sammy7 Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) hay all im a creationist the earth is around 6000 yo etc etc, the literature "Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion" has imo 4-5 NON SCIENTIFIC "FAILS" in it. ie "is precisely that predicted for a head-to-head telomeric fusion of two chromosomes" i can predict any effect today and "link" it to an UNOBSERVED "cause" (MACRO-evolution) in the past if i want....and call it science in the process... "The data we present here demonstrate that a telomere-to-telomere fusion of ancestral chromosomes occurred, leaving a pathognomonic relic at" cites some unobserved cause in the past (look at word "occurred) and this is the cornerstone literature of MACRO-evolution???? (if there is more recent one please cite it as this literature is 20yo.) "The telomere-telomere fusion at region 2q13 must have been accompanied or followed by inactivation or elimination of one of the ancestral centromeres," again lets just make assumptions (imagination) and call it science in the process.. ive only been looking for evidence (scientific not just-so storys/fairytales etc) for neodarwinian theory for a few months and almost certain anymore looking would be a complete waste of time (unless someone can cite some literature please dont waste time unless your confident/know what your talking about etc) please watch "richard dawkins stumped" on youtube to see what happens when dakwins gets asked an actual science question as opposed to people just believing his dogmatic preaching...oh and watch "dawkins fails to remember origin of species" on youtube...for me this made me realise (only 2 months ago or so) that the emporer is indeed wearing no clothes... origin of species=adam and eve (for humans) lol will post more but wait for reply thanks for reading... Edited May 16, 2012 by sammy7
ydoaPs Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 hay all im a creationist the earth is around 6000 yo etc etc, the literature "Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion" has imo 4-5 NON SCIENTIFIC "FAILS" in it. ie "is precisely that predicted for a head-to-head telomeric fusion of two chromosomes" i can predict any effect today and "link" it to an UNOBSERVED "cause" (MACRO-evolution) in the past if i want....and call it science in the process... "The data we present here demonstrate that a telomere-to-telomere fusion of ancestral chromosomes occurred, leaving a pathognomonic relic at" cites some unobserved cause in the past (look at word "occurred) and this is the cornerstone literature of MACRO-evolution???? (if there is more recent one please cite it as this literature is 20yo.) "The telomere-telomere fusion at region 2q13 must have been accompanied or followed by inactivation or elimination of one of the ancestral centromeres," again lets just make assumptions (imagination) and call it science in the process.. ive only been looking for evidence (scientific not just-so storys/fairytales etc) for neodarwinian theory for a few months and almost certain anymore looking would be a complete waste of time (unless someone can cite some literature please dont waste time unless your confident/know what your talking about etc) please watch "richard dawkins stumped" on youtube to see what happens when dakwins gets asked an actual science question as opposed to people just believing his dogmatic preaching...oh and watch "dawkins fails to remember origin of species" on youtube...for me this made me realise (only 2 months ago or so) that the emporer is indeed wearing no clothes... origin of species=adam and eve (for humans) lol will post more but wait for reply thanks for reading... The origin of chromosome 2 was a prediction, not an ad hoc explanation. That's how science works. In the case of chromosome 2, we noticed that all of the other apes have more chromosomes than we do. That's a huge problem for evolution, right? So, for evolution to be true, we should have had more chromosomes in the past. It was predicted that our ancestors had the same number of chromosomes as the other apes, and two of ours fused. Then we discovered the central telomere and dual centromeres in chromosome two. Evolutionary theory (since it predicted it) obviously explains the fusion quite elegantly. What, exactly, is the creationist explanation? Satan changed our DNA to trick us? 2
