Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


AFJ last won the day on January 25 2014

AFJ had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 Excellent

About AFJ

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests
    Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family

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)
    Baton Rouge, LA

Recent Profile Visitors

224 profile views
  1. Vegan, Forgive my lack of citation, but time is a factor today. The things I'm writing to you are easily verifiable online. If you look up the prolonged e.coli experiments--the last I looked--they had passed (if memory serves) over 20,000 generations. Over that time there has been change, but not a fitness increase in the species. One of the papers I read showed that, while the bacteria adapted to antibiotics, and different environments, there was a marked decrease in overall fitness. Specifically, one of the traits that developed was cell wall prolongation. This makes the bacteria more susceptible to poisoning or disease. There were also revertants. As you probably know, that means the bacteria reverted to wild type e.coli--or original phenotypes. So here we have the scientific method being used to observe a real process of "speed evolution." With the starting hypothesis that organisms will evolve (make a directional transition) into completely different kinds of species, the experiment to this point has shown that this doesn't happen. The only defense the believers have is an appeal that we need more time, or there's some process we have missed that we'll find in the future, or that there was another more variable ancestor in the past. All of these could philosophically be considered, but you said we need to discuss it scientifically---that requires scientific methodology as opposed to textbook propagation of circumstantial data, which is used to bolster a here to date unproven theory. Now lets talk about a completely different subject that is observational , and can be confirmed by the scientific method--speciation. Darwin observed long beaked and short beaked finches, and it has since been observed that this is according to climate. I don't remember all the details, but it depends on whether it is wet or day, as to the population shift. When the climate is one way there is only one type, but when a "normal" climate returns, the population reverts to both types. I think anyone can look at a bluejay and a cardinal and agree that they most likely had a common ancestor, because there are only superficial differences, but when you talk about an elephant and a flower, you're talking about an imagined ancestor. The scientific method can not verify this ancestor or even propose to us what kind of an organism this would be. Because when we can't even fix a beneficial trait into e.coli or change it's genotype/phenotype to show some kind of fixed and progressive transition, you expose the fact that "evolution" is a fable for the educated.
  2. I'm glad you got a like on this, but I regret to inform you that you are wrong on the marine fossils. I'm going to get back to the calculations, but should we really let misinformation go here? Whether intentional or unintentional-- I think not. "...most fossilized species represent only a few major groups—the numerically abundant and well-skeletonized organisms that lived in or near an anoxic environment or an environment that was subjected to rapid, episodic influxes of sediment. The environment with the best fossil preservation potential on earth is the shallow marine shelf: Most marine life lives in the shallow shelf; the shelf is subject to rapid influxes of sediment (via storms and rivers, for example), and many marine invertebrates have exoskeletons. Thus, hard-shelled invertebrates from shallow marine environments constitute the bulk of the fossil record. The major marine invertebrate groups that dominate the fossil record include corals, bryozoans, brachiopods, mollusks (clams, cephalopods, and snails), arthropods (especially trilobites), and echinoderms (starfish and their relations). The fossil record of other groups, including marine and terrestrial vertebrates and plants, is neither as abundant nor as complete as the marine invertebrate record...http://salempress.com/store/samples/geology/geology_fossil.htm Also check: http://www.icr.org/article/real-nature-fossil-record/ As for astronomy, I have probably done the least amount of study, but I can read the theories, for which I see little evidence. The calculation I showed is just algebra. I had all the values, so if you know how to deal with exponents, and how to use the adding or subtracting a common value on each side of the equation to simplify it, you can solve the equation. It's not anything hard like calculus lol.
  3. AFJ

    America Not Founded On Christianity

    The data is undeniable--that many of our founding fathers were followers of Jesus Christ. They were also in a time of Jonathon Whitfield, John and Charles Wesley, and others--this was known as the great awakening. It was a time of great religious revival, and manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit. The universities then were more like seminaries, run by deeply devout Christians. At the same time, a secular movement called the Enlightenment was springing up, which later in the mid and late 1800's took over the universities. Of course, Darwin was the spring board for the university takeover. Once this happened, it was basically over for the creationist view in education. Now we have reaped the erosion of conviction toward God in this country. We sowed the removal of prayer in school, now we are reaping school shootings. We remove God from public, and have all the curses Deuteronomy gives us. Hatred and attack of other countries, sever prolonged national drought, and severe debt. Not to mention, massive H*mos*xual promotion and lust is a sign of the spiritual degradation of many (Romans 1), and the rejection of the God of the scriptures.
  4. AFJ

