Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 151 of 161 (709236)
10-22-2013 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 9:15 AM


Re: Database alignment and searching.
Rates are slow now. This means that they overestimate time periods when comparing ratios of parent to daughter isotopes. Without the slowdown, rocks would rapidly decay into daughter isotopes
Every time I read this paragraph something nagged at me so I finally sat down to think about this a bit.
In the case of U-238, the daughter products (except for lead 206) decay much faster than U-238, but a couple of them are still relatively long lived. If the decay of U-238 consisted of a rapid period of decay long ago, we see essentially no daughter products now except lead to represent the original U-238 that had decayed when. This is the scenario you propose.
On the other hand if the date of decay were always as slow as it is now, we would still have larger amounts of some of the more longer lived daughter products like U234 and Th 230 than your proposal suggests. In fact, we can calculate exactly how much of these things there ought to be by measuring just the lead 206 and the U238 using each scenario.
In fact U-234 Th230 dating rules out your scenario having occurred anytime in the last 1,000,000 years, let alone 4400 to 1700 years ago. Your suggestion is simply not consistent with the facts.
And no I'm not going to do your homework for you. At least not until you provide a reference for your neutrons stop tooth decay garbage.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 9:15 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 152 of 161 (709239)
10-22-2013 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by bluegenes
10-22-2013 10:11 PM


Rapid evolution after Noah
So, as I suggested to Faith earlier, the only thing for YECs to do is to argue for a very high mutation rate since Noah, especially early on.
John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym for a high school teacher named Jan Peczkis), in his article titled The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms, posted on the answersingenesis.org website, has argued this very thing. He writes:
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow9], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
So Woodmorappe sees the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man taking place since the Babel incident, which occurred after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.
Homo ergaster is dated to between about 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago, so the change from that critter to modern man took at least 1.1 million years. Now creationists propose a change from modern man to Homo ergaster in about 4,500 years (with instant fossilization and burial, along with a return to normal evolutionary rates). This post-Babel change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of 250 times as rapid as scientists see for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man!
Most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all. Now creationists have not only proposed such a change themselves, but they see it operating 250 times faster and in reverse!
No wonder creation "science" is considered to be such a joke.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by bluegenes, posted 10-22-2013 10:11 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 6:38 AM Coyote has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 153 of 161 (709242)
10-23-2013 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by bluegenes
10-22-2013 10:11 PM


