Jump to content


Photo

Ad Hoc Storifying


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#61 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 August 2017 - 06:39 PM

We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements, but of course you have to be in denial over that else your whole world comes tumbling down. What was the make and model of your time machine that verifies Genesis as a literal account of history rather than the imaginations of men trying to make sense of the world ?


"We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements,"
I am curious as to the methodolgy that is utized to calibrate the so called "extremely robust dating methods"
Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified. Independent dating methods on the same sample give convergent results. Read the Hawaiian island thread for undeniable evidence of great age.
 

Is it in any way related to the same "methodolgy" that "Robustly" demonstrates that red blood cells, DNA+ fragments, and collagen that have been Found in Dinosaurs that, coincidentally, ALL HAPPEN TO CONTAIN MEASURABLE CARBON 14 (EVERY SINGLE ONE EVER DATED) EVERY TIME.. Happen to actually be 100 Million Years Old!!! Hmmmmm...

None of those organic remains are dating methods, what is the evidence for your assertion they can't last 100 million years under any circumstance ? As for C14, of course creationists will publicize results that help their cause (i.e. the significantly contaminated ones). How do you know they haven’t withheld results that don’t ?
If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.
 

What YOU happen to call "Robust Dating Methods" is in actuality a FRAUD.. I hope that helps your apparent confusion about it..

 
That’s a very big claim there. You have evidence for this mass conspiracy amongst the world’s scientists ?

Creationist attempts to discredit dating methods are where the fraud can be found. You have provided an example in your first link with Hugh Miller knowingly sending preservative contaminated dinosaur bone fragments to be carbon dated ... but you don't care to investigate that do you ?
 

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
(Dr. Ronald R. West)

What else explains faunal succession ? The Flood ? Have you ever thought that through ? (you obviously haven’t)



"Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified."

Really? So you "Know that" do you? LOL

OOPS... Maybe you should take a break from this stuff...

http://io9.com/56199...es-of-chemistry

https://www.forbes.c...tant-after-all/


"what is the evidence for your assertion they can't last 100 million..."


I just LOVE you guys who pretend to be all about the "Science" as you proceed to require people to PROVE A NEGATIVE... LOL..

#62 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 09 August 2017 - 07:29 PM

...
Actually, Blitz is a German word for Lightning or Fast and being that I am a former USA Rapid Chess Champion,
...

.
There are very few people who don't know what the "blitz" in "blitzkrieg" means.

You won a rapid chess competition? Is that your assertion?

#63 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 09 August 2017 - 08:53 PM

Actually, Blitz is a German word for Lightning or Fast and being that I am a former USA Rapid Chess Champion, I go by the handle Blitzking (Blitz Chess means FAST Chess FYI) NOTHING TO DO with inebriation BTW....


Which chess competion(s) did you win? Who were your strongest opponents?

#64 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 August 2017 - 02:38 AM

"Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified."

Really? So you "Know that" do you? LOL

OOPS... Maybe you should take a break from this stuff...

http://io9.com/56199...es-of-chemistry

https://www.forbes.c...tant-after-all/


Why did it need two sources dealing with the exact same study ?

Firstly, the radioisotopes mentioned (silicon 32 and radium 226) aren't used in dating, secondly the apparent tiny variation was cyclical (mean change is zero), thirdly, it looks like you need to keep up to date. Further work with more precise instrumentation has shown the previous data to be an artefact. (of course you won't get the likes of AiG and CMI reporting this, they'll keep running the old story)
 
https://phys.org/new...substances.html


 

"what is the evidence for your assertion they can't last 100 million..."


I just LOVE you guys who pretend to be all about the "Science" as you proceed to require people to PROVE A NEGATIVE... LOL..


You're making the positive assertion soft tissue can't last that long in an attempt to refute multiple actual dating methods that confirm the opposite. Your argument from personal incredulity (your only argument on this forum) doesn't cut it.
 
Also, I knew you would ignore this question:
 

If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.


What have you got ?

