The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[SamE]

Heh heh. Maybe I should keep another window open to watch your replies (5 in half an hour after a week of silence). Anyway,

@vbraun

See my previous post on why those ages are wrong. I think BasketCase answered your question as well.

@Yom (#1)

Do we live under double atmospheric pressure? No. That's why there aren't giants today. They've all died out. We do find fossils (buried, not washed over) that tall though.

OK, so it was an economist, a lawyer and a preacher: Malthus, Lyell and Darwin in that order.

@Perfection

Any 1st grader can identify a type of animal (at least mammals) from another type. My point is that you don't settle on the species or genus level, but rather focus on the kind of animal (like dog, cat, mouse, etc.)

There really isn't that much evidence for canopy theory, except that the Bible matches up with it fine that way. It also explains some of the giants of the ancient age.

I'm not a dinosaur expert, but I know that reptiles never stop growing, and if you leave them alone for a millennium, they could get REAL big. Just my theory, and not an important point.

Of course humans stop growing, but with double pressure, double oxygen, humans would be able to grow much more easily. 11' to 14' isn't that much of an increase.

Yes, there is a lot of evidence that my model explains much better than existing evolutionary models, such as the millions of frozen mammoths in Siberia... what are mammoths doing in Siberia during an ice age? Many computer simulations show the failure of contemporary models to produce an ice age.

See above.

Actually, it was the Christians who embraced Darwin first, not the scientists. Shame on those Christians.

Darwin was mystified by the lack of evidence for his theory. He wondered where all the transitional fossils were after all. Fraud came from the fact that you could either be poor all your life or discover a fossil and instantly rise to the top of society.

Theistic evolution is not the official dogma of the rulers of public education. Natural selection is by definition unguided and random.

See above.

@OrpheusPrime and Perfection:

The percentages are as follows, for the general population of the US:
7-8% Atheistic evolution
~45% Theistic evolution (old earth)
~45% Special creation (young earth)

AFTER my 2nd post:

@Yom

But dating methods lie at the root of using fossils to "show" biological evolution. That's why I included this.

As for the ice core thing, I was mainly talking about Greenland, and there aren't millions of layers anyway. Because there aren't they still can't be used to show an old earth.

Sources: The Young Earth by John D. Morris, The Evolution Cruncher (forget who wrote it) at evolution-facts.org, Kent Hovind's seminars at drdino.com as well as several websites: trueorigins.org, emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs, and wasdarwinright.net.

I'll answer the rest in my next post, still trying to keep up with these replies.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It also explains some of the giants of the ancient age.

Of course humans stop growing, but with double pressure, double oxygen, humans would be able to grow much more easily. 11' to 14' isn't that much of an increase.

There is no evidence of giants except in old stories. Any skeletons around? How do you know people would grow taller with twice the atmospheric pressure? Do you know anyone who lived in such a situation? BTW does the bible ever mention atmospheric pressure at all? I think not. Stop being stupid.

 

[Perfection]

@Perfection
type. My point is that you don't settle on the species or genus level, but rather focus on the kind of animal (like dog, cat, mouse, etc.)

Why?

There really isn't that much evidence for canopy theory, except that the Bible matches up with it fine that way. It also explains some of the giants of the ancient age.

See, you need evidence for it to have scientific validity

I'm not a dinosaur expert, but I know that reptiles never stop growing, and if you leave them alone for a millennium, they could get REAL big. Just my theory, and not an important point.

Well, it's stupid. Get to the important stuff

Any 1st grader can identify a type of animal (at least mammals) from another

But they can't classify them into useful taxonomic relationshios

Of course humans stop growing, but with double pressure, double oxygen, humans would be able to grow much more easily. 11' to 14' isn't that much of an increase.

It's doubling the size, that's a big increase, with no evidence. Rats living in hyperbaric cassions are not freakishly large, why should humans?

Yes, there is a lot of evidence that my model explains much better than existing evolutionary models, such as the millions of frozen mammoths in Siberia... what are mammoths doing in Siberia during an ice age? Many computer simulations show the failure of contemporary models to produce an ice age

Maybe the problem is with the computer simulations

See above.

likewise

Actually, it was the Christians who embraced Darwin first, not the scientists. Shame on those Christians.

whatever, this is about scientifc credibility, not social situations.

