Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 12 of 135 (510910)
06-04-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
06-04-2009 2:25 PM


bluegenes writes:
Now, Evo, show me your peer reviewed support.
Sure. No problem.
quote:
Gibbons, A. 1998. Calibrating the mitochondrial clock. Science 279: 28-29.
Ingman, M., H. Kaessmann, S. Pbo and U. Gyllensten. 2000. Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans. Nature 408: 708-713.
Kaessmann, H., F. Heissig, A. von Haeseler and S. Pbo. 1999. DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the human X chromosome. Nature Genetics 22: 78-81.
Loewe, L. and S. Scherer. 1997. Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12(11): 422-423
You see, Parsons studied the control region of the mitochondria which comprises less than 7% of the total. When the entire mitochondria was taken into account, the age of the most recent common ancestor was placed at about 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.
Studies of the non-recombining portion of the X chromosome placed the ancestor at about 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago. However, since the number of X chromosomes is effectively 3 times that of the mitochondria, the most recent common X chromosome ancestor should be about three times that of the mitochondrial eve. Surprise! Surprise! That turns out to be the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2009 2:25 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2009 5:07 PM pandion has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 20 of 135 (510952)
06-05-2009 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


Fun with others
Here's another that seems to rely on a failure to actually read the science.
quote:
7.Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
In fact, none of the above were found. Just as the fossilized dinosaur bones retained the shape of the of the original bone, so did certain structures in the interior of the intact femur. There were some small spots that had the shape of blood cells, but there was no hemoglobin. Heme was found, which is an iron compound. Neither did these so called "cells" have cell walls, it is incorrect to characterize them as "blood cells." Blood cell remnants would be more correct.
The same is true with the "blood vessels." These structures were flexible (after the rock had been dissolved with acid) but they were not made of protein. The best that can be said is that they did contain some short sequences of amino acids and that they, like the whole bone, retained the original shape.
So, the claim that hemoglobin, osteocalcin, and collagen were found are incorrect. Heme was found - not hemoglobin. Short sequences of amino acids that are typical of sequences that are found in the proteins osteocalcin and collagen were also identified, but these sequences are far too short to be called osteocalcin or collagen.
It is a bit of a wonder that any of these things should actually have been found. This was a very special case. In the past, the inside of fossilized bones has been studied only when the fossil has been found in pieces. Intact fossils are not cut in order to peek inside. However, this fossil (the femur of a large T. rex) was intact and so large that it could not be removed from the remote dig site without cutting it in half. A helicopter large enough to lift the fossil, the huge amount of matrix surrounding it, and the plaster cast to protect it was not available. Thus, the interior of the fossil was available for examination.
If you consider that fossils are mineralized from the outside in, one might expect that the inside of a massive bone would be sealed as the outside fossilized. Thus, the interior of this massive bone was sealed inside an impervious layer of rock that had once been dinosaur bone. While actual dinosaur tissue was not preserved, iron compounds and short strands of amino acids were preserved in their original shape.
Creationist arguments about quick fossilization depend on the abundance of mineralized water. Not the case here. This specimen was found in the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. It is very dry. The K-T boundary is quite evident in these formations. This fossil was found in an almost inaccessible hill-side (no roads) just below the K-T boundary somewhere around Jordan, MT.
If anyone finds himself in Montana and would like to see the K-T boundary then he should visit Pompey's Pillar National Monument, about 25 miles NE of Billings on IH 94. This structure is a remnant of the Hell Creek Formation. William Clark (of Lewis and Clark) carved his name in 1806. About 1/3 of the way up the mesa the K-T boundary is quite visible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 24 of 135 (510995)
06-05-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


Number 37 - Erosion at Niagara Falls
quote:
37. Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood.
How bizarre that any event that took place in the past that can be stated in thousands of years somehow becomes evidence for mythological events that were supposed to have occurred 4,500 or 6,000 years ago. Take # 3 for example. Of course, for creationists the accumulation of genetic diversity in the genome becomes "decay" in a few thousand years. Try 70,000 years, when our ancestral human population underwent a severe bottleneck. This was before the last exodus from Africa and was very nearly an extinction event.
Likewise, the thousands of years stated in the 150,000 year hypothesis of the mitochondrial Eve, and the 60,000 to 90,000 year hypothesis of the y-chromosomal Adam become the same "few thousand years."
But why would anyone presume that the progress of the falls upstream from the Niagara escarpment had anything to do with the mythical flood of Noah. But again, the 4,500 year span is equated to the 12,000 years of erosion since the retreat of the the falls. All periods of "thousands of years" somehow become 6,000 and 4,500 years and "prove" a young earth.
The truth is much clearer. The Great Lakes were carved out by the advance of glaciers during the last ice age that began about 110,000 years ago. The flow of the Niagara River from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario began when the glaciers receded northward beyond the location of the river and the vast amounts of melt-water that filled the lakes began to flow to the Atlantic through the St. Laurence. That was a bit more than 12,000 years ago. There is no evidence around the Niagara River of a global flood. In fact, the relatively hard limestone and dolostone that forms the surface layer around the falls is not a flood deposit and could not have lithified to the extent that it has in 4,500 years. That doesn't even take into consideration that underlying the surface is a layer of shale, which is another sedimentary rock that is not formed by floods.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "- Erosion at Niagara Falls" to the subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 34 of 135 (511484)
06-10-2009 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by dwise1
06-09-2009 1:18 PM