 


  • Schera Do likes this

#65 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:36 AM

...Actually, Blitz is a German word for Lightning or Fast and being that I am a former USA Rapid Chess Champion,...

.There are very few people who don't know what the "blitz" in "blitzkrieg" means.You won a rapid chess competition? Is that your assertion?


Yes that is a Fact

A lot more than just one actually.
You can google my name if you like.
Jim Thinnsen

#66 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 10 August 2017 - 08:54 AM

Actually, Blitz is a German word for Lightning or Fast and being that I am a former USA Rapid Chess Champion, I go by the handle Blitzking (Blitz Chess means FAST Chess FYI) NOTHING TO DO with inebriation BTW....


Which chess competion(s) did you win? Who were your strongest opponents?

I won the 1994 US game in an hour championship.
I won in Tiebreaks the 2010 US Open 5-Min champ.
I won the 1986 Ill state championship.

My highest USCF Rating was 2540 and my Higest Fide ELO Rating was 2380
I have been retired for years but someone talked me into playing the blitz tournament in the 2010 US Open as it was here in Irvine Ca that year and I got lucky and won it somehow..

My strongest opponents were all GMs

Here is my game against Hikaru Nakamura in the
5th round of the 1998 US OPEN in Hawaii..

https://www.redhotpa...Hikaru_Nakamura

BTW. Nakmura was ranked #6 player in the world.

Thats all I got for you off the top of my head without digging into the
old Archives
  • cheeseburger and Goku like this

#67 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 10 August 2017 - 09:02 AM

"Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified."
Really? So you "Know that" do you? LOL
OOPS... Maybe you should take a break from this stuff...http://io9.com/56199...es-of-chemistryhttps://www.forbes.c...tant-after-all/

Why did it need two sources dealing with the exact same study ?
Firstly, the radioisotopes mentioned (silicon 32 and radium 226) aren't used in dating, secondly the apparent tiny variation was cyclical (mean change is zero), thirdly, it looks like you need to keep up to date. Further work with more precise instrumentation has shown the previous data to be an artefact. (of course you won't get the likes of AiG and CMI reporting this, they'll keep running the old story)
 https://phys.org/new...substances.html
 

"what is the evidence for your assertion they can't last 100 million..."
I just LOVE you guys who pretend to be all about the "Science" as you proceed to require people to PROVE A NEGATIVE... LOL..

You're making the positive assertion soft tissue can't last that long in an attempt to refute multiple actual dating methods that confirm the opposite. Your argument from personal incredulity (your only argument on this forum) doesn't cut it.
 
Also, I knew you would ignore this question:
 

If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.

What have you got ?


"You're making the positive assertion soft tissue CAN last that long in an attempt to make people believe that Dinosaurs lived 100 million years ago because you Desperately need the time for the Microbe to Microbiologist Myth to work..

There I fixed it for you.. Anyway, This is all moot and meaningless speculation BECAUSE my OP Destroys your myth (Unless you OR ANYONE ELSE ) can come up with an answer that passes the laugh test..
Here...try again? I didnt think so.. Bye Bye Darwin..

http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists


"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

#68 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 10 August 2017 - 09:05 AM

"Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified."
Really? So you "Know that" do you? LOL
OOPS... Maybe you should take a break from this stuff...http://io9.com/56199...es-of-chemistryhttps://www.forbes.c...tant-after-all/

Why did it need two sources dealing with the exact same study ?
Firstly, the radioisotopes mentioned (silicon 32 and radium 226) aren't used in dating, secondly the apparent tiny variation was cyclical (mean change is zero), thirdly, it looks like you need to keep up to date. Further work with more precise instrumentation has shown the previous data to be an artefact. (of course you won't get the likes of AiG and CMI reporting this, they'll keep running the old story)
 https://phys.org/new...substances.html
 

"what is the evidence for your assertion they can't last 100 million..."
I just LOVE you guys who pretend to be all about the "Science" as you proceed to require people to PROVE A NEGATIVE... LOL..

You're making the positive assertion soft tissue can't last that long in an attempt to refute multiple actual dating methods that confirm the opposite. Your argument from personal incredulity (your only argument on this forum) doesn't cut it.
 