Re: When natural selection can't keep up with mutation.....
Yes. That's the inevitable course of the thread.
Please note there are so many variables, that I am agreeing only that current rates in that 3.2 mb section do not conform with a 4500 year time period. The extent is largely unknown.
The use of the genome of only one individual "A" to establish most of those variants has insufficient scope to be truly confident in the conclusions. If they had used 35 "A" individuals and 35 of the rest, we could be more confident that they matched the sections/sequences before comparing them. Remember 600 of the ~2000 variants were found in the "A" individual. Any error in matching sequences would have been exacerbated through the low numbers in the sample (one rare individual, 35 common ones). I know they are confident of their results, nevertheless there is a principle that the smaller the sample the less confidence we have in the results.
In addition the exact rate of accumulation of germline mutations in the y-chromosome compared to the elimination through recombination in other areas of the genome is unknown, unless you can find a study to show the differences in germline accumulation over time. I cannot find clear figures anywhere on this effect of the lack of recombination over time.
What I was talking about is the relative differences on different lineages back to the point of a common Y ancestor. The fastest can have about 50% more mutations than the slowest, meaning that the variance (which relates to all the variant factors we've been discussing) is about 25% either side of the average. I then pointed out that if we generously assume the Chinese 13 generations to be as slow as the slowest lineage, the highest mutating lineages are going at about 4.5*10-8, to which I could add that the average rate would be ~3.75*10-8. Bear in mind that, assuming 180 generations back to a 4,500 year old common Y ancestor, you need the average mutation rate over time to be ~52*10-8 to account for 300 mutations from the ancestor on any lineage on that 3.2Mb section.
Ok but of course I'm disputing your 50% variance through 3 additional factors in the past:
A) Lifestyle
B) Paternal age
C) Radiation
So I feel your point above is irrelevant due to our ongoing discussions about factors that would increase the mutations rates above the modern observed range of mutation rates.
Nice to see a Christian posting research that points out the possible benefits of female promiscuity. Yes, I know all this, and agree, but it doesn't support your claim. See below
You started off arguing for an average generation gap of 18!
He means that people like Shem, Terah and Abraham are health hazards. I agree
Yes, that's all fine. Now, work it out with this model. Lineage "X" goes back to the common ancestor with an average generation gap of 36 years, and therefore twice the mutations per generation than lineage "Z", which has a generation gap of 20 years, and therefore 1.8 times as many generations back to the ancestor. Take both back to the time of their common ancestor, and the result is a ratio of 10 mutations (for X) to each 9 (for Z). You see greater differences than that on the phylogenetic tree chart!
.
Lol! I assume you promote promiscuity if its "nice to see".
I understand your maths, however its not that simple if you take into account the exponential effect with age, ie the number of mutations approximately double up every 16 years:
3 mutations at 20
6 mutations at 36
12 mutations at 52
24 mutations at 68 (8 times the mutations at age 70 )
48 mutations at 82
96 mutations at 98
A couple of ancient fathers in each lineage would have a dramatic effect on the gaining of germline mutations, especially if there were exacerbating factors like excess radiation during their lifetimes. But I do admit that on its own, paternal age is not enough to explain the observed germline mutations.
.
Would you like to increase the early mutation level to the extent that every single individual conceived has a lethal mutation?
What happens is that population groups get rid of detrimental mutations by producing an average of more than 1 offspring per. adult. A population can then maintain stability, or increase in size, because the extras cover for chance accidental deaths and deaths due to detrimental mutations. But if the mutation rate increases, the percentage of conceptions with detrimental mutations increases, which means the number of births/conceptions per. adult needs to increase as well in order to maintain/increase the population size. There's a limit to how high mutation rates can go.
I understand this, but looking at my radiation argument, this relates specifically to the strength of the magnetic field which was stronger for quite a long period of time. (~2000 years). Its possible that higher birth rates and the length of time would have minimized the effect you are referring to, unless you have more exact figures that can strengthen your case.
For the moment, I'll leave your geophysics alone, apart from agreeing that higher radioactivity can increase mutation rates, and I'll discuss the genetic angle. What I think we should look into is estimates on the current (low radiation) detrimental mutation rate. By this I mean the rate per. individual born. I've seen this estimated as high as 1.3 per individual, with most of these causing only very mild decreases in fitness, but a minority, perhaps 10%, causing significant decreases. If that's about right, imagine increasing the whole genome mutation rate by 10 times. That would mean 13 new detrimentals per. head, at least one causing a significant decrease in fitness on its own. I think that would mean extinction.
What I'm wondering is whether humans could have a rate even double what it is now, and still have a growing population (without the help of modern medicine). I think we should look into it, so I'll check out the recent research.
What you're doing now is correct from a YEC point of view. You won't find significant inaccuracies in the research papers I've been using (remember the two recent similar studies I linked to that reflect the results of the first). So, as I suggested to Faith earlier, the only thing for YECs to do is to argue for a very high mutation rate since Noah, especially early on. I knew we would end up here, in the realm of implausibly high mutation rates, deformity and DEATH.
Cool, looking forward to your figures. I'm not sure of the proportion of the population that does have disabilities or reduced fitness levels, apparently about 2.5% are born with noticeable disabilities, but nearly everyone inherits some weakness that could result in slightly higher chances of death from a certain affliction. Even if early populations had a far higher proportion of disabilities, about 10%, I believe they would have coped. We can picture a scenario in which a farming family has about 10 offspring with 1 of those with a disability, there is no reason why that family would not survive, and the other 9 have offspring. And so 10% compared to 2.5 % would not wipe out the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by bluegenes, posted 10-22-2013 10:11 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by bluegenes, posted 10-23-2013 2:57 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 158 by bluegenes, posted 10-31-2013 3:46 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 154 of 161 (709243)
10-23-2013 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Coyote
10-22-2013 10:54 PM