    America Not Founded On Christianity

    Since I'm on a computer that won't let me copy for some reason (any ideas? anti-virus?), I will tell you the sites where you can find. 1) A George Washington prayer; CBN.com "George Washington's Prayer Journal" No doubt a born again Christian. 2)John Adams quote: "Suppose a nation...should take the Bible as it's only law book...what a utopia, what a Paradise would this region be." About.com Christianity: Christian quotes from founding fathers 3)Thomas Jefferson:"...CAN THE LIBERTIES OF A NATION BE THOUGHT SECURE WHEN WE HAVE REMOVED THEIR ONLY FIRM BASIS, A CONVICTION IN THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE THAT THESE LIBERTIES ARE A GIFT OF GOD?...THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE VIOLATED WITHOUT HIS WRATH. I TREMBLE FOR MY COUNTRY WHEN I REFLECT THAT GOD IS JUST...." 4)Thomas Jefferson: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of JESUS CHRIST." According to the quotes I have seen on the website I cited About.com George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams all make written confessions of their faith in Jesus Christ. Benjamin Franklin makes positive affirmation as to the historical "Jesus of Nazareth" and to the Christian system of morals. James Madison make reference on the judgment to come. And the president of Princeton, when he graduated, Rev. Jonathon Dickson, said the following: "CURSED BE ALL THAT LEARNING THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE CROSS OF CHRIST." Also those who acknowledged Christ, God, or the scriptures are James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, William Penn, and Roger Sherman, who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. These things speak for themselves, and expose an anti-Christ spirit in America. Not THE anti-Christ, but the spirit of lawlessness that has been working in the world since the apostles time.
  5. Yet the results of a manifestation can be seen by scientific data. Take the X-rays of a woman I once went to church with. She kept asking for corporate prayer, and stood several times to assert her faith in the promises of answered prayer when done in faith. There was as xray that showed a tumor. She was scheduled to have surgery, but it was cancelled as another xray just before her surgery showed nothing. Her doctor said he never seen anything like that, and affirmed it as a possible result of her faith, as there was no natural explanation. No, but we can acknowledge when an unexplained occurrence takes place, that results in empirical data. What about when two attacking dogs respond to something you can't see, looking up, turning and running, for no visible reason. Yet the empirical data is that they did respond in fear and with a directional look up behind me, then turned and ran (this happened about 30 years ago to me). Yet when I looked up, there was nothing I could see. And I'm not the only one that has had this kind of empirical experience. It is in no way a subjective experience. This is the difference in the natures of science and eye witness testimony. Science is limited to only observable things that have physical explanations. Testimony is limited to what is seen, but not necessarily limited to physical explanations, implications, or inferences.
  6. Yes a flood would predict that marine fossils would be throughout the fossil record. Oh yes, that's one for the creationist! But the OP has made a mathematical prediction for star births, with no evidence to match the prediction. But it's no problem for cosmologists. Just fit it in. Or make an excuse why we don't see ANY star ignitions.
  7. AFJ