Also, I knew you would ignore this question:
 

If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.

What have you got ?


"You're making the positive assertion soft tissue CAN last that long in an attempt to make people believe that Dinosaurs lived 100 million years ago because you desperately need the time for the Microbe to Microbiologist Myth to work..

There I fixed it for you.. Anyway, This is all moot and meaningless speculation BECAUSE my OP Destroys your myth (Unless you OR ANYONE ELSE ) can come up with an answer that passes the laugh test..
Here...try again? I didnt think so.. Bye Bye Darwin..
1851 - 2017 Dead...

http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists


"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

#69 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 10 August 2017 - 11:39 AM

Actually, Blitz is a German word for Lightning or Fast and being that I am a former USA Rapid Chess Champion, I go by the handle Blitzking (Blitz Chess means FAST Chess FYI) NOTHING TO DO with inebriation BTW....


Which chess competion(s) did you win? Who were your strongest opponents?


I won the 1994 US game in an hour championship.
I won in Tiebreaks the 2010 US Open 5-Min champ.
I won the 1986 Ill state championship.

My highest USCF Rating was 2540 and my Higest Fide ELO Rating was 2380
I have been retired for years but someone talked me into playing the blitz tournament in the 2010 US Open as it was here in Irvine Ca that year and I got lucky and won it somehow..

My strongest opponents were all GMs

Here is my game against Hikaru Nakamura in the
5th round of the 1998 US OPEN in Hawaii..

https://www.redhotpa...Hikaru_Nakamura

BTW. Nakmura was ranked #6 player in the world.

Thats all I got for you off the top of my head without digging into the
old Archives

.
Now we know the "Blitz-" doesn't refer to being blitzed.
  • Blitzking likes this

#70 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 11 August 2017 - 03:16 PM

"Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified."

Really? So you "Know that" do you? LOL

OOPS... Maybe you should take a break from this stuff
 

Firstly, the radioisotopes mentioned (silicon 32 and radium 226) aren't used in dating, secondly the apparent tiny variation was cyclical (mean change is zero), thirdly, it looks like you need to keep up to date. Further work with more precise instrumentation has shown the previous data to be an artefact. (of course you won't get the likes of AiG and CMI reporting this, they'll keep running the old story)
 https://phys.org/new...substances.html

 

 

Brush that one under the carpet huh ?

 

Also, I knew you would ignore this question:


If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.



What have you got ?

 


Nothing at all by the looks of it..

 

Anyway, This is all moot and meaningless speculation BECAUSE my OP Destroys your myth (Unless you OR ANYONE ELSE ) can come up with an answer that passes the laugh test..
Here...try again? I didnt think so.. Bye Bye Darwin..

http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists


Are you going to infect every thread with this ? If you think this (strawman) argument is as devastating as you seem to think it is then take it to AiG or similar, they might even pay you to write an article.

 

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)


And Malcolm Muggeridge's scientific credentials are ?



#71 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 11 August 2017 - 05:08 PM

Actually, Blitz is a German word for Lightning or Fast and being that I am a former USA Rapid Chess Champion, I go by the handle Blitzking (Blitz Chess means FAST Chess FYI) NOTHING TO DO with inebriation BTW....


Which chess competion(s) did you win? Who were your strongest opponents?

I won the 1994 US game in an hour championship.
I won in Tiebreaks the 2010 US Open 5-Min champ.
I won the 1986 Ill state championship.
My highest USCF Rating was 2540 and my Higest Fide ELO Rating was 2380
I have been retired for years but someone talked me into playing the blitz tournament in the 2010 US Open as it was here in Irvine Ca that year and I got lucky and won it somehow..
My strongest opponents were all GMs
Here is my game against Hikaru Nakamura in the
5th round of the 1998 US OPEN in Hawaii..https://www.redhotpa...Hikaru_Nakamura
BTW. Nakmura was ranked #6 player in the world.
Thats all I got for you off the top of my head without digging into the
old Archives

Jim Thinnsen....no way!