Darwin was mystified by the lack of evidence for his theory. He wondered where all the transitional fossils were after all. Fraud came from the fact that you could either be poor all your life or discover a fossil and instantly rise to the top of society.

Darwin did note the less then expected fossil record, but that wasn't his arguement, his arguement was based mostly on observation of living species. However, there still were plenty of fossils to support evolutionary theory. And later the discrepency in amount (not presence at all, amount) of transitional fossils seen and amount predicted was rectified by a shift away from Darwin's gradualistic and uniformitarian view into the more dynamic views that folks like Ernst Mayr advocated.

Theistic evolution is not the official dogma of the rulers of public education.

Public schools have an obligation to teach science, not religion.

Natural selection is by definition unguided and random.

Evolutionary theory can be reconciled with god-based philosophies, but that's not science and I'm not going to talk about it. Now, natural selection isn't random and unguided, it's guided by differential reproductive sucess, that's what gives it its power[/QUOTE]

See above.

likewise

 

[SamE]

@Birdjaguar

I don't mind cold welcomes. I got the same at Wikipedia...

Actually, it's the future of our country that I'm most worried about: ever since the Darwin Centennial, our country's morals have been headed downhill. Just take out the lies, which include evolution, and the world would be a much better place.

@Perfection

Actually, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and astronomical evolution do have evolution in their names, do they not?

If a bunch of atoms are moving away from a point, they are getting farther and farther apart, are they not? And the explosion would be relatively uniform, right? There's a certain point where molecules escape, and it's called escape velocity. An explosion of that level would produce a bunch of molecules moving at escape velocity from each other.

Actually, star formation has never been conclusively observed. We never know for sure if that spot isn't just clearing up, or getting brighter, or whatever.

There's also a gap at an atomic mass of 8... helium-4 * 2 = 8 is extremely unstable. Radiometric decay tells us that an unstable isotope goes down, not up. Still, you can't get lithium as beryllium is stable, and lithium exists naturally.

In all practicality, there is no solar system like us, with circular orbits, relatively isolated from any supernovae, and not near any black holes. Our sun is the right size, our galaxy the right size, we're in the right part of the galaxy, etc.

We got lucky. Well that doesn't help your theory any more. Imagine a lawyer pointing to the fingerprint on the gun and saying that it was a lucky chance. No judge is going to accept that claim, just like no scientist should accept the big bang. As for the possible/multiple universe thing, you still need a universe-generating machine that can alter natural laws, constants, etc. to produce new random universes. And where does that machine come from? The theory becomes more and more absurd with each step back.

More replies on the way...

 

[Perfection]

@Perfection
type. My point is that you don't settle on the species or genus level, but rather focus on the kind of animal (like dog, cat, mouse, etc.)

Why?

There really isn't that much evidence for canopy theory, except that the Bible matches up with it fine that way. It also explains some of the giants of the ancient age.

See, you need evidence for it to have scientific validity

I'm not a dinosaur expert, but I know that reptiles never stop growing, and if you leave them alone for a millennium, they could get REAL big. Just my theory, and not an important point.

Well, it's stupid. Get to the important stuff

Any 1st grader can identify a type of animal (at least mammals) from another

But they can't classify them into useful taxonomic relationshios

Of course humans stop growing, but with double pressure, double oxygen, humans would be able to grow much more easily. 11' to 14' isn't that much of an increase.

It's doubling the size, that's a big increase, with no evidence. Rats living in hyperbaric cassions are not freakishly large, why should humans?

Yes, there is a lot of evidence that my model explains much better than existing evolutionary models, such as the millions of frozen mammoths in Siberia... what are mammoths doing in Siberia during an ice age? Many computer simulations show the failure of contemporary models to produce an ice age

Maybe the problem is with the computer simulations

See above.

likewise

Actually, it was the Christians who embraced Darwin first, not the scientists. Shame on those Christians.

whatever, this is about scientifc credibility, not social situations.

Darwin was mystified by the lack of evidence for his theory. He wondered where all the transitional fossils were after all. Fraud came from the fact that you could either be poor all your life or discover a fossil and instantly rise to the top of society.