Re: Rapid evolution after Noah
John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym for a high school teacher named Jan Peczkis), in his article titled The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms, posted on the answersingenesis.org website, has argued this very thing. He writes:
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow9], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
So Woodmorappe sees the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man taking place since the Babel incident, which occurred after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.
Homo ergaster is dated to between about 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago, so the change from that critter to modern man took at least 1.1 million years. Now creationists propose a change from modern man to Homo ergaster in about 4,500 years (with instant fossilization and burial, along with a return to normal evolutionary rates). This post-Babel change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of 250 times as rapid as scientists see for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man!
Most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all. Now creationists have not only proposed such a change themselves, but they see it operating 250 times faster and in reverse!
No wonder creation "science" is considered to be such a joke.
Outward changes and the establishment of new race groups can occur without any significant genetic change whatsoever. Allele frequencies can determine many changes, and allele frequencies can occur over a few generations.
Homo erectus, homo ergaster, and Neanderthals are merely extinct human race groups, nothing more. Its a big assumption to see an extinct race group and assume their bones are earlier then the early Sumerian civilization. We need very careful dating methodology to establish earlier dates, if you present your findings on the dating methods used for homo ergaster we can discuss this further but its probably more relevant to another thread.
Homo australopithus is quite simply an extinct ape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2013 10:54 PM Coyote has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 155 of 161 (709258)
10-23-2013 9:38 AM


Ignoring facts
Oh, Mindspawn...,
No comment on how your scenario would kill off pretty much all life, as documented in message 148? You're the one that's complained about sweeping statements without calculations and facts. Well, there's some calculations and facts you can't avoid.
And, of course, you are still ignoring the link in message 143. Just read the first message in the linked thread, that will show you the sort of calculations you have to do to establish your claims as viable.
Still waiting for a reference for your claim that neutrons slow radioactive decay rates. Still betting that you just made it up.

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 156 of 161 (709271)
10-23-2013 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 4:09 AM