#72 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 August 2017 - 10:18 PM

 

 

 

Actually, Blitz is a German word for Lightning or Fast and being that I am a former USA Rapid Chess Champion, I go by the handle Blitzking (Blitz Chess means FAST Chess FYI) NOTHING TO DO with inebriation BTW....


Which chess competion(s) did you win? Who were your strongest opponents?

I won the 1994 US game in an hour championship.
I won in Tiebreaks the 2010 US Open 5-Min champ.
I won the 1986 Ill state championship.
My highest USCF Rating was 2540 and my Higest Fide ELO Rating was 2380
I have been retired for years but someone talked me into playing the blitz tournament in the 2010 US Open as it was here in Irvine Ca that year and I got lucky and won it somehow..
My strongest opponents were all GMs
Here is my game against Hikaru Nakamura in the
5th round of the 1998 US OPEN in Hawaii..https://www.redhotpa...Hikaru_Nakamura
BTW. Nakmura was ranked #6 player in the world.
Thats all I got for you off the top of my head without digging into the
old Archives

Jim Thinnsen....no way!

 

 

Yes.. do I know you?



#73 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 August 2017 - 10:29 PM

 

"Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified."

Really? So you "Know that" do you? LOL

OOPS... Maybe you should take a break from this stuff
 

Firstly, the radioisotopes mentioned (silicon 32 and radium 226) aren't used in dating, secondly the apparent tiny variation was cyclical (mean change is zero), thirdly, it looks like you need to keep up to date. Further work with more precise instrumentation has shown the previous data to be an artefact. (of course you won't get the likes of AiG and CMI reporting this, they'll keep running the old story)
 https://phys.org/new...substances.html

 

 

Brush that one under the carpet huh ?

 

Also, I knew you would ignore this question:


If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.



What have you got ?

 


Nothing at all by the looks of it..

 

Anyway, This is all moot and meaningless speculation BECAUSE my OP Destroys your myth (Unless you OR ANYONE ELSE ) can come up with an answer that passes the laugh test..
Here...try again? I didnt think so.. Bye Bye Darwin..

http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists


Are you going to infect every thread with this ? If you think this (strawman) argument is as devastating as you seem to think it is then take it to AiG or similar, they might even pay you to write an article.

 

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)


And Malcolm Muggeridge's scientific credentials are ?

 

 

"Are you going to infect every thread with this ? If you think this (strawman) argument is as devastating as you seem to think it is then take it to AiG or similar, they might even pay you to write an article."

 

 

Actually YOUR ACTIONS have shown exactly how devastating it is,, Especially when you asked my question to the so called "Expert" Who wrote the book "Evolution of complex organ systems" Remember?

 

And, instead of pursing it to try to actually try to discover the truth about it.. You simply dropped the whole thing like a hot potato..Suddenly Completely apathetic to the whole thing.. Stop and think of why that is...

 

 

Maybe I will write an article for AIG... but the larger point is, Why should I stop posting something that proves that the Mindless MYO Microbe to Microbiologist Myth

is nothing short of an unscientific fairytale until someone can actually come along and give us an answer that passes the laugh test?  Until you or anyone else does.. 

 

It is RIP Evolution 1851-2017

 

http://evolutionfair...accidentalists/

 

evolution-happening-in-lab.png



#74 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 August 2017 - 11:23 PM

 

"Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified."

Really? So you "Know that" do you? LOL

OOPS... Maybe you should take a break from this stuff
 

Firstly, the radioisotopes mentioned (silicon 32 and radium 226) aren't used in dating, secondly the apparent tiny variation was cyclical (mean change is zero), thirdly, it looks like you need to keep up to date. Further work with more precise instrumentation has shown the previous data to be an artefact. (of course you won't get the likes of AiG and CMI reporting this, they'll keep running the old story)
 https://phys.org/new...substances.html

 

 

Brush that one under the carpet huh ?

 

Also, I knew you would ignore this question:


If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.



What have you got ?

 


Nothing at all by the looks of it..

