Questions Creationists Never Answer

1) The bible defines kind rather explicitly as that which contains within its seed the capability to bring forth its own offspring.
This can only refer to the genome which is determinative of what an offspring will be gentically, morphologically , etc. So the original number of kinds would be precisely the original number of unique genomes before a single variation had taken effect. This would of course be orders of magnitude smaller than the number of species at a later point in time due to the built in range of variation in the genome and later the variation caused by interbreeding, mutations, etc.If one takes a single sample of material and makes multiple readings from that one sample it would be surprising indeed to get bi-polar answers for an estimate arrived at by analytically identical methods.The bias in the results is almost always in the direction of "too old" and consistently so because one of the errors is the assumption that no material is lost by any method other than redioactive decay.. without any support I may say. There is zero chance of any material being added to the sample over its life as there is no mechanism for such, but there are plenty of ways material could be lost. Thus the errors or biases always occur in the same mistakenly older direction.I would expect that the flood mechanisms of rain and subterranian volcanization, earthquakes, sunamis, etc. would have resulted in enourmous mixing, swirling, displacement and it would be remarkable to have lighter objects at the bottom plus fossilized grass must be fairly rare. As a matter of fact inversion layers are quite common in the geolgic column.

I ventured an answer to three questions but you commented on only one... maybe later.I suggest you review The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris where you will find rather complete answers for your questions from a Phd in Geology and Hydrology having quite good credentials in text book writing and teaching etc. in these subjects.How would one explain the fact that nowhere on earth is there a complete geologic column and there is no world-wide nonconformity.. period.You make it sound as though there is little or no evidence for flood geology yet we both know much better. As always there is evidence for both positions and it is in the eye of the beholder often as to the interpretation.Your defining the creation account in your terms and then attacking it is called a logical fallacy.. straw man.. no pun intended.

Sorry but you haven't explained how material is added... clearly impossible in either case.But leaching out of the original material (parent) is quite likely and more likely because its obviously been around longer than the daughter product (sort of by definition) and that is a major source of error which biases toward older ages. You know water transport and such.Actually radiocarbon dating uses C14 to C14 comparisons.. no daughter involved.

NO just wanted to refute your claim that all methods require ratios of parent to daughter... just so.I suggest you read the RATE project material before swallowing whole the traditional evolutionary geologists claims.You know these things depend on the solution of differential equations and assumptions about initial conditions, constant decay rates and boundary values.. I would be cautious about my dead certain assertions.Nothing so concentrates a man's attention as a good hanging.

I gave an answer to teh definition of kinds. May I take it that the answer was satisfactory and thus no rebuttal. If so that's one answer you must not have received previously.. the logical one.

Actually his post contained three questions and the first I believe was concerning the definition of kind. I answered all three to be complete in my response. Perhaps you should read the entire post before interjecting your views into the conversation.

Unless I am supposed to read the Wien paper there was nothing left to followup on that I can determine.When one dismisses the RATE project as unscientific out of hand just because the people who performed it are people of faith and Creationists regardless of their academic credentials and the time and money spent, the excellent scholarship and referencing they provide and that the project was privately not publically funded simply demonstrates that there is no work that will ever be seriously considered by this forum from another perspective... yet I am to read, study and capitualate to your groups recommended readings.

I fully intend to read the material furnished. However the RATE project was published this year after 4 years of work by qualified people. Thus Wien could not have referenced or read or considered that work since his was a 2002 effort and that an update to an earlier version.Your term lousy science... is that a studied highly academic term based on a careful review or just hip shooting at work you never glanced at and predetermined to attack both scientifically and personally. Never mind I know the answer to that.

The first few chapters of Genesis specifically refer to the seed within fruit ( and by logic all life) as the source for the new fruit which is kind following kind.This can only mean the genome of a kind was unique in its reproduction via genes turned on and off , etc. to deliver a specific kind after kind sexual reproduction. In fact it is a specific and highly specicic and prediction and description of precisely what we have always experienced in reproduction. (unless you believe in saltation)Of course after a while the effects of imperfection in reproduction set in plus the natural variation and other factors to permit homological and morphological vairaition including speciation.Although imperfect I would say Genus was close to original kind.

I think shoe boxing into present terminology is imperfect of course as I said.The main point is that kind after kind based on the internal seed which clearly is used to cover all life forms then extant is a totally remarkable and scientifically proven prediction of Creationism based on design.The kinds are defined by the orginal number of unique genomes in the context of which genes are turned on and off etc. which of course permitted a great deal, but limited, variation in appearance, etc. within the kind.

Proven that every genome decended from a single genome. Lets see that proof in a concise set of uncontested references, are there fossil genomes with transitional genomes, is this the so called junk DNA that more and more is being found useful... proven PUKE!I know chimps are 95% like us but thats just to provide cover for evos who want to mate with them... any chimera in the audience today.And the variation within kinds like size, color, sugar concentration, kernals/head ect. ad finitum have nothing to do with mutation. Its simply permitted you know like I.Q. hair color, height.And for such there is no argument or dispute.

I take it you have no proof to offer just excuses.. noted for the record.And for one, take the efforts to increase the sugar concentration in sugar beets all done over a very short time frame and with good results up to about 17% which was the natural genomic limit and has not been exceeded. That was selective breeding and had NADA to do with random mutation. See random means unguided and unplanned and without purpose.Unless now in your Orwellian NewSpeak you're redefining another scientific term to fit your purposes. I know random means dead certain

"In 1800, experiments were conducted in France to increase the amount of sugar in table beets (at the time around 6 percent). Artificial selection was conducted on a large scale, selecting the sweetest to produce seed for the next crop. By 1878, the average sugar content of the table beets have risen to 17 percent. However, further selection failed to increase the sugar content from there on; the limits of genetic variation have been reached.If you think natural selection based on waiting around while the mutant roulette wheel accidently falls on an allelle that is specifically tied to sugar concentration unguided, unknowingly time and time again in a sequential circumstance that results in 200% increase in concentration of sugar rather than articicail selection " selective breeding" then you are nuts and I refer to you Pierre Grasse as my reference.There are non-mutant related variations within kind and every biologist in the world but you recognizes it.. also known limits to such variation... hence kinds.

So since you can prove that every genome can be traced back to the first genome it follows that you can in theory elucidate any particular genome from all those that follow it.So it should not be at all difficult for you to reconstruct any particular genome because you have proved that teh sequence is reality and thus have a complete understanding of the process, its results over time and how to analyze them.I want to see another say 100 steps in the Wolf to Whale genome and then lets go for it all and see the very first genome...it would be much simpler I suppose.Can I see the gene that somewhere between the time I eat my eggs and ham,, digest it,, convert it to energy in ATP, transfer/transduce the energy into electrical impluses, transmit them through the central nervous system to my cerebral cortex,, etc. the gene that somewhere in there generates the cognitive thought, intellect, ect that permits me to analyze this entire process in the brain.Bacon and Eggs to General Relativity.. all by chance and fortuitous selection. LOL