sammy7 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 The origin of chromosome 2 was a prediction, not an ad hoc explanation. That's how science works. In the case of chromosome 2, we noticed that all of the other apes have more chromosomes than we do. That's a huge problem for evolution, right? So, for evolution to be true, we should have had more chromosomes in the past. It was predicted that our ancestors had the same number of chromosomes as the other apes, and two of ours fused. Then we discovered the central telomere and dual centromeres in chromosome two. Evolutionary theory (since it predicted it) obviously explains the fusion quite elegantly. What, exactly, is the creationist explanation? Satan changed our DNA to trick us? hi thanks for reply. yes using that same prediction model i can- start with a presuppostion "x" is true , then make up whatever story i need and cite it happened in the (unobserved) past and walla! my prediction is true so the model is far far below actual reality/science (no offense). i could go on and on about the complete failure of the model and how any falsifying observation against it can be re-worked if you will as somehow actual evidence for it, and any prediction that it makes, although that prediction has never been observed..well again that somehow is actual evidence for it! so its the whole heads i win tails you lose thing, What, exactly, is the creationist explanation? Satan changed our DNA to trick us? well i only literally started believing this around 2 weeks ago (after utter failure of ndt to show any actual scientific evidence, yes im letting my investigations/scientific evidence (or lack thereof) guide me as opposed to blind faith in a model and not questioning the dogmatic preaching of it(no im not referring to the bible here but ndt, both christianity and evolution are religions/belief systems) but the creation model of life goes like this -starts with the presupposition the bible is the literal word of god (as evolution starts with blind faith that all these things happened in the unobserved past) and that genesis 1.1. is literally true (not like these (i will leave some unkind words out here) priests (i dont really even know what catholics believe either nor do i really care if they fail at the most basic book of the bible (genesis)) who get on tv with richard dawkins and fail the whole conversation as soon as they open their mouths "adam and eve are a myth" "god used evolution to evolve us (lol?) etc etc (author withholds opinions on these people lol) so from that starting point enter genesis- "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was with out form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep, and god said "let there be light" (uni-verse means...single (uni) spoken word (verse)) and there was light, and god saw the light that it was GOOD, and god seperated the light from the darkness and the darkness he called night and the light he called day and the evening and the morning were the first day" (literal- bible timeline yields like 6k years or so) adam+eve are made on day 6, satan (the serpent) questions eve (god commanded them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or they would "surely die") saying -you shall not surely die! for god knows that in the day you eat of it then your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as gods knowing good and evil!(thats were the whole concept of "evolving" comes from ie-we can become like gods or something become wise through our own knowledge and "ascend" (evolve) if you will to be like god (s). so eve+adam disobey god, listen to satan, eat the apple, "sin" enters the world, fall of man, etc etc and its been an awesome downhill trend ever since (increasing mutations disease death suffering etc etc) so yeah imo makes perfect sense (keeping in mind both ndt religion and christianity religion both require faith as the starting point except christianity has eyewitness testimony imo-god (lol)) so yeah thats the creationist view point of origins....ask away please... thanks for your time.... (i can also make and extremely interesting comment about electricity too if you want... (i figured it out myself and feel proud and yesterday realised nikola telsa had the same revelation...)
ydoaPs Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 hi thanks for reply. yes using that same prediction model i can- start with a presuppostion "x" is true , then make up whatever story i need and cite it happened in the (unobserved) past and walla! You don't seem to know what a prediction is. well i only literally started believing this around 2 weeks ago (after utter failure of ndt to show any actual scientific evidence Then you've not looked very hard. If you have the proper storage equipment, you can even get samples of the Lenski experiment to confirm for yourself. Oh, and we do have examples of observed "macro-evolution" such as dog that can no longer breed with wolves. Speaking of "macro-evolution", since you make this distinction, what is the anti-accumulative mechanism that keeps "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution"?
