Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jason777 last won the day on January 20 2019

jason777 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About jason777

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/16/1971

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)

Recent Profile Visitors

223 profile views
  1. jason777

    Early Dinosaur Embryos Found In China

    My mistake. I meant Igneous and not Metamorphic.
  2. jason777

    Haldane's Dilemma Now His Nightmare

    "The paper The Cost of Natural Selection Revisited (see link in resource list above) has made some updates to Haldane's calculations. This paper asserts that Haldane was basically right, but adds that rather than a purely additive cost per loci, there is a fixed cost plus an additive cost per loci. It also mentions that the beneficial mutation rate has a lot to do with the outcomes. One thing missing, though, was the fact that modern research has shown that combining beneficial mutations are just as often harmful as they are synergistic, a fact which this computer simulation does not bring up or take into consideration. Nor does it mention the problems of pleiotropy and mutations. The paper also mentions that soft selection really only deals with intraspecies competition and not a changing environment, and therefore could hardly be considered to be a primary influence of change as some have proposed. On a slightly different topic, the mutation rate needed to have the divergence between humans and apes is way too high to have occurred in the timeframe needed and not have destroyed the populations through an overly high genetic load. See Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates." http://creationwiki.org/Cost_of_natural_selection_is_prohibitive_%28Talk.Origins%29 Walter ReMine's paper is peer reviewed and newer. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_2/cost_substitution.htm Enjoy.
  3. jason777

    Ask The Atheist/evolutionist Anything.

    I know of no instance where chemistry mutates; It's a very accurate science. Also, natural selection cannot act upon a biological system until genes are present to act upon.
  4. jason777

    Early Dinosaur Embryos Found In China

    Collagen half life is 118 years. The fact remains that it couldn't be any older than thousands of years. http://www.jbc.org/content/275/50/39027.long Biological deacy and carbon dating is the only way to date a fossil since fossils don't contain any radiometric isotopes. And since sedimentary layers occur above and below metamorphic deposits, it is silly to think that parent or daughter elements haven't been washed into the samples. The KBS tuff was K-AR dated 41 times before they obtained an expected age. (R. Lewin)
  5. Although, no solution has ever been offered for Haldane's Dilemma, a new study has confirmed that the vast majority of mutations occur in genetic hot spots where they share the most similarity. This was not only contrary to the expectations of scientists, but it also means that the maximum number of beneficial mutations able to fix, as calculated by Haldane as 1,667 in 10 million years, is also vastly inflated. Here is a article written by one of our moderators, Spectre. http://answersforhope.com/evolution-and-monkey-business-a-recent-study-poses-new-problems-for-evolution/
  6. A newly discovered ichthyosaur fossil thought to have gone extinct in the Jurassic has turned up in the Cretaceous. This group of animals are very diverse with numerous known species, but there has never been a transitional form for this group discovered. They all suddenly appear in the fossil record fully formed with the newest find being referred to as "It looks remarkably like its Jurassic brethren, revealing a surprising evolutionary statis." http://www.livescience.com/32039-fossil-ichthyosaur-cretaceous.html
  7. jason777

    How Old Are Rocks?

    In short, this toy car proves that it took God 10 to 20 years to create rocks instead of a literal day. Seriously, if you look at empirical erosion rates, then no rock could be more than 10 million years old before it is eroded and redeposited. http://www.icr.org/article/continents-should-have-eroded-long/ Basement rocks that are metamorphic and beneath the sedimentary rocks have been dated to the biblical timeline of creation by their helium diffusivity rates. http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=283
  8. jason777

    Geologic Column: Fact Or Fiction?

