitated-vari...radigm-emerges
http://creation.com/mechanisms-of-gene-regulation
http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death
A series of links demonstrating the complexity of DNA, RNA and their functions and therefore the improbability that chance designed the first cells.
My initial argument was not based on one link or article, but rather logically combining the data contained within multiple articles, a selection of which I have supplied here.
To Ziggy - took time to find and collate what you asked for
Thanks for the effort, but can you maybe pick one which you think demonstrates your case best? I have a day job and so don't have hours reading them all.
No they don't. The Comets in our solar system are fragments from the creation of the solar system or, possibly, a planet that had formed in our solar system.the big bang postulates that all comets are remnants of early galaxy formations but they should all be gone by now.
mitochondrial mapping shows common origins in humans. i disagree with the location but the results are the same.
how about this. what evidence would you expect to see. if the bibcal god created the world and i will try to find research on that evidence for you to see. because everything i present is either not good enough,made by "fake" scientists, or Im twisting the facts.
Tree cores DO NOT go back more than 2000 years or so at most. It has been proven that trees can have multiple annular rings and simply counting rings is a very poor guide to a trees age.Tree and Ice cores should go back no more than 6000 years.
Tree cores DO NOT go back more than 2000 years or so at most. It has been proven that trees can have multiple annular rings and simply counting rings is a very poor guide to a trees age.
http://creation.com/evidence-for-multiple-ring-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-pines
Tree cores DO NOT go back more than 2000 years or so at most. It has been proven that trees can have multiple annular rings and simply counting rings is a very poor guide to a trees age.
http://creation.com/evidence-for-multiple-ring-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-pines
They do not show this. Scientists postulate theories on dark matter and dark energy, ideas with no direct observational evidence to explain astonomical phenomena because it cannot be explained by what is visible. 90% + of the universe is unproven dark energy or dark matter just to explain the universe structure. There is no convincing proof for the appearance of spiral galaxies billions of years old, logically they should not retain their spiral shape for long. Ah yes, because they exist reasons are put forward for their existence, but no proof can be offered.Background radiation and astronomical observations would not show such a coherent picture of the evolution and formations of galaxies and other astronomical phenomena over billions of years.
The evidence has been wrongly dated. This is partially because carbon dating has been reconciled with tree rings without allowing for multiplicity of annular tree rings causing errors in carbon dating. Also the chronology of ancient empires is disputed, many historians shorten the chronology of Egypts by more than a millenium as some ages of Egyptian history were kingdoms overlapping in time in separate regions of the Nile river system with less years of political chaos between kingdoms. Allowing for these things reduces the age of all ancient middle eastern empires as they often cross date between the various empires.Archeological evidence should find no evidence of humans (or animals for that matter) living more than 6000 years ago. for example, why can we find evidence of primitive stone age humans in the same place as sumerians only in lower layers when supposedly the sumerians would have to have been there pretty much right after the moment of creation?
Limestone is the product of sedimentation of a catastrophic flood over a short period of time, this is why it is littered with and made of fossils. If it was laid down slowly over long period of time the dead marine life would have gone through its normal decay process and not left behind fossils.Limestone should not exist, considering it is the product of life over billions of years.
Carbon dating is not accurate and is based on assumptions that cannot be proved from the past. And the reconciliation of carbondating with dendrology falsely extends the carbondating age because it does not allow for multiplicity of annular rings which is common in extreme environments where the 'oldest' trees grow.How do you explain Old Tjikko then.
Obviously if it is growing more than one ring a year, maybe up to 10 a year in very extreme environments, then it is clearly relevant to the dating. Multiplicity of annular rings and therefore the inaccuracy of dendrology as a chronological instrument is some of the safest grounds for creationists to argue from, our science is very certain there.No seriously, Oak trees in germany and bristlecone pines in other areas of the world have an accurate chronology over 10000 years back. This is verified by cross checking with other chronologies and using other dating methods to verify the results. Dendrochronology is very accurate. That one tree ring does not necesserily mean one year is known and irrelevant to the dating.
so your belief in the theory of evolution is based on faith not on any perceived type of scientific fact. by your statement even if i prove the world "looks" 6000 years old. you wont be persuaded from your position of evolution and the big bang.And even if all this and much more were true it would only be evidence of the universe somehow appearing 6000 years ago. Not of intelligent design. In the same sense that the big bang is not in any way the final answer to the origins of the universe, it is just how far we have gotten. So far it is impossible to know what "triggered" the big bang, there are many hypotheses, but god is as good an answer as any.
They do not show this. Scientists postulate theories on dark matter and dark energy, ideas with no direct observational evidence to explain astonomical phenomena because it cannot be explained by what is visible. 90% + of the universe is unproven dark energy or dark matter just to explain the universe structure. There is no convincing proof for the appearance of spiral galaxies billions of years old, logically they should not retain their spiral shape for long. Ah yes, because they exist reasons are put forward for their existence, but no proof can be offered.
Please post evidence of this dispute in the timeline of Ancient Egypt, as the only thing I could find on Wikipedia was a dispute on the timing of an Icelandic Volcano!, and a google search using these exact words got me nothing else: "chronology of egyptian empire dispute". Again please furnish evidence from a reputable source, I myself will not accept creationist websites, as they are set up to prove creationism, not to find the truth, and so will lie over and over and over ad infinitum ad nauseum, just to try and prove creatinism.The evidence has been wrongly dated. This is partially because carbon dating has been reconciled with tree rings without allowing for multiplicity of annular tree rings causing errors in carbon dating. Also the chronology of ancient empires is disputed, many historians shorten the chronology of Egypts by more than a millenium as some ages of Egyptian history were kingdoms overlapping in time in separate regions of the Nile river system with less years of political chaos between kingdoms. Allowing for these things reduces the age of all ancient middle eastern empires as they often cross date between the various empires.
Well we'd better write to geology.com, that their whole article on limestone is wrong, seeing as they state: "It is usually an organic sedimentary rock that forms from the accumulation of shell, coral, algal and fecal debris." Surely they'll correct it as it comes from such a reputable source.Limestone is the product of sedimentation of a catastrophic flood over a short period of time, this is why it is littered with and made of fossils. If it was laid down slowly over long period of time the dead marine life would have gone through its normal decay process and not left behind fossils.
Fail post still fails. You have shown me nothing, nothing, to disprove a respected scientific technique that has been repeatedly shown to be accurate to over 50,000 years.Carbon dating is not accurate and is based on assumptions that cannot be proved from the past. And the reconciliation of carbondating with dendrology falsely extends the carbondating age because it does not allow for multiplicity of annular rings which is common in extreme environments where the 'oldest' trees grow.
Obviously if it is growing more than one ring a year, maybe up to 10 a year in very extreme environments, then it is clearly relevant to the dating. Multiplicity of annular rings and therefore the inaccuracy of dendrology as a chronological instrument is some of the safest grounds for creationists to argue from, our science is very certain there.
Fail post still fails. You have shown me nothing, nothing, to disprove a respected scientific technique that has been repeatedly shown to be accurate to over 50,000 years.
"I know the world is only 6,000 years as it says so in the bible, so carbon dating is wrong" is not proof.
Taking your level of proof I can equally say "Discworld is real, as Terry Pratchett has written over 30 books on it" and you cannot disprove me without firs ruining your whole arguement.