Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 91 of 141 (258286)
11-09-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NosyNed
11-09-2005 5:56 PM


Re: RATE group publications
Hi, Ned, looks like you`ll have to buy the book 'Thousands, not Billions'--$13.95--coming to a store near ICR.
RATE News Release
Nov 7, 2005
San Diego (Santee), CA -- On November 5, the Institute for Creation Research hosted a creation science conference to a sell-out crowd of 2,300 participants. Conference attendees eagerly heard the results of an eight-year scientific research project called RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.
During the conference, four key RATE scientists presented their findings and answered questions from the audience. Conference attendees also viewed the premiere showing of the newly-released 48-minute RATE documentary Thousands . Not Billions. After the conference, 500 of the participants also attended an open house at the newly-expanded ICR Museum of Creation and Earth History.
Eight years ago, not knowing what they would find, the RATE Team set out to take a closer look at radioisotope dating which has been the basis for the argument that the earth is old, a necessary component for the theory of evolution. The RATE Team’s discoveries strongly support a young age for the earth, and thus seriously challenge evolution.
The RATE Team discovered:
Conventional radioisotope dating methods are inconsistent and therefore not reliable. In dating the same rock layer, radioisotope dating showed four different ages.
Substantial amounts of helium found in crystals within granite. If the earth evolved over billions of years, all the helium should have already escaped.
Radiohalos in rocks caused by the decay of uranium and polonium, which strongly suggests a rapid decay rate, not gradual decay over billions of years.
Diamonds thought to be millions/billions of years old by evolutionists contain significant levels of carbon-14. Since carbon-14 decays quickly, none should have been found in the diamonds if the evolutionary age is correct.
For more information or to schedule a media interview about the RATE research, call Kathryn Mokan at (619) 448-0900, ext. 6013.
Download a free copy of the 2000 book: "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth -- A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative." 2.8 MB PDF
Project RATE is a joint research initiative sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research of San Diego, California and the Creation Research Society of St. Joseph, Missouri. Funding for this project came from private donations to ICR.
Love that gilding the lily---'sell-out crowd of 2300'---'eagerly heard'. Still pushing the polonium halos, I notice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2005 5:56 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2005 10:17 PM Nighttrain has replied
 Message 107 by MangyTiger, posted 11-11-2005 12:52 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 92 of 141 (258335)
11-09-2005 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Nighttrain
11-09-2005 8:17 PM


Looks like nothing new then.
It appears they had a big public announcement of already long published "results". Results which have been heavily critisized already and I've yet to see someone supply answers to the critisms.
The recent publishing of old material doesn't excuse not answering old critisisms does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Nighttrain, posted 11-09-2005 8:17 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Nighttrain, posted 11-09-2005 11:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 93 of 141 (258346)
11-09-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by NosyNed
11-09-2005 10:17 PM


Re: Looks like nothing new then.
Weeeeel, y`see, they have this mind-blind that they draw down in times of crisis. It filters out any refutation of their original statements. Hardly takes up any room. Lets you say 'No one has ever been able to refute us'. Hallelujah, brother. Aka as Gishitis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2005 10:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 94 of 141 (258420)
11-10-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by nwr
11-09-2005 8:10 PM


Re: On kinds
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by nwr, posted 11-09-2005 8:10 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 10:12 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2005 11:08 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 141 (258422)
11-10-2005 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 10:06 AM


Re: On kinds
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.
Well, no, it's not. What has been scientifically proven is that all genomes are ultimately decended from a single ancestor; if there are any original "kinds" at all, there's only one - the common ancestor.
There's no evidence at all of some kind of limited mutability of genomes; the genomes of organisms are infinitely mutable through evolutionary mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 10:06 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 12:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 96 of 141 (258472)
11-10-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
11-10-2005 10:12 AM


Re: On kinds
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 10:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 1:04 PM Evopeach has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 141 (258497)
11-10-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 12:40 PM


Re: On kinds
Lets see that proof in a concise set of uncontested references
Well, wait, now. Concise? You're talking about analyses of the genomes of every living thing on Earth. And you expect that to be concise?
I recognize that you're not equipped to deal with a massive amount of highly technical scientific research, which is why you're asking for something concise. Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that, in fact, you do need technical knowledge in bioinformatics to understand or rebut the proof that all genomes ultimately decended from a common ancestor? Why do you suppose it is that scientists have to go to school for years to perform and understand this sort of research?
What made you think that you could simply dismiss all that work and proof simply because you're not equipped to understand it? Or are you trying to assert that evolution is false because the massive amount of proof for it can't be simply boiled down into a few paragraphs on a website? "Argument from too much proof." That's a new one, even among creationists.
And the variation within kinds like size, color, sugar concentration, kernals/head ect. ad finitum have nothing to do with mutation.
Untrue. We do know that all of those alternate alleles are the product of mutations on prior alleles; we've observed the process of mutation give rise to new, advantageous alleles both in the lab and in the wild.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 12:40 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 102 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 4:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 98 of 141 (258507)
11-10-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
11-10-2005 1:04 PM


Re: On kinds
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 1:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 3:07 PM Evopeach has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 141 (258570)
11-10-2005 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 1:34 PM


Re: On kinds
I take it you have no proof to offer just excuses.. noted for the record.
I've got plenty of proof. What's your background in bioinformatics?
That was selective breeding and had NADA to do with random mutation.
Not so. The initial variability between individuals in regards to sugar content was a result of random mutation.
Selection is not mutation, you're correct. But selection is meaningless on clones. The reason that there is variation within a population to begin with is the result of random mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 1:34 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 4:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 141 (258591)
11-10-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Schra ??
quote:
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.
OK, so how do I determine what "kind" of creature something is?
What specific system and criteria do we use to make distinctions?
For example, how many "kinds" are there in the world right now, approximately?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 3:34 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 101 of 141 (258625)
11-10-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
11-10-2005 3:07 PM


Re: On kinds
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 3:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 6:32 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 102 of 141 (258633)
11-10-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
11-10-2005 1:04 PM


Re: On 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 1:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2005 6:33 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 105 by nwr, posted 11-10-2005 8:01 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 108 by nator, posted 11-11-2005 7:50 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 141 (258655)
11-10-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 4:25 PM


Re: On kinds
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
Am I?
Do you know how many mutations you have? I can tell you (within a certain bound.) Do you know?
Mutations happen considerably more often than you seem prepared to admit. If you're not aware of this, then you lack the background in genetics to intelligently address the issue.
There are non-mutant related variations within kind and every biologist in the world but you recognizes it..
No, there's not. All heritable variation within a population is ultimately related to genetic alleles; the only source of new alleles is mutation. That's accepted science. (By everyone but you, apparently.)
Can you provide your reference for "every biologist in the world"?
also known limits to such variation...
No known limits. Sorry, but you're simply wrong. There is no scientific evidence for any sort of "limit" to variation within a population. Mutation constitutes a limitless source of genetic novelty. Again, this is accepted science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 4:25 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 141 (258656)
11-10-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 4:40 PM


Re: On kinds
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.
What's the evidence for your assertion that intelligent self-awareness in humans is genetic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 4:40 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 105 of 141 (258674)
11-10-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 4:40 PM


Re: On 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.
Given the genome of one person, you could not even deduce the genome of that person's mother. Do you think this implies that our theory of birth is wrong, and babies really come from storks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 4:40 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024