Darwin did note the less then expected fossil record, but that wasn't his arguement, his arguement was based mostly on observation of living species. However, there still were plenty of fossils to support evolutionary theory. And later the discrepency in amount (not presence at all, amount) of transitional fossils seen and amount predicted was rectified by a shift away from Darwin's gradualistic and uniformitarian view into the more dynamic views that folks like Ernst Mayr advocated.

Theistic evolution is not the official dogma of the rulers of public education.

Public schools have an obligation to teach science, not religion and evolutionary theory is not dogma, it's flexible and adaptive.

Natural selection is by definition unguided and random.

Evolutionary theory can be reconciled with god-based philosophies, but that's not science and I'm not going to talk about it. Now, natural selection isn't random and unguided, it's guided by differential reproductive sucess, that's what gives it its power[/QUOTE]

See above.

likewise

 

[SamE]

@Birdjaguar

Yes, there are giant skeletons, but what kind of evolutionist would promote that? I know that under double atmospheric pressure with extra oxygen and UV shields, a cherry tomato plant grew 9 feet tall and produced cherry tomatoes bigger than regular ones. A kid that lost circulation to her leg (it turned black) was healed overnight by double barometric pressure. It can do wonders. Why would the Bible mention barometric pressure. They weren't too primitive, but who could measure it anyway? Besides, much of Genesis was written before the flood or soon after by Noah, and he wouldn't have known how bad it would be today.

@Perfection

Because those types are insurmountable by any kind of evolution.

Does the Big Bang have scientific validity? I'm not an expert, but I'm sure there is evidence for canopy theory.

okay...

Taxonomy does not recapitulate phylogeny any more than ontogeny does. The father of taxonomy was a creationist, and taxonomy can exist outside of evolution. It seems evolution depends on taxonomy, not vice-versa.

Many skeletons have been found that large. Also, those rats are larger, maybe not freakishly, but they are bigger. The % increase probably varies on original size.

What I meant with "See above." was to refer to my comment to Yom.

That's just shifting the blame.

I will get around to reading the almost 800 posts on this thread...sometime.

...

As for the "transitional fossils", I've been planning on making that part of my biological evolution post...when I get around to it (probably tomorrow).

Precisely my point. Evolution is a religion based on lies and frauds, and it should not be taught in school.

Okay, so natural selection isn't the random part, but it still isn't guided. It has no plan for the long run.

My final "See above" was in reference to my second of three posts.

I have to catch some sleep now, but it was fun debating, see you tomorrow!

 

[Perfection]

8) The red shifts observed in stars are not universal - some stars are blue-shifted!

9) Red shift isn't always reliable - some stars are red dwarves, some are blue giants and that has nothing to do with motion.

We're dealing with gaaxies not stars.

10) Background radiation observed today is much more uniform than the Big Bang would predict. It is exactly what we would expect from a universe of stars producing radiation.

No it isn't, it's far too uniform to come from stars... also the big bang theory does predict unformity.

Age of the Earth:

First, some problems with the "evidence":

1) Radiometric dating assumes way too much. First, it assumes that all rocks began in an igneous (pure) state.

No, the radiometric dating that requires igneous rocks only is done on igneous rocks (I suppose some metamorphics could be done, but I'm no geologist)

It assumes that the earth is old enough for that rock to have been at most that old.

That's a pretty well evidenced assumption

It assumes that the rate has not changed much, but a worldwide flood would do something to that effect.

No it wouldn't.

It also assumes that no contamination would occur, and in many cases the specimens are contaminated.

It's pretty hard to contaminate ingneous rocks

2) Radiometric (and isochron) dates almost never agree. This speaks for itself. We need a new system.

Sure they do. They're actually pretty reliable, it's just that creationists record every single flub they can find.

3) Isochron dating also assumes that certain events actually happened while you can never be sure of that.

Sure you can the rocks will show the stresses of it.

4) Carbon dating is inaccurate after a few thousand years.

Then we use other forms of radiometric dating

It also assumes the C-14/C-12 ratio is constant,

Ice cores help verify that

while a worldwide flood would change that enormously.

That assumes one exists, got evidence?

5) Tree ring dating doesn't deny a 6000-year-old creation - most trees have <5000 "years".

most

6) Ice cores only portray warm and cold periods, not years. So millions of layers means millions of warm/cold days, not seasons.