 

Anyway, This is all moot and meaningless speculation BECAUSE my OP Destroys your myth (Unless you OR ANYONE ELSE ) can come up with an answer that passes the laugh test..
Here...try again? I didnt think so.. Bye Bye Darwin..

http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists


Are you going to infect every thread with this ? If you think this (strawman) argument is as devastating as you seem to think it is then take it to AiG or similar, they might even pay you to write an article.

 

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)


And Malcolm Muggeridge's scientific credentials are ?

 

 

"Brush that one under the carpet huh ?"

 

 

It is all meaningless trivia as my UNANSWERABLE question completely severs Darwin's jugular vein and exposes it for the fairytale that it is... Hmmm good name for a website, don't you think?

 

There is a reason why many Evolutionists who I have posed my question to are now FORMER Evolutionists... did you know that? But they decided to look into it further, unlike you, who decided

NOT to do so because of a strong emotional attachment to "Evolution", NOT because of Science.. Bet because of the IMPLICATIONS... what are you afraid of?  "The truth will set you free"

 

 

http://evolutionfair...accidentalists/

 

 

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed....

.It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

 

 

BM-BD-HalfTruth.jpg



#75 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 12 August 2017 - 02:07 PM

"Brush that one under the carpet huh ?"
 
 
It is all meaningless trivia as my UNANSWERABLE question completely severs Darwin's jugular vein and exposes it for the fairytale that it is


Its obvious that you have no clue how to combat inconvenient scientific data that ruins your worldview and you will just ignore it or handwave it away.
 

There is a reason why many Evolutionists who I have posed my question to are now FORMER Evolutionists... did you know that? But they decided to look into it further, unlike you, who decided
NOT to do so because of a strong emotional attachment to "Evolution", NOT because of Science.. Bet because of the IMPLICATIONS... what are you afraid of?  "The truth will set you free"


No Blitz, look in the mirror and you will see that it is you that has the emotional attachment to a literal biblical account because of your cultural background that has ingrained it within you. No doubt you are drilling the same belief system into your children, this is indoctrination. You just can't bear the idea that we are simply advanced mammals and our close cousins are chimps and bonobos, I don't understand why that should be so distasteful.

If you have managed to convert "evolutionists" with your organ thing (how many is many ?) then I don't have much confidence in their level of scientific knowledge.

I don't have any emotional attachment to evolution. I'm very interested in it, because the question of origins is very interesting but I refuse to ignore the enormous swathe of scientific data from multiple disciplines that long ago flicked YEC into the dustbin. You apparently find a way of doing that, but you don't do it with science.
 


  • Schera Do likes this

#76 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 12 August 2017 - 06:26 PM

You just can't bear the idea that we are simply advanced mammals and our close cousins are chimps and bonobos, I don't understand why that should be so distasteful.

sorry wibble, the c-value paradox blows this concept out of the water.
man IS NOT the end product of a complexity chain, nor is it even close to it.
to imply that man is one of the most complex lifeforms on the planet is either a lie or ignorance.
ah yes:
Imagine the following scenario. You are absolutely convinced that humans are the most complex species but total genome size doesn't reflect your conviction. The C-value paradox is a real paradox for you. Knowing that much of our genome is possibly junk DNA still leaves room for plenty of genes. You take comfort in the fact that under all that junky genome, humans still have way more genes than simple nematodes and flowering plants. You were one of those people who wanted there to be 100,000 genes in the human genome.

But when the genomes of these species are published, it turns out that even this faint hope evaporates. Humans, Arabidopsis (wall cress, right), and nematodes all have about the same number of genes.