Re: When natural selection can't keep up with mutation.....
mindspawn writes:
Please note there are so many variables, that I am agreeing only that current rates in that 3.2 mb section do not conform with a 4500 year time period. The extent is largely unknown.
The use of the genome of only one individual "A" to establish most of those variants has insufficient scope to be truly confident in the conclusions. If they had used 35 "A" individuals and 35 of the rest, we could be more confident that they matched the sections/sequences before comparing them. Remember 600 of the ~2000 variants were found in the "A" individual.
No, you've got it slightly wrong there. There are 470 loci on which the "A" individual differs from all the others, and none of the others differ. "A" is also involved in all the other variants in the sense that he differs from any mutation that has happened within the main group, because he has the original.
mindspawn writes:
Any error in matching sequences would have been exacerbated through the low numbers in the sample (one rare individual, 35 common ones). I know they are confident of their results, nevertheless there is a principle that the smaller the sample the less confidence we have in the results.
If that worries you, I can reassure you by telling you that there were 7 "A" individuals in the paper on 1200 Sardinians (it's not unusual to find a splash of African haplogroups in southern Europe), and they matched up very well. Unfortunately, that paper was only up for free for a brief period, and is now under a pay wall. Like our own paper, it showed that the "A"s are the slowest mutating group back to the ancestor. Both papers recapture the phylogeny of a 2008 paper, which was drawn up from other areas of the "Y", and was the most detailed up to that point.
mindspawn writes:
In addition the exact rate of accumulation of germline mutations in the y-chromosome compared to the elimination through recombination in other areas of the genome is unknown, unless you can find a study to show the differences in germline accumulation over time. I cannot find clear figures anywhere on this effect of the lack of recombination over time.
That factor only affects negatives. With the "Y", those are removed by the ending of defective paternal lines by negative selection. It's important to distinguish between mutations that happen on genes, and mutations that happen on the whole genome. Around 98% of SNPs will not happen on areas that have any great significance to the phenotype (coding+regulatory genes etc), and therefore will be effectively neutral. So, the "getting rid of negatives through recombination factor" isn't important when we're looking at largely neutral mutations and mutation rates to estimate historical things, like the time of existence of our common Y ancestor. But negative mutations are important if you propose very high mutation rates (see below).
mindspawn writes:
Ok but of course I'm disputing your 50% variance through 3 additional factors in the past:
A) Lifestyle
B) Paternal age
C) Radiation
So I feel your point above is irrelevant due to our ongoing discussions about factors that would increase the mutations rates above the modern observed range of mutation rates.
Those factors exist in both past and present. If we looked at (A)lifestyle, we could ask whether people are more likely to have chemical mutagens involved in their lives now and in the recent past, or in the long distant past, couldn't we? As for (B), paternal age, we might find research that suggests that it is higher than ever before in industrial societies. And (C), radiation, we could ask whether or not our own activities have increased our exposure to it over the last 60 years or so.
mindspawn writes:
Lol! I assume you promote promiscuity if its "nice to see".
Not really. I just thought it was nice in the sense that it made me laugh. I wondered if you understood that the implications were that the wives of people like Shem and Abraham would be better off hedging their bets (sleeping around) if they wanted a high chance of healthy offspring. Laughing aside, that point is actually very relevant to what we're discussing, and you actually linked to articles that made my point: high mutation is a health hazard.
mindspawn writes:
I understand your maths, however its not that simple if you take into account the exponential effect with age, ie the number of mutations approximately double up every 16 years:
3 mutations at 20
6 mutations at 36
12 mutations at 52
24 mutations at 68 (8 times the mutations at age 70 )
48 mutations at 82
96 mutations at 98
A couple of ancient fathers in each lineage would have a dramatic effect on the gaining of germline mutations, especially if there were exacerbating factors like excess radiation during their lifetimes.
No. A couple would make no measurable difference. For example, give them 10 times the Chinese mutation rate, and two 70 year olds would contribute 1 mutation each on our 3.Mb tree. If the 98 year olds were four times that, that would be 4 each. The chances of the 98 year olds producing sons with serious (but not necessarily disabling) detrimentals are definitely odds on. They would have mutations on a lot of actual genes. Which is why, as your paper suggested, their wives are better off playing around with toy boys.
mindspawn writes:
But I do admit that on its own, paternal age is not enough to explain the observed germline mutations.
Actually, there's no evidence to suggest that any human society ever had a sustained average paternity age of over 36 anyway.
.
mindspawn writes:
I understand this, but looking at my radiation argument, this relates specifically to the strength of the magnetic field which was stronger for quite a long period of time. (~2000 years). Its possible that higher birth rates and the length of time would have minimized the effect you are referring to, unless you have more exact figures that can strengthen your case.
I'll explain very broadly, with approximate figures, so that you might realise what you are claiming would mean. In the last post, I pointed out that you would require an average mutation rate over the "Y" of 52*10-8. At the 5:3 ratio, that means you're effectively proposing a mutation rate of 30*10-8 for the whole genome. That translates into about 900 SNPs per generation transfer. About 2% of the genome is composed of coding and regualtory areas that, for health reasons, you don't really want to bombard with radiation induced mutations. Normally, we might expect an average hit on these regions of about once per. generation transfer, but at your rate, we've got about 18 hits. These hits are thought to be almost always at least slightly detrimental, and can range through being more seriously disadvantageous, to fully disabling. To illustrate those loosely defined categories in relation to just one function, think of being slightly short sighted, very short sighted/visually impared, and genetically blind as examples.
The problem with your mutation rate is that, whereas now we might have about 2.5% (your figure) in the disabled category, and about 10% with a wide range of more minor (in the cushy modern world) disadvantaged category, and the rest of us with very minor defects, everyone would be quickly in the middle category, and the fully disabled would be about 18 times higher than at present. At your extraordinary mutation rate, natural selection has no time to rid the population of these detrimentals. And before you think of proposing a very high birth rate to absorb the mutational load, consider how many kids you would expect the average genetically disadvantaged woman to have and to be able to raise.
So, not only is there no positive evidence to actually support your high mutation period, your claim that it is possible is actually incorrect. It isn't possible.
Edited by bluegenes, : spellin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 4:09 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 157 of 161 (709290)
10-24-2013 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by mindspawn
10-14-2013 3:06 AM