They also match well with radiometric dating and the regularity of the xclimactic provides much evidence to its credence.

That's all of the dating methods I can think of right now; please tell me of more that are used to get billions of years.

There's other evidence for an old earth. What about all that evidence for plate tectonics?

Now, on with the evidence for a young earth.

7) The oceans aren't salty enough. At maximum rates of salt entering the ocean and minimum rates out, you still only get millions of years.

I've seen creationist bat that around before. I'm not sure on the validty of the salinity variation rate but its quite obvious that it does change, the great sedimentation of salt on the bottom of the mediterranean due to times when it dried out can attest to that.

8) The moon is receding at a steady rate. So that means it was closer before. The moon can only get so close. At least the moon must be young, and without the moon, we wouldn't have tides, and life could not survive outside the oceans.

It's receding at a very slow rate, slow enough for it have been here billion of years

9) At present and minimum rates of erosion, the continents would erode away in only 14 million years.

Source? And what about things that build continents back up?

10) The earth's magnetic field is declining at a predictable exponential rate, which leaves earth unlivable only 10,000 years ago!

only its net magnetic field is decreasing at a significant rate, the field strenght of the mangets in the earth has remained roughly the same, it's just that they're counteracting themselves more. Also rate really isn't that predictable, there are many divergent models on what will occur.

 

[BasketCase]

With modern techniques. There are hardly enough irradiating labs in the world, nor enough time since such techniques have been developed, to mess up the carbon dating of every single object that has been dated by radiological methods.

If aliens landed on Earth and planted a bunch of faked goodies, they would have access to a lot more (techniques, equipment, and all of it more advanced than we've got).

For that matter, a God who wants to plant fake stuff in the Earth doesn't even need a laboratory. He only needs to wave His hand, and the only risk there is a sprained wrist.....

 

[tR1cKy]

Uh! Fearless Leader is still around...

A "kind" is what any 1st grader knows as a kind, such as a cat, dog, finch, bacteria, whale, bat, etc.

What a nice theory... how did you define a kind when 1st grade school wasn't invented yet?

When the world was created, there was a layer of water above the atmosphere (like Saturn's rings, except liquid and everywhere). This layer of water doubled the barometric pressure on earth, and oxygen was much more abundant on earth.

This guy saw an episode of Galaxy Express 999 and got quite impressed...

I still follow this thread (from time to time) but i still had to see such a bunch of nonsense... SamE (oops! Fearless Leader) if you are serious in what you're saying, then you're ready for some psychiatric treatment.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I love it when creationists complain about the thermodynamics and the Big Bang. The Big Bang violates the 1st Law and creation doesn't?

 

[The Last Conformist]

When the world was created, there was a layer of water above the atmosphere (like Saturn's rings, except liquid and everywhere). This layer of water doubled the barometric pressure on earth, and oxygen was much more abundant on earth.

I can't be bothered to read all SamE's posts, but if this is typical, oh my god ...

This reminds me of an t.o. cretinist who calls himself "Verily". He, too, seems to be entirely unconcerned with keeping up the appearance of making sense. Posting self-contradicting nonsense would be quite his style.

 

[anarres]

It's gotta be a DL.

 

[Perfection]

Chemical Evolution:

1) Without oxygen, there isn't any ozone and chemicals necessary for life break down. With oxygen, those essential chemicals oxidize and break down. Either way, abiogenesis loses.

Your arguement here is probobly wrong, but it's too incoherant for me to deduce why. Are you saying that ozone is neccesary for life? It isn't.

2) The simplest proteins contain about 50 amino acids. Getting them in the right order is a phenomenal feat when it takes a stretch to even produce amino acids.

Actually it's pretty easy to produce amino acids, now as to the protiens, yes producing a single specefic protien randomly is of very lowe probability. However, this is not neccesary as what we need is functional protiens, if numerous protiens can do functional things (which they can) then the probability of getting one is actually quite reasonable.

3) All living organisms use left-handed amino acids, while apparently there is no advantage to (correct me if I'm wrong).

There is advanatage to having one hand predominating over another, because then a cell needs only one set of mechanisms to produce a protien, no two distinct mechanisms. It was probobly only by chance which hand got picked.