Re: The Bunny Blunder, yet again
dwise1 writes:
snip of impressive analysis of creationist nonsense
I usually don't approve of responses that are nothing more than vacuous cheer-leading. Here I'm going to make an exception. That was an excellent post. I hope you see this before the moderators hide it as "off topic".
Edited by pandion, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 06-09-2009 1:18 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-10-2009 1:51 AM pandion has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 35 of 135 (511485)
06-10-2009 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Nuggin
06-09-2009 2:45 PM


Re: C-14
Nuggin writes:
The profoundly stupid thing about their argument is this:
They use C-14 dating 4 times on their list saying that it gives an age in "thousands of years".
While we ALL KNOW the mistake they deliberately made was done so to mislead the ignorant, the bigger point is this:
The INCORRECT date they came up with is STILL TOO OLD for their claim!!!
It's even worse than that. Over the years I have seen creationists cite C-14 dating of archaeological sites in the Levant as evidence of the "truth" of the Bible. Funny that creationists can reject C-14 dating out of one side of their mouth and praise it in support of scripture out of the other. It seems that C-14 dates are reliable back to about 4,500 years ago when a global FLUD event somehow adjusted rates of radio active decay. All dates older than 4,500 ya actually date to the single year of the FLUD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Nuggin, posted 06-09-2009 2:45 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 37 of 135 (511500)
06-10-2009 2:50 AM


Without any intent to respond to any particular post, I have become aware of a forum on this board for the purpose of recognizing exceptional posts. I have recognized a post in this thread in that forum.
http://EvC Forum: June, 2009, Posts of the Month -->EvC Forum: June, 2009, Posts of the Month

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 84 of 135 (518242)
08-04-2009 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by wirkkalaj
08-04-2009 12:41 PM


Re: Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
wirkkalaj writes:
Here's a recent article about that T-Rex bone that they found back in '05 that still had "soft tissue" preserved!
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Wow! That's impressive. MSNBC as a source of scientific information.
And, it's just like a creationist to keep repeating debunked information over and over again. Is that because you don't understand what you were told?
Way back in Post 20 of this thread I discussed this. It was in response to item #7 on the list of creationist "evidences." Some here were actually interested in this event and actually read more than an MSNBC blurb. I told you what I had understood from my reading on that subject. Perhaps Coyote can offer some corrections to my post (I'm willing to learn), but the dinosaur bone in question doesn't demonstrate a young age for the earth any more than the Grand Canyon does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 12:41 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 86 of 135 (518266)
08-04-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by wirkkalaj
08-04-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Dinosaur Depictions
wirkkalaj writes:
This dinosaur petroglyph can be found at Natural Bridges, National Monument Utah
Actually, it is thought to be a rattle snake, coiled to strike. You an see the diamond shaped head and the rattles on the tail. It's a bit weathered though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 7:34 AM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 92 of 135 (518286)
08-04-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Coyote
08-04-2009 11:30 PM


Re: reality testing
And a rattle snake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 11:30 PM Coyote has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 107 of 135 (518869)
08-09-2009 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:33 PM


Re: reality testing
wirkkalaj writes:
Oh please! Carbon Dating issues arise all of the time that are discarded or ignored by Evolutionists.
Really? Tell us about them. But I have a special problem with creationists who reject carbon dating when it comes to "evolution" and yet sing its praises when it comes to establishing the dates of archaeological digs that support the history of the Bible. It is also a problem that creationists believe that carbon-14 is used to date fossils.
I could list numerous examples, but here's one. With their short 5,700-year half-life, carbon 14 atoms should not exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.
What evidence do you have that the only source of C-14 is from cosmic ray interaction in the atmosphere? Do you think that it might be possible that other types of radiation, like the decay of radioactive elements in the earth, might actually have something to do with this? Do you understand that the earth is full of uranium, radon, radium, thorium, and other radioactive elements, and that some of these are near and even intermixed with carbon in the strata that you are so worried about? Do you believe that none of these strata have ground water running through them that carry carbon and thus contaminate the samples? Speaking of contamination, are you not aware that creationists, through stupidity and clumsiness, have been known to contaminate their own samples? Why is it that creationists discard these issues?
{We are trying to get the C14 discussion to go instead to one of the C14 topic, one of which was linked to upthread. To all - Please end the C14 subthread here - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : The red block of text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:33 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 130 of 135 (520787)
08-24-2009 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by holerelay
08-23-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Odd spam hidden
{For unknown reasons, someone registered 3 months ago, and this is the members first message.- Adminnemooseus}
It smacked of Heaven's Gate complex to me. Or even Jim Jones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by holerelay, posted 08-23-2009 1:19 PM holerelay 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