Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Arakhor]

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.

 

[magicfan101]

- 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.

1st point when we test humans against humans in the genomes we are 99.99% similar.
mitochondrial mapping shows common origins in humans. i disagree with the location but the results are the same.
they are currently running a genome test on Neanderthals. they sent out an early draft of their results this MAY. they do stress that contamination in the samples are possible. but early results are promising for neanderthals being fully humans.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full

2nd telemers, genetic deletions are possible mechanisms. all are being researched by scientists to figure out aging.

 

[magicfan101]

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.

plz explain how the first cell came about without "intelligence" and "natural selection" which the entire "well tested" evolutionary theory depends upon. blind chance is the only option.

 

[Trev]

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.

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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

the big bang postulates that all comets are remnants of early galaxy formations but they should all be gone by now.

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.

 

[negZero]

mitochondrial mapping shows common origins in humans. i disagree with the location but the results are the same.

Mitochondrial Eve is just the MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR. There were other women that held this title before her and one day she will lose this to another woman, why you ask? Because it goes to the MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR. Mitochondrial Eve isn't set in stone it moves as time goes on. So quit talking about her like she is the mother of the freaking human race, cause she is only the MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR. Also she wasn't around when Y-chromosomal Adam (our MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR on the male side) was alive cause her name is just a codeword assigned to her.

 

[trader/warrior]

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.

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. Actually we should be able to "see" the moment of creation 6000 lya away.

Genetics should show that we have a common ancestor no longer than 6000 years ago. They should also be able to trace humans back to the garden of eden over that timespan.

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 should not exist, considering it is the product of life over billions of years.

Tree and Ice cores should go back no more than 6000 years. Neither should any other dating methods.

In addition you have the entire field of geology with the formation of the different kinds of rocks and their ages and the evidence of erosion over millions of years. But I guess god just made it look old or something.


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.

If we could prove the biblical narrative very precisely in addition to this christian YECism might be a theory.

 

[Trev]

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

 

[trader/warrior]

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

My entire world view is falling apart!

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 necesseraly mean one year is known and irrelevant to the dating.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

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

How do you explain Old Tjikko then.

 

[sophie]

It's a shame that no one seemed to actually watch the video I posted last night, otherwise magicguy and Trev would have been giving some actual evidence for their hypothesis that the universe and all life were created by some magic dude in the sky rather than trying to nitpick at a well established and accepted theory that has mountains of evidence supporting it.

 

[Trev]

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.

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.

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?

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.

Limestone should not exist, considering it is the product of life over billions of years.

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.

 

[Arakhor]

Links, people, links! We've heard enough unsupported claims to last until the next millennium!

 

[Trev]

How do you explain Old Tjikko then.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Arakhor]

The article pretty much starts with "Creationists have proposed". Is there any actual science behind this wild claim?

 

[magicfan101]

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.

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.

 

[Arakhor]

How could you "prove" that the world merely looks 6,000 years old?

Please stop projecting your views on other people and expecting scientists to religiously believe in their own theories. They don't.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

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.

Just because evidence isn't direct, doesn't mean that there is no evidence or that you can throw out the non-direct evidence when it is inconvenient to your view. To take an analogy from another evidence based process, a murder trial. Pretty much all evidence pointing to the murderer, except for direct witness/video evidence of the murder itself (from an irrefutable source) is circumstantial. But quite often cases are prosecuted successfully without direct evidence. And there are two leading theories on spiral galaxy formation, both of which have significantly more going for them than your "god waved his hand and it was so."

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.

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.

As regards carbon dating, what do you know about it's efficacy that the whole scientific community does not know despite using it exhaustively for nearly fifty years, getting so many things right.

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.

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.

Spoiler :

Seeing as you will not get it, I was being sarcastic there. I obviously would take the word of a qualified geologist over that of an internet fantasist any day of the week.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

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.

 

[magicfan101]

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.

plz explain away carbon 14 in diamonds which were done in non creationist labs.