3 of 4
3
Bright Horizon Pictures documentary - “What is Scientific Truth?”
Posted: 06 November 2010 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

W4U.  How is it that the “silvery salamander” is able to reproduce asexually. They are all female and identical clones

There is still a lot of mystery surrounding these Salamanders.  They are apparently part of a complex of five Salamanders.  But their asexual reproduction doesn’t line up more with Evolution than that of a Creator.  They’re an ongoing study that both Evolution and Creation Scientist are still studying.

Yes, and they are related (same family, common ancestor), but the other members of the family reproduce by normal sexual means. Why the difference? A Design flaw? Did god miscount the number of DNA strands in an egg? It has a fully formed mirror helix and cannot accept a third (male) DNA strand, thus it has learned to reject male sperm while mating, but the division process begins   spontaneously, each time resulting in a perfect clone of the mother. It is empirical evidence of an evolutionary dead end in one branch of that natural family tree, which supports the Theory of Evolution.
Seems you are now avoiding the “evidence” of Evolution. What was god’s intent in creating a species which is doomed from the start. Or was it an accident of nature (evolution)?  The evidence leads inevitably to a conclusion of an accidental natural event.
But , by your assessment, both scientific evolution and theistic evolution are incorrect.
Seems your platform is shrinking. Keep going.

[ Edited: 07 November 2010 01:29 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2010 08:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

Keith, if this does not convince you, I have nothing further to add re Evolution, Natural Selection, and Mutation.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

It allows for a free PDF download.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2010 03:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U,

  First off my platform hasn’t gone anywhere it has just largely gone unanswered by you.  And so you therefore ignored everything else I put in my most recent post in favor of concentrating solely on the Silvery Salamander.  I’ll go ahead and address your post none the less.

Yes, and they are related (same family, common ancestor), but the other members of the family reproduce by normal sexual means. Why the difference? A Design flaw? Did god miscount the number of DNA strands in an egg? It has a fully formed mirror helix and cannot accept a third (male) DNA strand, thus it has learned to reject male sperm while mating, but the division process begins   spontaneously, each time resulting in a perfect clone of the mother. It is empirical evidence of an evolutionary dead end in one branch of that natural family tree, which supports the Theory of Evolution

I agree that they have come from an original two Salamanders and have varied from generation to generation.  But they remain Salamanders, They haven’t changed into some other kind of Animal.  This is only variation within a kind it’s not Darwinian Evolution.  You say this Asexual reproduction is an Evolutionary dead end.  A better description would be a genetic dead end.  For whatever reason perhaps through a mutation which still remains a mystery at this point for Scientists across the board.  That Salamander has come to the point where it rejects the male DNA and therefore only creates clones.  But let me say these Genetic dead ends are actually strong evidence in favor of a Creator.  These sometimes occur in other animals such as a Liger (Tiger + Lion) or a Mule (Donkey + Horse).  Where the Male or the Female of these hybrids are infertile.  If Darwinian Evolution is true than these animals should be able to change into other kinds of animals without these dead ends within a kind.

Seems you are now avoiding the “evidence” of Evolution. What was god’s intent in creating a species which is doomed from the start. Or was it an accident of nature (evolution)?  The evidence leads inevitably to a conclusion of an accidental natural event

The evidence more likely points to an Intelligent creator,  who created his kinds of animals with the ability to adapt and change to environmental conditions.  But that these variations will only go so far, and that rare occurences happen in some variations which cause infertility or Asexual reproduction.

Now let’s bring in Scientific topic number six.  Although I don’t know if I will get a response.  You mentioned before that with enough time everything could come about.  But there’s a further problem with that other than it being an assumption.  The Scientific Evidence itself shows that the Earth is only Thousands of years old and not Billions of years.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2010 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

How could I have missed that, the earth six thousand years old.  oh, don’t forget it is flat and the center of the universe and man is the sole purpose of creation and god’s crowning glory. The rest of the universe is just a nice little setting, a colorful background to the earth. As you said, like a painting.
Well, you have convinced me. I am cured from my ignorance.
Thank you Keith,

Be well and safe my friend.

[ Edited: 09 November 2010 05:32 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2010 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U,

  Congrats you managed to get all the typical talking point responses to a young Earth argument into your post.  But there are two very glaring problems with your post.
1) you’re the only one bringing up a flat Earth and the Earth being the center of the Universe.
2) Your post has absolutely no scientific refuting of a young Earth whatsoever.