4) The Miller-Urey experiment put everything in a tube, closing it off from its surroundings.

How is that a fallacy? Also, opening it would ruin the experiment because it would allow oxygen in, which is not thought to be present during early Earth's history

5) The Miller-Urey experiment produced 98% chemicals harmful to life and 2% amino acids.

I'm not sure if that is correct, do you have a source? What chemicals were they?

Also chemicals harmful to life may be removed by certain processes or early life may have been able to live with them.

The amino acids were filtered out and this is also unrealistic.

Not really, seperating processes were quite common. Boiling of volatiles, soluble versus insoluable materials are two examples of ways nature could seperate

6) There is no bridge or even close to a bridge between proteins and cells. That cells would randomly arise seems like either fantasy or magic to me.

There's a number of very well thought out explinations of the mechanisms

This has a good overview of the leading canidates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

OK, that's all I can think of right now. Next post: biological evolution.

Maybe it would help if you did a little bit of research before posting.

 

[Perfection]

@Birdjaguar

Yes, there are giant skeletons, but what kind of evolutionist would promote that?

Really? Then you should have no trouble profiding links to the evidence

I know that under double atmospheric pressure with extra oxygen and UV shields, a cherry tomato plant grew 9 feet tall and produced cherry tomatoes bigger than regular ones. A kid that lost circulation to her leg (it turned black) was healed overnight by double barometric pressure.

Double barametric pressure doesn't heal necrosis. I challanage you to give me the evidence It can do wonders.

Why would the Bible mention barometric pressure. They weren't too primitive, but who could measure it anyway? Besides, much of Genesis was written before the flood or soon after by Noah, and he wouldn't have known how bad it would be today.

Noah, didn't write it, you have no evidence of that, even most bible nuts disagree with you here.

@Perfection

Because those types are insurmountable by any kind of evolution.

What types? And why are they insurmountable?

Does the Big Bang have scientific validity?

Yes, Comsic microwave background radiation, the hydrogen/helium ratio and the doppler effect can all attest to that

I'm not an expert, but I'm sure there is evidence for canopy theory.

Can you name any?

okay...

Taxonomy does not recapitulate phylogeny any more than ontogeny does. The father of taxonomy was a creationist, and taxonomy can exist outside of evolution. It seems evolution depends on taxonomy, not vice-versa.

Taxonomy and the branched phylogeny provide much evidence to the evolutionary model. Evolution doesn't require taxonomy, but it does provide a great deal of evidence

Many skeletons have been found that large. Also, those rats are larger, maybe not freakishly, but they are bigger.

Evidenc? Please show me some links or I will conclude you are speaking out of your ass.

The % increase probably varies on original size.

You don't know that. I'd like to see some links showing the link to barametric pressure and size (not that it provides any evidence agianst evolution nor anyevidence for creation)

That's just shifting the blame.

what is?

Precisely my point. Evolution is a religion based on lies and frauds, and it should not be taught in school.

ummm, how did I validate that point? Evolution biology has comfronted some fruads, yes. But it is not based on fruad. See my first post for a glimpse of the evidence beyond.

Okay, so natural selection isn't the random part, but it still isn't guided. It has no plan for the long run.

Sure it does, differential reproductive sucess guides in the short and long run.

 

[SamE]

Okay, I think I've figured out this quote thing...

We're dealing with gaaxies not stars.

But galaxies are made of stars (and a few planets, but they don't shine), are they not? And if the majority of the stars in a galaxy are red dwarves, the galaxy will appear redshifted, when it really isn't, or it will appear blue-shifted when it isn't, or it really is shifted but the star size cancels that out. My point is that you can't base anything on the colors of galaxies.

No it isn't, it's far too uniform to come from stars... also the big bang theory does predict unformity.

No the Big bang does not predict uniformity. The Big Bang would predict the universe to be more or less a sphere of stars expanding at an approximately steady rate. Since we are part of the universe, we would expect the majority of the light we receive to come from one direction, the direction we're moving away from. But instead we observe uniformity in all directions, as we would expect from stars. Because there are trillions upon trillions of stars in all directions from earth, any background radiation from these stars would be uniform.