The only way out of this box—without abandoning your assumption about humans being the most complex animals—is to make up some stories about the function of so-called junk DNA. If it turns out that there are lots of hidden genes in that junk then maybe it will rescue your assumption.
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-value.html

and as it has been pointed out, transposons comprise a great deal of this junk DNA.
these jumping genes can hardly be called "gradual accumulations", and in combination with epigenetics can promote very rapid evolution.

i think it's you wibble that wants to keep things simple.
and evolution is ANYTHING but simple.

i haven't the foggiest notion on how to explain the c-value paradox, even multiple abiogenesis events can't explain it.

and this:
The origin and evolution, if any, of the genetic code represent a major puzzle of modern biology;
numerous hypotheses have been formulated but to date no generally accepted consensus has
been reached.
- Exceptional error minimization in putative primordial genetic codes.
no consensus?
but to listen to posters such as yourself, it's gradualism all the way or die.

i don't advocate creationism, but i'm also not afraid to look at the facts squarely in the face.

#77 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 August 2017 - 07:50 PM

 

You just can't bear the idea that we are simply advanced mammals and our close cousins are chimps and bonobos, I don't understand why that should be so distasteful.

sorry wibble, the c-value paradox blows this concept out of the water.
man IS NOT the end product of a complexity chain, nor is it even close to it.
to imply that man is one of the most complex lifeforms on the planet is either a lie or ignorance.
ah yes:
Imagine the following scenario. You are absolutely convinced that humans are the most complex species but total genome size doesn't reflect your conviction. The C-value paradox is a real paradox for you. Knowing that much of our genome is possibly junk DNA still leaves room for plenty of genes. You take comfort in the fact that under all that junky genome, humans still have way more genes than simple nematodes and flowering plants. You were one of those people who wanted there to be 100,000 genes in the human genome.

But when the genomes of these species are published, it turns out that even this faint hope evaporates. Humans, Arabidopsis (wall cress, right), and nematodes all have about the same number of genes.

The only way out of this box—without abandoning your assumption about humans being the most complex animals—is to make up some stories about the function of so-called junk DNA. If it turns out that there are lots of hidden genes in that junk then maybe it will rescue your assumption.
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-value.html

and as it has been pointed out, transposons comprise a great deal of this junk DNA.
these jumping genes can hardly be called "gradual accumulations", and in combination with epigenetics can promote very rapid evolution.

i think it's you wibble that wants to keep things simple.
and evolution is ANYTHING but simple.

i haven't the foggiest notion on how to explain the c-value paradox, even multiple abiogenesis events can't explain it.

and this:
The origin and evolution, if any, of the genetic code represent a major puzzle of modern biology;
numerous hypotheses have been formulated but to date no generally accepted consensus has
been reached.
- Exceptional error minimization in putative primordial genetic codes.
no consensus?
but to listen to posters such as yourself, it's gradualism all the way or die.

i don't advocate creationism, but i'm also not afraid to look at the facts squarely in the face.

 

 

"i don't advocate creationism,"

 

Then just what DO you advocate? Accidentalism?

 

 


 

 Forest Whitaker 


 



#78 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 August 2017 - 07:58 PM

 

"Brush that one under the carpet huh ?"
 
 
It is all meaningless trivia as my UNANSWERABLE question completely severs Darwin's jugular vein and exposes it for the fairytale that it is


Its obvious that you have no clue how to combat inconvenient scientific data that ruins your worldview and you will just ignore it or handwave it away.
 

There is a reason why many Evolutionists who I have posed my question to are now FORMER Evolutionists... did you know that? But they decided to look into it further, unlike you, who decided
NOT to do so because of a strong emotional attachment to "Evolution", NOT because of Science.. Bet because of the IMPLICATIONS... what are you afraid of?  "The truth will set you free"


No Blitz, look in the mirror and you will see that it is you that has the emotional attachment to a literal biblical account because of your cultural background that has ingrained it within you. No doubt you are drilling the same belief system into your children, this is indoctrination. You just can't bear the idea that we are simply advanced mammals and our close cousins are chimps and bonobos, I don't understand why that should be so distasteful.

If you have managed to convert "evolutionists" with your organ thing (how many is many ?) then I don't have much confidence in their level of scientific knowledge.

I don't have any emotional attachment to evolution. I'm very interested in it, because the question of origins is very interesting but I refuse to ignore the enormous swathe of scientific data from multiple disciplines that long ago flicked YEC into the dustbin. You apparently find a way of doing that, but you don't do it with science.
 