    Why do we assign ages to layers by the fossils they contain to begin with? Because you're already assuming evolution and geotime. A good case in point, out of dozens that can be referenced, are modern plants and insects found below trilobite fossils. Why now assume an underthrust where no evidence of one exists? Because you have already assumed evolution and geotime. http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html
  9. jason777

    Radioactive Decay Rates Challenged

    I know that the radioactive waste products can be accelerated by low frequency electromagnetic fields. Accelerated beta decay for disposal of fission fragment wastesThe fundamental theory of the interaction of intense, low-frequency electromagnetic fields with certain radioactive nuclei has been fully formulated. The nuclei are of the type that exists in high-level radioactive wastes that are end products of the production of energy from nuclear fission. The basic physical mechanisms that underlie the coupling of the applied field to the nucleus have been identified. Both the basic theory and numerical predictions that stem from it support the conclusion that high-level radioactive wastes can be disposed of by substantially accelerating the rate of radioactive decay. Some old experiments on the acceleration of this type of radioactivity, with results that were not understood at the time, have been re-examined. Their interpretation is now clear, and the experiments are found to be in agreement with the theory. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=807793
  10. Like population growth, we're going to be led to believe that humans lived on a linear line for hundreds of thousands of years and suddenly, in the biblical timeline, everything became exponetial.
  11. jason777

    Global Warming Falsified

    In case anyone wants to know where the 98% consensus of global warming came from, I found it in a recent article. "The researchers, Doran and Zimmerman, deliberately excluded the solar scientists, space scientists, cos mol ogists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers who might have thought that the sun and planetary movements might have something to do with Earth’s climate. They also decided that neither academic qualifications nor scientific accomplishment would be a factor in whose responses could be accepted -- about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a Ph.D, and some didn’t even have a master’s degree. They reduced the list to 3,146 who responded to these two questions: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Ninety percent of the respondents answered "risen" to the first question, presumably assuming it referred to the pre-1850 Little Ice Age. Eighty two percent of the respondents answered "yes" to the second question. Those percentages weren’t impressive enough for the researchers, so they further reduced the sample until only 77 remained. Seventy five of the select 77 said "yes" to both questions, producing the desired "consensus" finding that "97 percent of active climate researchers" believe that humans are a significant cause of global warming. Those human activities, incidentally, include land use changes as well as greenhouse gas emissions." http://www.benningtonbanner.com/columnists/ci_21877370/lsquo-frontline-rsquo-climate-change-consensus And here is a link to the Oregon petition. http://www.petitionproject.org/
  12. jason777

    The Truth About Nebraska Man

    Yes. They are fooled by their own inability to understand science and assume that scientists know the truth; Therefore, it is. I tried to have a discussion with some OE creationists and showed them how predictions validate the YEC model. They were so obsessed with the consensus view that they ignore predictions and scrambled directly to talkorigins, which told them that Russel Humphreys is wrong, which justifies brushing it aside. It's kind of hard to talk science with a person who uses talkorigins as an escape from peer review. If Humphreys was wrong, then I'm sure every peer reviewed geology journal in the world would have tons of papers to reference.
  13. jason777

    Global Warming Falsified

    Here's another one for you, gilbo. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
  14. jason777

    Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

    Because we reap what we sow. If a man murders another man, then that man should pay the same price. If a man steals, then he should pay for the value of the thing he stole or go to jail. Make sense? When David told his general to put Uriah in a position that he would likely get killed because David got his wife pregnant, it wasn't just a soldier that got killed in battle, it was a sinister motive. God decided to have mercy on David for this murder, but he commanded that the child shall die, the kingdom to be stripped away from David, and evil to be raised up in his own house. He ruined Uriah's life and his families life, so it's fair that God ruined his life.
  15. jason777

    A Question For The Creationists

    Hi,Rich. Well, from fossils you have two things. 1) Fossils that appear slightly different. 2) Different types of fossils. What you insert beyond that isn't derived from the evidence; It's a product of what you already believe. No geologist ever went out and found a bunch of fossils that were stacked up and appeared to be changing into different species; Evolution was already accepted, and then they went out looking for them as Darwin stated: "... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." In fact, evolution was around well before the birth of Christ. "The Hindus were Spinozas 2,000 years before the birth of Spinoza, Darwinians centuries before the birth of Darwin, and evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of evolution had been accepted by the Huxleys of our time, and before any word like 'evolution' existed in any language of the world." Sir M. Monier-Williams, Professor of Sanskrit, Oxford University, 1894 (source: M.L. Burke, Swami Vivekenanda in the West, Vol II, 3rd edition, p128, 1984). So, how could I accept an ancient myth that has changed every time a dead end is found? Shouldn't I stick to history instead? "No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, p. 31.] Enjoy.

Important Information

Our Terms