What I’m going to do is forego introducing scientific topic number seven in this post.  That way I can solely focus on laying out the evidence for a young earth.

Let me start with the Evolutionist argument for an old Earth.  This really hinges on one key piece of evidence, Radiometric dating of Igneous rocks.  This is primarily where the billions of years argument comes from.  These methods include Potassium/Argon dating, Uranium/Lead dating, and others.  The problem with these dating methods is that they’re riddled with assumptions.  Such as the amount of Parent and Daughter isotopes that were there at formation, A constant decay rate is assumed, and a closed system is assumed( nothing seeped in and nothing seeped out) after that rock formed.  What do you get when you have all these assumptions and more in a dating method?  You get a false date.

This has further been shown to be the case when rocks that are known to be young have been dated with these methods.  Mount Saint Helens was a perfect example of this.  It was known that the rocks were from a recent lava dome formed in 1986 on Mt. St. Helens.  When they were dated with the Potassium/Argon dating method they yielded dates ranging from .35 million years to 2.8 million years.  There are many other examples of this as well, where they knew the rock was young and yet it yielded a very old date with these methods.

Now let me list some further Scientific Evidence that the Earth has to be only thousands of years old and not Billions.  These evidences are refered to as Geochronometers and there are many.  To rattle off several you have the decay of the Magnetic Field, Short Term Comets, the amount of salt in the oceans,The Receding moon, the amount of Lunar dust on the moon, Halos in Earths Basement Granite rock, and there are many others.  All of these show that at a minumum the Earth is only millions of years old and not Billions of years.  But several of them show that the Earth has to be in the 6,000 - 10,000 year range.  Don’t just ignore these evidences and go straight to Flat Earth insults.  I’d encourage you to do the research and look into these.

Take Care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2010 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

IMO, to make an assertion of 6,000 years {give or take a few million (or billion) years} is not very scientific. You cannot prove your claims, all you do is call established science as false.
As far as insults go, your refusal to accept what every “pure” scientist has accepted as established fact is an insult to the lifetimes of study, analysis, comparing and final concensus by unbiased scientists in their quest for “truth”.
How dare you call them liars when you have no proof of anything to the contrary, but only some vague notion of creationism!
This is my last post on this rapidly declining discourse.

[ Edited: 12 November 2010 05:35 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2010 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U,

  If you will read my post again and every post I’ve posted I’ve never called anyone liars.  I think it’s more a case of faith in Evolution which is what I’ve pointed out all along.  The evidence says one thing but I still would rather believe Evolution.  As I’ve said before my belief in a creator is also a faith, but it’s a faith consistent with the evidence.  You’re making my case there when you say I have no proof to the contrary right after I laid out proof.  I laid out the case of the Radiometric dating methods being completely inaccurate and listed several proofs that the Earth is young.  An old Earth is only established in the text books and it’s what they don’t teach you that’s the problem.

I don’t know that you will respond to this post but if anyone wants to pick up where Write4U left off feel free to jump in here.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2010 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-11-21

I’m not sure about picking up where W4U left off but here’s a very interesting video about the radiometric dating methods used to date the Earth to 4,54 billion years, for anyone interested
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGDrq8rikJc

Basically what you’ll see in the video is an explanation of why radiometric dating is extremely accurate, with an error margin of 1% on a timescale of ~4,5 billion years.

Can we also agree that there’s a difference between proof and evidence? We have very little proof of anything, we only have strong and weak evidence indicating how things really are.


Cordially,
B.E.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2010 05:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

B.E

I watched the video you suggested.  Took notes on it and did some research on the claims that are in there.

Here’s what you have.  First thing to point out is he only addresses two out of three of the key assumptions that go into radiometric dating.  He completely ignores the assumption of a closed system.  The assumption that nothing contaminated the rock sample being tested, removing parent or daughter elements or adding them during that rocks existence.