Moontanman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 hi thanks for reply. yes using that same prediction model i can- start with a presuppostion "x" is true , then make up whatever story i need and cite it happened in the (unobserved) past and walla! my prediction is true so the model is far far below actual reality/science (no offense). i could go on and on about the complete failure of the model and how any falsifying observation against it can be re-worked if you will as somehow actual evidence for it, and any prediction that it makes, although that prediction has never been observed..well again that somehow is actual evidence for it! so its the whole heads i win tails you lose thing, WOW! that sounds a whole lot like religious dogma! I suggest you do indeed go on and on and tell us how the theory of evolution fails and how evidence is brought out only after the fact, (still sounds like religion) please tell us... well i only literally started believing this around 2 weeks ago (after utter failure of ndt to show any actual scientific evidence, yes im letting my investigations/scientific evidence (or lack thereof) guide me as opposed to blind faith in a model and not questioning the dogmatic preaching of it(no im not referring to the bible here but ndt, both christianity and evolution are religions/belief systems) but the creation model of life goes like this -starts with the presupposition the bible is the literal word of god (as evolution starts with blind faith that all these things happened in the unobserved past) and that genesis 1.1. is literally true (not like these (i will leave some unkind words out here) priests (i dont really even know what catholics believe either nor do i really care if they fail at the most basic book of the bible (genesis)) who get on tv with richard dawkins and fail the whole conversation as soon as they open their mouths "adam and eve are a myth" "god used evolution to evolve us (lol?) etc etc (author withholds opinions on these people lol) so from that starting point enter genesis- Absolute dishonesty personified.. "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was with out form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep, and god said "let there be light" (uni-verse means...single (uni) spoken word (verse)) and there was light, and god saw the light that it was GOOD, and god seperated the light from the darkness and the darkness he called night and the light he called day and the evening and the morning were the first day" (literal- bible timeline yields like 6k years or so) adam+eve are made on day 6, satan (the serpent) questions eve (god commanded them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or they would "surely die") saying -you shall not surely die! This word salad is supposed to mean what? for god knows that in the day you eat of it then your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as gods knowing good and evil!(thats were the whole concept of "evolving" comes from ie-we can become like gods or something become wise through our own knowledge and "ascend" (evolve) if you will to be like god (s). so eve+adam disobey god, listen to satan, eat the apple, "sin" enters the world, fall of man, etc etc and its been an awesome downhill trend ever since (increasing mutations disease death suffering etc etc) so yeah imo makes perfect sense (keeping in mind both ndt religion and christianity religion both require faith as the starting point except christianity has eyewitness testimony imo-god (lol)) so yeah thats the creationist view point of origins....ask away please... thanks for your time.... (i can also make and extremely interesting comment about electricity too if you want... (i figured it out myself and feel proud and yesterday realised nikola telsa had the same revelation...) I'm asking for some evidence to back up this "stuff" you assert...
sammy7 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) You don't seem to know what a prediction is. please write the exact prediction model then and i will show you how i can fit anything on the planet i want or any figment of my own personal imagination into it then (no offence) as long as you start with the CONCLUSION (presuppose whatever you want is actually true and work backwards lol) Then you've not looked very hard. If you have the proper storage equipment, you can even get samples of the Lenski experiment to confirm for yourself. Oh, and we do have examples of observed "macro-evolution" such as dog that can no longer breed with wolves. please cite the actual literature for lenskis experiments ( ive only read overviews etc) before even reading the literature im 100% confident i can explain the mechanism of action behind it and no it has nothing to do with new functional genetic information *magicly* (oh sorry were referring to purely naturalistic processes here so magic isnt allowed) appearing from one generation to the next... the dog/wolf are probably the same kind too ie they both have a common ancester -a dog, (same "kind" if you will) i will have to read more about things being able/not being able to interbreed before i can comment again... Speaking of "macro-evolution", since you make this distinction, what is the anti-accumulative mechanism that keeps "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution"? well sure you can believe that it can if you want (please cite some actual literature though, we are trying to call this science remember not personal opinion/ones belief system) but its just that...a belief... (unless you can cite some actual literature) so yeah... again were does this new "functional" genetic information come from? (im falsifying the actual story itself now (given there is no literature unless you can cite some)) magic? (again sorry no magic allowed as its a purely "naturalistic" process )...i will await your reply before i go in depth more if you want i guess... also to the other poster (not the guy im addressing above) i never claimed there is scientific evidence for "in the beginning god created" im unaware of a machine that allows one to travel into the past and thus observe said cause (for macro-evolution (the official story is from n.i.h. francis collins etc is we dont observe it today because it both started and stopped happening a long long time ago 9without observation)) or genesis 1.1.) thanks for your time Edited May 17, 2012 by sammy7