No, the radiometric dating that requires igneous rocks only is done on igneous rocks (I suppose some metamorphics could be done, but I'm no geologist)

Radiometric dating is only done on igneous rocks, but it assumes that that rock began as pure uranium/rubidium/lead/whatever the mother element it. I believe God just created rocks with varying degrees of uranium and lead, rubidium and strontium, or whatever. Extrapolating back doesn't prove anything.

That's a pretty well evidenced assumption

A circular argument. Here I am telling you that rock dating, which is used to prove the old earth, actually assumes the old earth to begin with. Saying that the old earth is well-evidenced ignores my claim entirely.

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would. But this sort of debate won't get us anywhere. A worldwide flood, geologic shifting from Pangaea to the present continents in one year and an ice age would do more than most uniformitarians would like to admit.

It's pretty hard to contaminate ingneous rocks

Contamination does happen on a semi-regular basis. As Wikipedia says,

If a material that selectively rejects the daughter nuclide is heated, any daughter nuclides that have been accumulated over time will be lost through diffusion, setting the isotopic "clock" to zero.

Sure they do. They're actually pretty reliable, it's just that creationists record every single flub they can find.

If creationists, or anyone for that matter, tried to record all cases of conflicting dates, they would be busy for the rest of their lives trying to keep up. The problem is, most evolutionists/old earthers don't want to admit it doesn't work.

Sure you can the rocks will show the stresses of it.

You're still assuming it actually happened, and that the rate of decay is constant.

That assumes one exists, got evidence?

Yes, there is quite a plethora of evidence for a worldwide flood. One example is located in northern Arizona. Grand Canyon is a magnificent example of the remains of the flood. Also, about 99% of the fossil record was laid down during the flood.

most

OK, I meant to say ALL. Find one tree with more than ~5000 rings and I'll believe you.

They also match well with radiometric dating and the regularity of the xclimactic provides much evidence to its credence.

What do you mean by this? Ice cores can't be radiometrically dated.

There's other evidence for an old earth. What about all that evidence for plate tectonics?

All the evidence from plate tectonics says is this: the continents are so far away, and our model demands that they were together this many millions of years ago, so the continents are moving this rate. I didn't think it worthy of proving the old earth.

I've seen creationist bat that around before. I'm not sure on the validty of the salinity variation rate but its quite obvious that it does change, the great sedimentation of salt on the bottom of the mediterranean due to times when it dried out can attest to that.

Of course the rate changes. But even taking extremely generous changes as average, the oceans would be freshwater only millions of years ago.

Source? And what about things that build continents back up?

My source is The Young Earth by John D. Morris. I don't have the book on hand, so I can't quite remember what the rates were. Anyway, why do evolutionists call the Appalachians "old"? Because their shorter. The Rockies are labeled as "young" because they're taller. Not a conclusive claim, but it certainly follows the same line of thought.

only its net magnetic field is decreasing at a significant rate, the field strenght of the mangets in the earth has remained roughly the same, it's just that they're counteracting themselves more. Also rate really isn't that predictable, there are many divergent models on what will occur.

Actually it's the field strength that shows exponential decay. Your last sentence I agree with, but on the evolutionary time scale, the last 10,000 years are anything but divergent.

I love it when creationists complain about the thermodynamics and the Big Bang. The Big Bang violates the 1st Law and creation doesn't?

Of course creation violates the first law. That's why it's called supernatural. The Big Bang claims to do everything naturally, and that's where it fails.

I can't be bothered to read all SamE's posts, but if this is typical, oh my god ...

This reminds me of an t.o. cretinist who calls himself "Verily". He, too, seems to be entirely unconcerned with keeping up the appearance of making sense. Posting self-contradicting nonsense would be quite his style.

Is this the best you can do? Judging by your previous posts in this thread, I had thought you would be defending the Big Bang, not just complaining about non-existant "self contradictions". If I have contradicted myself in my theory, please point it out to me instead of just complaining! BTW, being "The Last Conformist" I had thought you would resist conforming to Perfection on this topic. I am severely disappointed.

Your arguement here is probobly wrong, but it's too incoherant for me to deduce why. Are you saying that ozone is neccesary for life? It isn't.

Ozone is crucial to life!!! Without ozone, UV breaks down simple molecules like amino acids, as well as killing life. No matter, ozone has always been here, same as oxygen.