But let’s further examine what he says about the other assumptions.  First you have the assumption of a constant decay rate.  He says that they have done all kinds of experiments and have found that the uniformitarian rates hold.  This is correct they have done experiments over the past 100 years or so and the uniformitarian rates hold.  But based on that it’s still an assumption that they’ve remained constant for billions of years.  In fact there is evidence that has been discovered over the past several years that would suggest they have not remained constant.  This is the evidence of Helium in Zircon Crystals and Polonium Radiohalos in Granite basement rock.  The Helium in Zircons is significant because Helium slowly leaks out of whatever is containing it.  For example a Helium balloon slowly deflates after it is blown up with Helium.  The Helium in these crystals is a by-product of the Uranium to Lead decay process.  And should be completely disipated out of the crystals if they are billions of years old.  However not only is Helium still present but most of the Helium that would result from billions of years worth of decay.  This gives strong evidence that the decay process was a lot faster at some time in the past.
Perhaps even more significant is the Polonium Radiohalos.  Polonium is produced from decaying Uranium and Radiohalos are physical damage caused by the decay process.  The thing with Polnium is it decays very quickly and had to produce those radiohalos within hours or days.  But for enough Polonium to be produced to make those Radiohalos the Uranium present would have to decay at a very accelerated rate.  This evidence points to Hundreds of millions of years worth of decay occuring in a short amount of time.

The other assumption he covers in the video is the assumption of initial amounts of Parent and Daughter Elements.  He talks about there being a reliable known ratio of U-238 to U-235 in meteorites.  However it appears that this ratio is not as reliable as previously thought.  Recent measurements were made on the Allende meteorite showing small differences in the isotope ratios of U-238 to U-235.  These experiments were carried out by Gregory Brennecka and colleagues at Arizona State University.  This brings that ratio assumption into question.

Now let me address what you say about proof verses evidence.  I would agree that we don’t always have what could be considered concrete proof for something.  In fact that ties into what I’ve mentioned many times about having a reasonable faith.  However there does come a point in which the evidence is so lopsided that you can reasonably claim proof.  And contrary to what many of you have been taught in our present day schools the evidence overwhelmingly points to a young Earth.  I mentioned about a half dozen of these evidences in an earlier post, but go check out the list at the bottom of this article http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth/.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2010 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

Checked out the link and the qualifications of references are dubious at best. Unpublished papers?, give me a break.
I looked in vain for “The academy of Science”, or any recognized body of pure science. Institute of Creation Research? They employ greater thinkers and more accurate measurements than the Cosmology department of the Vatican?
Remember, it is you who rejected their conclusion that the Big Bang and Evolution are not inconsistent with creationism.

[ Edited: 23 November 2010 06:07 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2010 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U,

  You mention that the info from the Institute for Creation Research is unpublished.  I’m assuming your talking about the peer reviewed publications.  This is a body completely made up of Evolutionist.  They will not publish any evidence that points to Creation.  The Institute of Creation Research has several P.H.D. scientists that contribute to it.  Here’s a link to their credentials http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/.

And again you bring the Vatican into the discussion.  What the Vatican is doing is compromising when they really don’t need to.  The science is on the side of Creation.  But again I’m not Catholic and I don’t follow what the Vatican has to say.

Happy Thankgiving to you all.  I’m guessing many of you aren’t giving thanks to the Creator but Happy Thanksgiving none the less.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2010 03:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
KeithP - 25 November 2010 08:50 AM

Write4U,

  You mention that the info from the Institute for Creation Research is unpublished.  I’m assuming your talking about the peer reviewed publications.  This is a body completely made up of Evolutionist.  They will not publish any evidence that points to Creation.  The Institute of Creation Research has several P.H.D. scientists that contribute to it.  Here’s a link to their credentials http://www.icr.org/research/scientists_faculty/.

And again you bring the Vatican into the discussion.  What the Vatican is doing is compromising when they really don’t need to.  The science is on the side of Creation.  But again I’m not Catholic and I don’t follow what the Vatican has to say.