    Ham Vs Nye

    Is that what you've read? Are you saying that 14C found in fossils is irrelevant? Or are you saying creationists suspect the methodology of evolutionists? That's not the problem--it's ad hoc interpretations, and suggested scenarios used to fit the data into the geologic timescale. If you can ever get past the textbook diagrams, and find the ACTUAL evidence of evo scenarios, you'll find the evidence is not ubiquitous, but rather it's cherry picked, made into a scenario, chosen by the elite, and propagated in education and media--for a while anyway. Long enough to string us along. Creationist data can be very relevant as a challenge to the conclusions of evolution and geotime, as it many times EXPOSES the presuppositions REQUIRED in order to create evo ad hoc scenarios. But how many times have you seen TV programs (who are not subject to supposed church and state restrictions) that show how sedimentary layers can form quickly in a mud slurry? Or have you seen SEDIMENTARY layers (not metamorphic) that are bent, because they were wet when bent, as opposed to heated afterward? Or have you seen the experiments that show that there is way too much helium in rocks, and how the data matches creationist models? Or how many times have you seen research that shows how radiometric data seemingly contradicts the age of recent historical events? Have you ever seen data that presents alternate theories, with evidence, on the origin of coal? Or have you ever seen a creationist present the reasons why the hundreds of thousands of fossils with soft tissue impressions, and ichnofossils, found in China's limestone, are IMPOSSSIBLE under the standard model of geology? Or have seen a presentation on the implications of radiohaloes in biotite flakes? No, no, no, no, and no! Do you think if children had heard this all of their lives, as they have 24/7 for evolution and geotime, they might now question evolutionary finds a little more?
  8. Christians and Christian faith are not separated from the history of modern science. I still remember doing a small math presentation (mini-project) in 9th grade on Blaise Pascal and his triangle. He was a mathematician and physicist, and later became a Christian. He also did a lot of research on probability and believed probability argued for God. I personally knew an evangelist (he has passed away), who had been a botanist and researcher at the University of Illinois, and at that time was an evolutionist. It was during his research, by studying plant cells under the microscope, that he was impacted by the "utter complexity" of cellular systems. It was then he seriously began to consider whether these things had been created, and eventually accepted Christ. I went to a creation seminar in Illinois about 30 years ago, and saw a very nice multimedia presentation of Mt Saint Helens research, done by Dr. Steven Austin (a Harvard graduate geologist). He came up also as an evolutionist. I remember a quote from him concerning the canyon formed at the bottom of the mountain, formed in days by a mud slurry (I believe it was mud). He said (I paraphrase) that by his training, if he would have discovered this canyon without knowing anything about the eruption, he would have interpreted it as taking many hundreds of thousands of years to form, because of the sedimentary layers formed in the canyon. My point is that these folks are quite able to do real empirical science with a creationist worldview on origins. Do you think the inventor of plastic would have been somehow hindered from his invention, whether he believed his uncle was a chimp or not?? That would be irrelevant to his research. Even a good acquaintance at church, who has a law and geology degree (now he is a state environmental official), had no problem working as a petroleum geologist for years. He said the layers underground are what they are, no matter how they got there, and the knowledge of them and the equipment, are what found oil, and made him money. His creationist bent didn't deter his performance, and he was well able to interpret the areas in a standard geological paradigm, though he did not believe it personally. The science of creationist scientists, that challenges evolution, should have every right to be presented--even in the classroom--as long as it is research that challenges. If evolution is true, then it should be able to withstand opposing scrutiny. We can keep the standard paradigm, with the understanding that it is only a theory, and not disrespect people for their personal faith, or discriminate against them for their persuasions.
  9. Hubble has been out there since the eighties. You are saying that we only observe a little portion of the sky, but I believe it's mapped. I think Adam brings up a very good point--nebulas. I'm sure that these are being watched closely. If their theory is correct, we should also see clusters of stars in nebulas, or the remnants of nebulas around stars, since in a naturalistic view, stars don't appear from nothing. But in the case of many stars, it seems to be very clean. I suppose the theory contains a reason, like the star "sucked" all the gas in. At any rate, the argument of the OP is still strong in my opinion.
  10. Sorry Adam, I knew I was getting off track, just went too long. Does anyone want to respond to this calculation, or have any comments about the given conditions?