Actually it's pretty easy to produce amino acids, now as to the protiens, yes producing a single specefic protien randomly is of very lowe probability. However, this is not neccesary as what we need is functional protiens, if numerous protiens can do functional things (which they can) then the probability of getting one is actually quite reasonable.

There are quite a few ~50-amino-acid proteins, but not even close to 20^50 > 10^65 = A hundred billion billion billion billion billion billion billion. That's not even close to "reasonable".

There is advanatage to having one hand predominating over another, because then a cell needs only one set of mechanisms to produce a protien, no two distinct mechanisms. It was probobly only by chance which hand got picked.

But my point is, proteins naturally are produced (as in the Miller-Urey) in equal amounts. Why would one hand be chosen over the other, when they both are produced in equal amounts (not by two mechanisms)?

How is that a fallacy? Also, opening it would ruin the experiment because it would allow oxygen in, which is not thought to be present during early Earth's history

Exactly. There is not a rock layer in the ground that has not absorbed oxygen, yet oxygen is thought not to have been present in the early earth (because precisely of this problem). Besides, oxygen is necessary for ozone, which is necessary for life.

I'm not sure if that is correct, do you have a source? What chemicals were they?

Also chemicals harmful to life may be removed by certain processes or early life may have been able to live with them.

I believe it was cyanide and formaldehyde, but I'm not sure. Check out Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution for an answer. And no, no mechanism has been suggested that would remove the deadly chemicals from the environment.

There's a number of very well thought out explinations of the mechanisms

This has a good overview of the leading canidates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

None of these theories actually explains the bridge between proteins and cells. What really is the problem is the origin of information. Where did the tRNA code come from? Most evolutionists see a cell as only a bunch of matter, but all cells contain a significant amount of information. I'd like to see them create cells in the lab, because if they can't do it in the lab, long processes couldn't do it.

Maybe it would help if you did a little bit of research before posting.

OK, I'll finish reading The Evolution Cruncher (900+ pages of evidence against evolution) first.

 

[nonconformist]

Ozone is crucial to life!!! Without ozone, UV breaks down simple molecules like amino acids, as well as killing life. No matter, ozone has always been here, same as oxygen.

Err...Ozone is horrifically posionous, and is actually createdby UV light.

I believe it was cyanide and formaldehyde, but I'm not sure. Check out Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution for an answer. And no, no mechanism has been suggested that would remove the deadly chemicals from the environment.

Formaledehydes and cyanides are hydrocarbons, so would occur naturally, and I expect they would also decay easily.

 

[Perfection]

Okay, I think I've figured out this quote thing...

But galaxies are made of stars (and a few planets, but they don't shine), are they not? And if the majority of the stars in a galaxy are red dwarves, the galaxy will appear redshifted, when it really isn't, or it will appear blue-shifted when it isn't, or it really is shifted but the star size cancels that out. My point is that you can't base anything on the colors of galaxies.

We can adjust for thatby looking at the patterns of the spectral lines and find thier true colots

No the Big bang does not predict uniformity. The Big Bang would predict the universe to be more or less a sphere of stars expanding at an approximately steady rate. Since we are part of the universe, we would expect the majority of the light we receive to come from one direction, the direction we're moving away from. But instead we observe uniformity in all directions, as we would expect from stars. Because there are trillions upon trillions of stars in all directions from earth, any background radiation from these stars would be uniform.

That demonstrates that you don't understand big bang. The big bang didn't come from a single point rather it came from everywhere.

Radiometric dating is only done on igneous rocks, but it assumes that that rock began as pure uranium/rubidium/lead/whatever the mother element it. I believe God just created rocks with varying degrees of uranium and lead, rubidium and strontium, or whatever. Extrapolating back doesn't prove anything.

We can see it becasue the rocks have unusual chemical composition for thier element. We'd expect the element to combine to form other rocks not to act trapped within a rock that is ill-suited for it's chemistry. The Argon in pottassium-argon dating provides the best example of this, no rock naturally would form with argon in it.

A circular argument. Here I am telling you that rock dating, which is used to prove the old earth, actually assumes the old earth to begin with. Saying that the old earth is well-evidenced ignores my claim entirely.