ydoaPs Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 You don't seem to know what a prediction is. please write the exact prediction model then and i will show you how i can fit anything on the planet i want or any figment of my own personal imagination into it then (no offence) as long as you start with the CONCLUSION (presuppose whatever you want is actually true and work backwards lol) Yep, you don't know what a prediction is. We knew that they had to be fused BEFORE we discovered that they were. please cite the actual literature for lenskis experiments ( ive only read overviews etc) before even reading the literature im 100% confident i can explain the mechanism of action behind it and no it has nothing to do with new functional genetic information *magicly* (oh sorry were referring to purely naturalistic processes here so magic isnt allowed) appearing from one generation to the next... http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ We don't need magic, because we know how it happened. Since we have samples, we can even point to the exact mutations. Mutation + selection = preserved change. Not only is it not magic, it's incredibly simple. the dog/wolf are probably the same kind too ie they both have a common ancester -a dog, (same "kind" if you will) i will have to read more about things being able/not being able to interbreed before i can comment again... "Kind" is meaningless which renders the quoted portion above meaningless, though it does seem to indicate that you don't even know what evolution actually is. Speaking of "macro-evolution", since you make this distinction, what is the anti-accumulative mechanism that keeps "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution"? well sure you can believe that it can if you want (please cite some actual literature though, we are trying to call this science remember not personal opinion/ones belief system) but its just that...a belief... (unless you can cite some actual literature) so yeah... again were does this new "functional" genetic information come from? (im falsifying the actual story itself now (given there is no literature unless you can cite some)) magic? (again sorry no magic allowed as its a purely "naturalistic" process )...i will await your reply before i go in depth more if you want i guess... Thanks for completely ignoring the passage you quoted. Care to give a stab at the answer? Why doesn't "micro-evolution" accumulate into "macro-evolution"? Also, saying "can you cite some literature for that" is vague as to be worthless. What exactly do you want citations for? What journals can you access? etc. 1
sammy7 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 Yep, you don't know what a prediction is. We knew that they had to be fused BEFORE we discovered that they were. well i presume that man is looking for whatever "evidence" (i wouldnt call it that) he can find to somehow link us to apes or whatever and in this case the telomere telomere was used... please write the prediction model right here? also-just so we both know too micro-evolution (poor name imo) is variation within a kind if you will ie, brown dog black dog tall dog short dog etc etc (has been observed (obv) a child can see this... macro-evolution...the "concept" or "idea" that new "functional" genetic information (somehow wether by mutation or whatever) "appears" (mechanism of action could be determined but this *usually* happens after something has actually been observed (lol?) -this has obv never been observed (i will read lenskis experiments in detail and comment)... http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ We don't need magic, because we know how it happened. Since we have samples, we can even point to the exact mutations. Mutation + selection = preserved change. Not only is it not magic, it's incredibly simple. so some bacteria can now consume citrate or whatever instead of whatever they could originally (i will read that link you posted but it will take a few hours so will just write this based on what i read of it the other day), it may/may not have even started with a mutation, they just passed/swapped around genes for allowing consumption or whatever of different "energy" sources. so there was no "gain" if you will of "new" information, . (which is exactly what ndt needs if it has even the remotest possiblity of being considered true) i will read the whole thing then comment more... "Kind" is meaningless which renders the quoted portion above meaningless, though it does seem to indicate that you don't even know what evolution actually is. im referring to macro evolution ie- a molecule turning into a man (lol) vie natural selection is what darwin proposed, except most mutations are deleterious to an organism except when in a "favourable" environment (so here we have natural selection ie, long hair animal lives/has offspring in a cold environment where as a short hair one dies off, genes for long hair keep geting passed on etc, only thing that survives in that environment is the animal with the genes for long hair etc, till the only genes left in that gene pool of that environment is the ones for long hair, so we have a DOWNWARD trend of genetic