  11. Not all ID are Bible believers. Many IDers are theistic evolutionists. Some are Muslims, and they could even be agnostic theists. True, most creationists are going to be evangelical Christians. This in no way takes away their ability to separate hard scientific data from their faith. I think we should start with the discussion that there are hard sciences that have nothing at all to do with our origin. It is present science that can be observed, then there are offshoots of that discipline, or one could say are included within that discipline. Let's take biology. No one, no matter what their faith, or non-faith, can argue about metabolic cycles and pathways. They are what I call hard science. No one can argue about photosynthesis, the electron transfer chain, the function of white blood cells, etc. But when we begin to talk about the origin of these things, we introduce the past--and this is where disagreement begins. Neither side can claim empirical data (because neither was there) for the past, but evolutionists insist that the present data of biology is the EXCLUSIVE result of the biological events of the past. But there are biological impasses in evolution, and the development of DNA is one of them. And this is why I use DNA. I did not mean DNA is not being studied. I mean that there is a "chicken or the egg problem" with DNA. In order to have life, you must have DNA replication. In order to have replication, you must have replication fork enzymes. In order to have replication fork enzymes (there are nine), you must have DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, tRNA, and the translation/transcription process. So you got not just DNA, but an elaborate machine. Each part is dependent on the other. You've the enzymes encoded on the DNA, but you have to translate them in order to do translation, and replication. At some point there was DNA which had the unexpressed tools it needed on itself, but had no tools by which to express them. SO DNA had to have it's enzymes at the same time. The system came to be simultaneously. AND AT THIS POINT, the evolutionist will minimize the impass, stating that the DNA evolved, with absolutely no explanation or model as to how--but since evolution is taken for granted as fact--it somehow happened. Then self replicating RNA molecules are pointed to--which are designed by man in a lab--and can't translate protein--they only replicate themselves. The problem with this is they can only BELIEVE because they can take cellular material, and engineer it, that somehow elevates the TOE to fact. And from that foundation, an elaborate story is built from the proposed scenarios and the "how it might have happened" of the professors.
  12. Not true. Try to write an article comparing the hypothesis that the DNA system had to be created as is, as opposed to it somehow created it's own replication fork enzymes, before it ever replicated the first time. The chicken and egg problem for DNA has never been publicized. This would be considered an intelligent design article, attempting to introduce creationism through the back door. Though the Bible would not be mentioned, and though it makes perfect sense, it would be rejected. BTW, the "data found" is subject to interpretation of the data, which is built on other data interpretations, all of which build a story of world history. And when something doesn't fit into the story, it's whatever the elite publicizes by consensus that trumps. For instance, if the elite teach that limestone takes millions of years to be produced, but then someone finds large deposits of limestone in China full of soft tissue icho-fossils, the elite simply "leave out" the contradiction, and send someone to Scientific American with their story of "how old" these fish are. If a creationist points out that ichno fossils are formed under rapid deposition, though it is total fact, it will not "falsify" the "fact" that limestone takes millions of years to form. According to the elite, it's because the creationist is "pseudoscientist" who believes the Bible, and not because he used science to falsify an invalid hypothesis about limestone.
  13. There are science teachers in local schools. There are doctors, chemists, biological scientists that work in industry, electrical engineers, physics teachers, veterinarians, and other parents which any local school board can consult. Judging evolution on the merits of science is not limited to a judge, and the scientific "elite" which are allowed in, and exclude others. BTW, you must be an evolutionist to be in the club. Parents pay for the schools, and if evolution is so true, it shouldn't be scared of a good rebuttal coming from opposition. Instead, used the courts to strongarm the rebuttal out of the classroom. That's not free thinking. Check your history. No one "rammed" anything in the schools in early America. Have you ever heard of a McGuffy reader? How about the Bible? A lot of people learned to read from these books, which are morally and religiously based. The culture of early America was much more morality based (I'm 52 and I can vouch that even the sixties were so, though the media only portrays the war protests, the civil rights movement, and hippies). My point is ramming agenda was not needed. Havard started as a seminary and was taken over by liberal theologians, who in turn fell for Darwin's doctrines.
  14. Here's another one according to http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970115.html there are 10^21 stars, or 1 sextillion stars in the universe. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. Assuming even time intervals between star births, using simple algebra, we would divide 10^21/13.7(10^9) = (10^21 /10^9) / (13.7 x 10^9)/10^9] = or 1 sextillion/1 billion divided by 13.7 billion/1 billion = 10^12/13.7 = 10^13/137 = 72,091,111,408 star births per year or over 197,000,000 star births a day. You might be able to discredit Kent H*vind, but you can't discredit the math. If you use the data and given conditions of the calculation, you will get the same answer. I understand that there are other considerations, like the expansion of the universe, which has expanded to 93 billion lights years in 13.7 billion years--an expansion of 6.7 light years per year, which is a problem itself. Why should it be expanding any faster than 2 ly if the universe is expanding at the speed of light? I think the problem is the universe isn't really that big. I remember reading parallax can only be used up to around 3000 light years. Stars beyond that are counted as distant object background. Well within creationist limits.
  15. The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years),[4] putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.[5][6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe Volume of sphere = (4/3) [pi] r3. So 4/3 [(pi)46,000,000,000^3] = 4/3 [(3.14 x 46)(10^9cu light years)]= 4/3[144.44x (10^9 cubic light years]= 144.44 billion cubic light years. I think it would be much easier to do a calculation on the Milky Way, because there's a lot of empty space between galaxies, yet a great concentration of stars within the galaxies. Any one want to tackle it?!!

Important Information

Our Terms