Re: Database alignment and searching.
I need links, I need calculations. I don't care about the source of information, if the information makes sense then I respect it.
Well, you've got links and calculations. Which you obviously don't respect and are incapable of addressing. We ride into the sunset, leaving the charnel house that mindspawn's scenario would make of Earth as the fantasy that it is.
Message 148 and Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by mindspawn, posted 10-14-2013 3:06 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 158 of 161 (709927)
10-31-2013 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by mindspawn
10-23-2013 4:09 AM


Re: When natural selection can't keep up with mutation.....
mindspawn writes:
I'm not sure of the proportion of the population that does have disabilities or reduced fitness levels, apparently about 2.5% are born with noticeable disabilities, but nearly everyone inherits some weakness that could result in slightly higher chances of death from a certain affliction. Even if early populations had a far higher proportion of disabilities, about 10%, I believe they would have coped. We can picture a scenario in which a farming family has about 10 offspring with 1 of those with a disability, there is no reason why that family would not survive, and the other 9 have offspring. And so 10% compared to 2.5 % would not wipe out the population.
To add to my other reply, you don't seem to have worked out what your early rate would have to be in order to account for the "Y" mutations. You are multiplying by 4 when it should be ~20.
Here's a paper for you. At least 53/1000 people will have developed a genetic disorder before the age of 25. At your mutation rate, that would be the entire population.
The rates required to squeeze the human population into the standard YEC model are impossible, so the standard YEC model is falsified.
It's straightforward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mindspawn, posted 10-23-2013 4:09 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by mindspawn, posted 10-31-2013 4:36 AM bluegenes has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 159 of 161 (709928)
10-31-2013 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by bluegenes
10-31-2013 3:46 AM


Re: When natural selection can't keep up with mutation.....
Bluegenes, due to admin's attitude to moderation I will no longer be participating in these forums. You are welcome to message me privately and we can continue this discussion, thank you for your civility during our discussion.
This is a quote from admin, he is allowing both sides a "free for all" which obviously is to my disadvantage:
If you're not listening to my moderation and I'm not suspending you, then when others don't listen to my moderation how can I suspend them? Since so many are not listening to moderation my options are either to close the thread or just let things continue. I'm opting to keep the thread open.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by bluegenes, posted 10-31-2013 3:46 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by bluegenes, posted 10-31-2013 6:42 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 160 of 161 (709932)
10-31-2013 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by mindspawn
10-31-2013 4:36 AM


Re: When natural selection can't keep up with mutation.....
mindspawn writes:
Bluegenes, due to admin's attitude to moderation I will no longer be participating in these forums. You are welcome to message me privately and we can continue this discussion, thank you for your civility during our discussion.
This is a quote from admin, he is allowing both sides a "free for all" which obviously is to my disadvantage:
I would have thought that a "free for all" is to your advantage. It allows you to make unsupported claims, like suggesting an extremely high mutation rate for our species over a 2,000 year period.
So far as moderation is concerned, this thread has been entirely free, and we've established that the standard YEC model is false beyond reasonable doubt on human genetic information alone.
That's quite an achievement, don't you agree?
So, who needs moderation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by mindspawn, posted 10-31-2013 4:36 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 161 of 161 (710111)
11-01-2013 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by mindspawn
09-25-2013 8:51 AM


Re: post flood humans
Hi Mindspawn
... and if ancient Indian legend matches the most hospitable regions, mankind was living on the island of Siberia as we headed towards the flood (PT boundary). Most of the world was subject to glaciation and periodic extinctions, but the higher latitudes (Island of Siberia) were less susceptible. ...
Why not in a bubble on the moon?
I agree with relative ages. I also partially agree with radiometric dating to determine relative dates.
Based on relative ages there are millions of years of life recorded on earth between the K-Pg and P-T boundaries ...
And if you have trouble with radiometric dating see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? for the evidence for constant decay ... I've read your arguments against the dating techniques and the objective empirical evidence against you, and I see that your arguments don't hold water, certainly not enough for a flood.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by mindspawn, posted 09-25-2013 8:51 AM mindspawn 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