information ie, there has been a loss of options to the point that the organism is only left with long hair genes in this example, so natural selection in REAL LIFE (not darwins or dakwins fairytales) is a DOWNWARD trend of options or "information" if you will, for ndt we need somewhow to observe wether by natural selection or by just a mutation an UPWARD trend of genetic information ( the source of this could be hypothesized after it is actually observed) Thanks for completely ignoring the passage you quoted. Care to give a stab at the answer? Why doesn't "micro-evolution" accumulate into "macro-evolution"? i cant give an explanation for something that has never been observed... (does that make sense?) imo science goes-observe something first, then try to figure out how/what the mechanism of action behind it is, see my above quote please, more over the onus of proof is on those (dawkins other preaches who claim that "EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!!!! (caps for dogmatic tone) to show something, how can one explain something that has never been observed?? does this make sense? im not being evasive i just cant see how logic can explain something that has never been observed? Also, saying "can you cite some literature for that" is vague as to be worthless. What exactly do you want citations for? What journals can you access? etc. ok again see my above quote please. im just saying if we want to call it science we need to actually observe it first (not have it only exist in the minds of those who believe it (no offence if you do believe it) ok thanks for your time
sammy7 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 For the love of God, use the quote function properly. lmao please tell me how then? thanks
ydoaPs Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 lmao please tell me how then? thanks http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53988-sfn-tutorial/
Moontanman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 Evidence for speciation... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Ringer Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 I'll play ball here. So evolution is bunk and it is not true. Now if this stands how does Creationism become the accepted model? It's not the default, there are many other religions with creation myths, so what evidence allows Genesis to stand above the rest? 2
sammy7 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 "I'll play ball here. So evolution is bunk and it is not true. Now if this stands how does Creationism become the accepted model? It's not the default, there are many other religions with creation myths, so what evidence allows Genesis to stand above the rest?" hi thanks for the honest reply , i havnt thought that far ahead.. (i only started believing this a few weeks ago) im just trying to get people to understand evolution is a religion/belief system like christianity hindu buddhism whatever, we have these quacks who get on tv 24/7 and indoctrinate the laymen (and ppl in schools colleges etc too) that macro-evolution is a "scientific fact" and that if you reject evolution well...you are somehow rejecting gravity... and imo a huge % of the population senses there is a discrepancy in the dogmatic statement "evolution is a scientific fact" but there not quite sure what it is.....and its preached in a fashion that if you do actually question it...well you are a *insert dawkins style demeaning comment here* but these are the people who still have an iota of common sense left and are thinking for themselves and havnt swallowed the thing hook line and sinker so to speak, so yeah you do have a choice what to believe because thats what it comes down to...a belief (no one observed creation event/or alleged starting and stopping of macro-evolutionary process) so yeh.... you guys probably read all dawkins books right? and watch his stuff? have you seen "richard dawkins stumped" on youtube? and "richard dawkins fails to remember origin of species" for me when i saw these i was like...wow....the emporer is really really wearing no clothes...and thats what inspired me to start looking for actual evidence for n-d-t... so yeh...comments please thanks for reading evidence for genesis, hmmm well this is just some preliminary opinion/comments (no i dont claim it to be a "scientific fact") but didnt they find flesh (identifiable protein, i think it was collagen) in dino bones? and what about c14? ie as soon as something has c14 in it, it has to be less than like 50 60 70 80 or 90k years old or something doesnt it? (not sure exact number obv lol) anyway comments like yours welcome thanks
Moontanman Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 evidence for genesis, hmmm well this is just some preliminary opinion/comments (no i dont claim it to be a "scientific fact") but didnt they find flesh (identifiable protein, i think it was collagen) in dino bones? and what about c14? ie as soon as something has c14 in it, it has to be less than like 50 60 70 80 or 90k years old or something doesnt it? (not sure exact number obv lol) anyway comments like yours welcome thanks http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna No dinosaur has ever been dated using Carbon 14.... 1