Nope, old earth is highly evidenced by other thigns as well

Yes it would. But this sort of debate won't get us anywhere.

Indeed, quit denying atomic phyiscs and admit I'm right.

A worldwide flood, geologic shifting from Pangaea to the present continents in one year and an ice age would do more than most uniformitarians would like to admit.

But there is absolutly no evidence it took less then a year. Please show me some.

I'm bored. I'm gonna do something else, I'll correct more of your crap later.

 

[Perfection]

Contamination does happen on a semi-regular basis. As Wikipedia says,

Of ocurse that would make the rocks older then the radiometric dating says, so you really have no point. Also, they are sufficiently rare and often identifiable.

If creationists, or anyone for that matter, tried to record all cases of conflicting dates, they would be busy for the rest of their lives trying to keep up. The problem is, most evolutionists/old earthers don't want to admit it doesn't work.

I find that highly doubtful and unsubstantiated. Please back that up. Why don't they just take a small segment of time, like say a month and find all the reported errors so the can make a good guess?

You're still assuming it actually happened,

I'm assuming because it's well evidenced. The physical signs of shock a present

and that the rate of decay is constant.

There is no evidence that it is not constant

Yes, there is quite a plethora of evidence for a worldwide flood. One example is located in northern Arizona. Grand Canyon is a magnificent example of the remains of the flood. Also, about 99% of the fossil record was laid down during the flood.

How do you explain the layering of fossils? What about the iridium layer at the K-T boundry?

OK, I meant to say ALL. Find one tree with more than ~5000 rings and I'll believe you.

Not exactly one tree, but good enough for me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_ring

What do you mean by this? Ice cores can't be radiometrically dated.

IIRC they can be radiocarbon dated, either way the compositional agreement among different ice cores in different locations provide evidence to it validity.

All the evidence from plate tectonics says is this: the continents are so far away, and our model demands that they were together this many millions of years ago, so the continents are moving this rate. I didn't think it worthy of proving the old earth.

Pah there's plenty of evidence.
Measurements indicate the continents are moving
dating technics in the atlantic ocean indicate as one nears the mid-atlanic ridge the rocks become newer
the striking geological matchups between certain areas thought once to be united. South America and Africa provide an astounding amount evidence, with shape, mountain ranges, coal seems, and fossil records all lining up.

Of course the rate changes. But even taking extremely generous changes as average, the oceans would be freshwater only millions of years ago.

Including the drying out of all the salt in entire seas? because that's happened.

I'll do some more later.

 

[Masquerouge]

Actually, it's the future of our country that I'm most worried about: ever since the Darwin Centennial, our country's morals have been headed downhill. Just take out the lies, which include evolution, and the world would be a much better place.

Wow... The good old "it was better before" myth !
Aaaah, how better it was indeed in the 19th-century US, where slavery was legal, women could not vote, Indians were still in quantities bigh enough to be slaughtered and Winchester and Colt were the law ! How great the "country's morals" were, indeed !

EDIT : I'm not bashing 19th-century US, I'm pointing out how stupid statements about the good'old days usually are.

 

[vbraun]

Actually, it's the future of our country that I'm most worried about: ever since the Darwin Centennial, our country's morals have been headed downhill. Just take out the lies, which include evolution, and the world would be a much better place.

So are you saying Life was better when the Bible was written, some thousand years ago?

The world would be a better place if everyone thought the same, looked the same. But what makes us human is our diversity. Plus if everyone was the same, what if one animal figured out to kill that type of person everytime, with no way of stopping it? Then everyone would just die. Diversity is a key to survival, if you take it away you kill the human race.

Now back to the time of the Bible:
The Bible is pretty darn old with The Old Testament written more than 2000 years ago. People were strugaling against Rome at the time. People coundn't always guarentee food for there families. Life, well, sucked back then. Also people had a diffrent mind set back then then now. The Bible was written for that mind set, not today's. So why should you listen to a book that was written for a diffrent audiance, a much more primitive one at that? If you live and die by that book you are basically digging your head in the sand to the rest of the world as the world moves on and evolves.

@vbraun

See my previous post on why those ages are wrong. I think BasketCase answered your question as well.

So people time traveled back into the 1800s to fake all the dinosaur skeletons that they found?