 

 

Pure assertions will get you nowhere... At least 

 

 

"Brush that one under the carpet huh ?"
 
 
It is all meaningless trivia as my UNANSWERABLE question completely severs Darwin's jugular vein and exposes it for the fairytale that it is


Its obvious that you have no clue how to combat inconvenient scientific data that ruins your worldview and you will just ignore it or handwave it away.
 

There is a reason why many Evolutionists who I have posed my question to are now FORMER Evolutionists... did you know that? But they decided to look into it further, unlike you, who decided
NOT to do so because of a strong emotional attachment to "Evolution", NOT because of Science.. Bet because of the IMPLICATIONS... what are you afraid of?  "The truth will set you free"


No Blitz, look in the mirror and you will see that it is you that has the emotional attachment to a literal biblical account because of your cultural background that has ingrained it within you. No doubt you are drilling the same belief system into your children, this is indoctrination. You just can't bear the idea that we are simply advanced mammals and our close cousins are chimps and bonobos, I don't understand why that should be so distasteful.

If you have managed to convert "evolutionists" with your organ thing (how many is many ?) then I don't have much confidence in their level of scientific knowledge.

I don't have any emotional attachment to evolution. I'm very interested in it, because the question of origins is very interesting but I refuse to ignore the enormous swathe of scientific data from multiple disciplines that long ago flicked YEC into the dustbin. You apparently find a way of doing that, but you don't do it with science.
 

 

 

 

All of your baseless assertions are just meaningless opinions..

 

My UNANSWERABLE question completely severs Darwin's jugular vein and exposes it for the fairytale that it is...  Good name for a website, don't you think?

 

There is a reason why many Evolutionists who I have posed my question to are now FORMER Evolutionists... did you know that? But they decided to look into it further, unlike you, who decided

NOT to do so because of a strong emotional attachment to "Evolution", NOT because of Science.. Bet because of the IMPLICATIONS... what are you afraid of?  "The truth will set you free"

Suddenly you have ZERO interest in trying to answer my question for some reason... Be brave... Face the truth.. dont hide from it..

 

 

http://evolutionfair...accidentalists/

 

 

 

c9cc9bf9ff62ec0a4d14b4192b7fedc0.jpg

 

"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause.

'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life.

These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."

(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology,



#79 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 August 2017 - 06:57 AM

Then just what DO you advocate? Accidentalism?

the search for truth, where ever it leads.

#80 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 August 2017 - 09:52 AM

This is what happens when we pesonyfy a concept such as science and associate science to so many different meanings.Take another look at the statement below:
 

I refuse to ignore the enormous swathe of scientific data from multiple disciplines that long ago flicked YEC into the dustbin. You apparently find a way of doing that, but you don't do it with science.

Notice the shift in the meaning of the word science to imply that science has life-like qualities and can "flick" things (something most of us believe only living intelligent beings can do). When is the last time any of us has observed "science" (another name for our reasoning process) flick something into a dustbin? This an example of lousy reasoning (science) at its best! How very un-scientific (unreasonable). This is self deception at its finest. It's also a clever way to try and avoid accepting responsibility for drawing our own conclusions. If anything is kicked into a dust bin its going to be done by an intelligent being! All reasoning (science) lousy or not is done by intelligent beings.

"...but you don't do it with science." Here the implication is that science (actually our reasoning process) is a virtuous being worthy of wooship and defending. Again lousy reasoning (lousy science) is lousy reasoning!,

Let me correct the above statement. "I decided YEC is not true!" Since evidence can not think (practice science) it has to be a human being declaiding what "truth" is!
We do that by reasoning (practicing science).

Wibble has demonstrate the incconguences in his reasoning process (the practice of science) in the past!. For example he essentially said Adolph Hitler was not aiding evolution when he killed 9 million people. Actually, according to Wibble's reasoning process, Hitler thwarted evo by removing 9 million from the gene pool. However, the the 1.5 billion beings aborted (killed) since 1980 he seems to find no reason to condemn as anti evolution! 9 million compared to 1.5 billion. Wow!




 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users