Ringer Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 hi thanks for the honest reply , i havnt thought that far ahead.. (i only started believing this a few weeks ago) im just trying to get people to understand evolution is a religion/belief system like christianity hindu buddhism whatever, we have these quacks who get on tv 24/7 and indoctrinate the laymen (and ppl in schools colleges etc too) that macro-evolution is a "scientific fact" and that if you reject evolution well...you are somehow rejecting gravity... and imo a huge % of the population senses there is a discrepancy in the dogmatic statement "evolution is a scientific fact" but there not quite sure what it is.....and its preached in a fashion that if you do actually question it...well you are a *insert dawkins style demeaning comment here* but these are the people who still have an iota of common sense left and are thinking for themselves and havnt swallowed the thing hook line and sinker so to speak, so yeah you do have a choice what to believe because thats what it comes down to...a belief (no one observed creation event/or alleged starting and stopping of macro-evolutionary process) so yeh.... you guys probably read all dawkins books right? and watch his stuff? have you seen "richard dawkins stumped" on youtube? and "richard dawkins fails to remember origin of species" for me when i saw these i was like...wow....the emporer is really really wearing no clothes...and thats what inspired me to start looking for actual evidence for n-d-t... so yeh...comments please thanks for reading Personally I dislike Dawkins quite a bit when discussing religion, but his scientific writing I do enjoy. I have seen seen the stumped video about adding information and I could give you answers to the question he was asked if you like (hint: trisomy 21). More to the point, in science if there isn't evidence for an alternate model the current model stands. We are always wrong, but we are wrong by degrees. In effect, lack of evidence for one model isn't evidence for another. If Creationism really wants to supercede evolution it needs evidence as well as explanatory power (meaning it can explain what we see and predict what we may later find). evidence for genesis, hmmm well this is just some preliminary opinion/comments (no i dont claim it to be a "scientific fact") but didnt they find flesh (identifiable protein, i think it was collagen) in dino bones? and what about c14? ie as soon as something has c14 in it, it has to be less than like 50 60 70 80 or 90k years old or something doesnt it? (not sure exact number obv lol) anyway comments like yours welcome thanks You most likely wouldn't find flesh in a body that has decomposed for a long period of time. If anything that is evidence against Genesis because the younger the planet is the less time dinosaur flesh has to decompose. 14C has a half-life of around 6,000 years. There are trace amounts of that isotope in many places. How it is used in dating is certain types of rock are formed in fairly quick manner and have a fixed amount of 14C. I won't get into specifics of half-life, I don't feel I could explain it that well anyway, but after ~6,000 years half of that isotope will break down into Nitrogen-14. In another ~6,000 years half of the remaining 14C will break down into 14N, a quarter of the original. Using how much 14C is there compared to what is expected and the ratio of 14C and 14N, adjusting for the natural amount of 14N, you can get an approximate date of how old the fossils are. That being said, neither of those is positive evidence for your stance. It is still an attempt to find negative evidence of evolution which I already said I will go along with. As to not being able to get evidence against the evolutionary stance, which was said earlier, there are many ways in which evolution as it stands can be shown to be wrong. Some examples: A modern animal being found fossilized with prehistoric animals Organisms from, say, the Jurassic Period existing as their fossil forms Natural competition, with it selection would be, shown not to happen Static biomes Frequency of traits being static Materials of heredity, genes, being static I could go on, but I think the point has been made 1
sammy7 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Posted May 17, 2012 trisomy 21, if someone wants to use this as evidence of macro-evolution...well enough said? i assume no one does and richard dawkins knows of it but why would he give an answer like that on tape?, or why would someone on tv say it (knowing that it makes evolution look silly)? btw too theres no new information coming into being its just a copy...( and look what it does to someone? ?????? "In effect, lack of evidence for one model isn't evidence for another. If Creationism really wants to supercede evolution it needs evidence as well as explanatory power (meaning it can explain what we see and predict what we may later find). " yah yah i wasnt proposing my own model just posting ideas to get a rational discussion going... and thanks for your thoughtful responses.. "You most likely wouldn't find flesh in a body that has decomposed for a long period of time. If anything that is evidence against Genesis because the younger the planet is the less time dinosaur flesh has to decompose." yah thats what i mean google "dinosaur bones collagen"... the evolutionary model says dinos are x million years old or whatever and a bone still has identifiable collagen in it.... that doesnt "prove" they are x amount of years "young" so to speak but its an interesting thought... and the carbon thing, just saying as soon as c14 is found in something it has to be less than 100k years old or whataver or it would of decayed back off into n14 already, is that right or? in summary i have no scientific evidence for "creation" but want people to realise n-d-t is bunkrupt of any scientific evidence whatsoever...
ydoaPs Posted May 17, 2012 Posted May 17, 2012 btw too theres no new information coming into being its just a copy...( and look what it does to someone? ?????? Really? "AGCT" and "AGCTAGCT" have the same amount of information? How about "AGCT" and "AGCTTCGA"? in summary i have no scientific evidence for "creation" but want people to realise n-d-t is bunkrupt of any scientific evidence whatsoever... Have fun with that, because it's not.