Happy Thankgiving to you all.  I’m guessing many of you aren’t giving thanks to the Creator but Happy Thanksgiving none the less.
take care, Keith

REFERENCES
  1. Henry M. Morris (Ed.), Scientific Creationism for Public Schools (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1974).
  3. Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No.”, Impact Series, ICR Acts and Facts, Vol. 2, No. 8., October 1973.
  4. Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1973).
  6. Harold S. Slusher, Critique of Radiometric Dating (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1973).
  7. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961).
  8. Benjamin F. Allen, “The Geologic Age of the Mississippi River”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9 (September 1972), pp. 96-114.
  14. Harold S. Slusher, “Some Astronomical Evidences for a Youthful Solar System”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 8 (June 1971), pp. 55-57.
15. Harold S. Slusher, “Age of the Earth from some Astronomical Indicators”, Unpublished manuscript.
16. Thomas G. Barnes, “Physics, A Challenge to Geologic Time”, Impact Series 16, ICR Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research, July 1974.
18. Chemical Oceanography, Ed. by J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow (New York, Academic Press, Vol. 1, 1965), p. 164. See also Harold Camping, “Let the Oceans Speak”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, (June 1974), pp. 39-45.
19. Stuart E. Nevins, “How Old is the Ocean?”, Unpublished manuscript.
20. George Mulfinger, “Critique of Stellar Evolution”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7 (June 1970), pp. 7-24.
21. Henry M. Morris, Unpublished calculations.

The problem with unpublished papers is that no one ever sees them and we have to take any “evidence” on faith.  Kinda like God.
I deleted the other references as they only made observations without conclusions. The conclusions always come from the unpublished papers of an Institute or individuals and are therefore not subject to review and critique. You must publish in a Scientific paper to merit argument.
I am using the Vatican as a counter argument. They have the same incentive to prove YE Creation as you do and I’ll wager their scientists are first rate. But they have realized that the scientific evidence of a very old universe and an old earth is OVERWHELMING and it does not invalidate the concept of Creation (how long is God’s day?)!
Why are you so intent on this YE thing, it doesn’t change anything and is just an exercise in futility.

Sincere good wishes and good will to all during the holiday season. One of religion’s more beneficial societal legacies. A little reminder to not take the Natural world for granted.

[ Edited: 25 November 2010 03:40 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2010 02:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Write4U,

  Again we’re talking secular Evolutionist journals that typically won’t publish Creation research.  Although sometimes Creation material does make it through.  But there are Creation journals as well that publish Creation research.  And you said you have to take the evidence on faith if it’s not published in a secular journal.  Aren’t you equally taking it on faith if an Evolutionist P.H.D gets his work published.  A Creationist P.H.D has the same credentials.
 
As far as the Vatican they are for all intents and purposes irrelevant to the discussion.  I don’t follow the Vatican and if they conclude Evolution I’m equally arguing against them.

You ask why I’m intent on arguing a young Earth?  For me it’s about believing what’s true.  I don’t want to believe something just because it makes me feel good.  And the evidence points to a young Earth.  You say it doesn’t change anything well it absolutely does.  For Evolutionist to sell the plausibility of Evolution they need for the Earth to be old.

But I think we’ve covered the topic well and we can certainly move onto new ground now.  How about we introduce science topic number 7, The Geologic column.  This one is of course tied to previous topics.  This is a prime example of faulty teaching in our schools.  The geologic column that’s taught in schools doesn’t exist anywhere except on paper.

take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2010 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-09-28

Hi Everyone,

  I figured I would give it some time before I posted again.  But I wanted to move the conversation beyond just science.  I think we covered the topic quite well.  There’s certainly more that can be covered but we could perhaps save that for a later time.

You may recall before in previous posts that I said I believe there is one true God.  I think we can now move the discussion to who that one true God is.  The evidence for who God is goes beyond just scientific evidence,  There’s also Historical evidence and the evidence of personal experience.  The latter of course is evidence that an individual can attest to and is something that strengthens an individuals faith.  I can certainly share these testimony’s myself, but since very few if any of you know me personally you would have to just take my word on it.

I suppose this probably won’t come as a surprise to many of you but I believe the God of the Bible is that true God.  He’s the one who created us.  And he’s not a distant God who has left himself a complete mystery to mankind.  He certainly hasn’t revealed all to us about him but He’s revealed a whole lot.  He has been active in human history for thousands of years primarily through the jewish people going back to Abraham.  And he has entered human history through the person of Jesus Christ.

Take care,
Keith

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 03:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4574
Joined  2007-08-31
KeithP - 05 December 2010 06:29 PM

I suppose this probably won’t come as a surprise to many of you but I believe the God of the Bible is that true God.

The god of the bible is Yahweh, the former war god of the Jews. That’s why he suggest the Jews to kill all enemies: men, women and children.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3
 
‹‹ The Starship Enterprise      "Cult" Abuse ››