Moontanman Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) trisomy 21, if someone wants to use this as evidence of macro-evolution...well enough said? i assume no one does and richard dawkins knows of it but why would he give an answer like that on tape?, or why would someone on tv say it (knowing that it makes evolution look silly)? btw too theres no new information coming into being its just a copy...( and look what it does to someone? ?????? "In effect, lack of evidence for one model isn't evidence for another. If Creationism really wants to supercede evolution it needs evidence as well as explanatory power (meaning it can explain what we see and predict what we may later find). " yah yah i wasnt proposing my own model just posting ideas to get a rational discussion going... and thanks for your thoughtful responses.. "You most likely wouldn't find flesh in a body that has decomposed for a long period of time. If anything that is evidence against Genesis because the younger the planet is the less time dinosaur flesh has to decompose." yah thats what i mean google "dinosaur bones collagen"... the evolutionary model says dinos are x million years old or whatever and a bone still has identifiable collagen in it.... that doesnt "prove" they are x amount of years "young" so to speak but its an interesting thought... and the carbon thing, just saying as soon as c14 is found in something it has to be less than 100k years old or whataver or it would of decayed back off into n14 already, is that right or? in summary i have no scientific evidence for "creation" but want people to realise n-d-t is bunkrupt of any scientific evidence whatsoever... i will clue you in one more time, Carbon 14 dating is irrelevant to dating dinosaurs. Nothing as old as a dinosaur can be dated via carbon 14... But if you had actually looked into this you would have seen that there are many other ways to date a sample that does indeed accurately give the age of dinosaur bones... I gave you the link for dinosaur bones and collagen, I think you have no intent to discuss anything or give any evidence, so far all you do is make grandiose claims that make no sense what so ever... The collagen in dinosaur bones is unexpected but it does not indicate that dinosaurs lived less than 6,000 years ago, in fact if you had indeed read the link i gave you would have learned something about what is really going on from the scientist who actually found the collagen and the fact that no intact DNA was found. a closed mind is an ugly thing... Edited May 18, 2012 by Moontanman 1
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Posted May 18, 2012 Really? "AGCT" and "AGCTAGCT" have the same amount of information? How about "AGCT" and "AGCTTCGA"? please stop referring to dawkins books for science lessons ( i will read all of his books in the next week or so) he has deluded a large many a number of people into thinking his own personal opinions have an actual bearing on reality (which they do indirectly i guess because he influences so many other people) if you are giving an example from real life what example is it? trisomy 21 seems to just be making an additional copy of already existing information....(or other mutations which might just rearrange things) there is no "new" information coming along so to speak...
ydoaPs Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Really? "AGCT" and "AGCTAGCT" have the same amount of information? How about "AGCT" and "AGCTTCGA"? please stop referring to dawkins books for science lessons ( i will read all of his books in the next week or so) he has deluded a large many a number of people into thinking his own personal opinions have an actual bearing on reality (which they do indirectly i guess because he influences so many other people) if you are giving an example from real life what example is it? trisomy 21 seems to just be making an additional copy of already existing information....(or other mutations which might just rearrange things) there is no "new" information coming along so to speak... Where did I even once mention Dawkins that wasn't this sentence or a direct quote of you?
Ringer Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 trisomy 21, if someone wants to use this as evidence of macro-evolution...well enough said? i assume no one does and richard dawkins knows of it but why would he give an answer like that on tape?, or why would someone on tv say it (knowing that it makes evolution look silly)? btw too theres no new information coming into being its just a copy...( and look what it does to someone? ?????? Don't start misrepresenting me. Trisomy 21 was used as an example of information being added to the genome, not evolution. These are separate things, though they are involved with each other. The question wasn't information that was helpful to an organism, if you want that look up auto-polyploidy or hybridization in plants for fairly straight forward examples. There are many more if you care to look. Copies are new information, though not novel information. The interaction of genes changes causing novel traits or else Down Syndrome would not be a problem. You could also use Klinefelter's Syndrome to show the interaction, or just look at the plant examples. You could also look up horizontal gene transfer, which is very obviously adding novel information. yah yah i wasnt proposing my own model just posting ideas to get a rational discussion going... and thanks for your thoughtful responses.. You seemed to propose the Creation model, so evidence for it is needed. Unless you just want talk about evolution and ignore other models, which I'd be happy to do. yah thats what i mean google "dinosaur bones collagen"... the evolutionary model says dinos are x million years old or whatever and a bone still has identifiable collagen in it.... that doesnt "prove" they are x amount of years "young" so to speak but its an interesting thought... Apologies, I misread your statement. As to them finding soft tissue, it probably wasn't: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/preserved-dinos/ http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808 and the carbon thing, just saying as soon as c14 is found in something it has to be less than 100k years old or whataver or it would of decayed back off into n14 already, is that right or? Which is why it isn't used to age dinosaur fossils (also, it's 50,000 years). They use isotopes with a half-life over one million years old. Here's a little introduction to it: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm Note that this isn't the only way to show the age of the Earth. in summary i have no scientific evidence for "creation" but want people to realise n-d-t is bunkrupt of any scientific evidence whatsoever... If there is no other model the current one cannot be displaced. Even if it only explained one very specific example and nothing else it would be used over nothing. Until another model better explains the current evidence as well as makes more accurate prediction it our current model will be used. Remember, wrong by degrees. As to, what I assume is, neo-Darwinian Theory (n-d-t) being bankrupt of scientific evidence; do you agree that there is competition among, as well as within, species? I showed a few ways in which evolution could be disproved, none of these things have happened. Not only that, nothing has been shown to disprove evolution. On the contrary every bit of evidence supports what is expected with the evolutionary model. 2
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Posted May 18, 2012 hay i will read about polyploidy then. also i have been posting here for less than 24 hrs and my profile has already been "thumbed" down or something (lol?) this is what questioning evolution does.... also with c14 dating i am going to email a lab and ask this-if i have what i think is a dinosaur bone will you c14 date it for me ( i dont really have one but id like to know), i would like to hear what there answer is and if it is "no" i would like to know why ( i loosely understand they have that predesignated position in the strata or fossil record or whatever so they already "know" the date they are aiming for kind of thing?) i dont see how/why they would say yes because if it did have c14 in it....well...can someone guess the implications this has? also to the person posting after my posts/voting down my profile or whatever i was indoctrinated into the public school system just like you (evolution/big bang/ etc) but am just starting to question this now...so please let me question and dont delete me or whatever..lol science (real science) =questions "As to, what I assume is, neo-Darwinian Theory (n-d-t) being bankrupt of scientific evidence; do you agree that there is competition among, as well as within, species? " hmm i dont understand by what you mean competition? if you mean nature "selects" if you will what survives, this i agree (obv) but darwins "evolution via natural selection"..well..im starting to disagree with the "evolution" part of that...(as is obv obv lol) "I showed a few ways in which evolution could be disproved, none of these things have happened. Not only that, nothing has been shown to disprove evolution. On the contrary every bit of evidence supports what is expected with the evolutionary model." so has novel/functional genetic information been observed to arrive from one generation to the next? this is what im after? ( i guess you may have already cited some and i will start reading about that now) ok thanks for your time -1
ydoaPs Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 so has novel/functional genetic information been observed to arrive from one generation to the next? this is what im after? ( i guess you may have already cited some and i will start reading about that now) ok thanks for your time Once upon a time, there was no such thing as Nylon and hence no such thing as Nylon byproducts. Then we invented Nylon and its byproducts. A strain of flavobacterium then evolved the ability to digest such byproducts. 4
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Posted May 18, 2012 hay they were able to replicate this in like 9 days or something so it wasnt through mutations, again nothing novel was added (there was no mutations) somehow the bacteria just adapted to different food sources (like that ecoli experiment) even if by mutations some things do gain the ability to use different food sources its because of a loss of specificity of an enzyme so it starts accepting different substrates..i will not be replying to your posts anymore because of what youve been doing on other threads...
Recommended Posts