Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?

You claimed that there are only two functional alleles for each gene, but never cited any evidence to back that up. It still needs to be dealt with.

Note that some creationists, including Faith iirc, posit junk DNA as either a source of new alleles or as a repository to old ones no longer used.

To change from active DNA to junk DNA or vice versa would de facto take at least one mutation.

And of course you can take some one's allele DNA and make a copy of it from bits and pieces of junk DNA ... but that is not a test or validation of the concept: you could also do such rearrangements and end up with the DNA for an elephant.

Enjoy

If there was a different nature, (and science doesn't know either way) ...

Curiously science has tested and tested and tested to see if there was a "different nature" and have found no trace of it.

Uranium halos for example. See Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

My opinion at the moment is ...

Completely irrelevant. Opinions for some strange reason seem to have absolutely no effect on reality.

Wherever a nature change occurred is where we leave off being able to determine actual time for. So if a change was say, 4400 years ago, all dates beyond that determined by using decay would be bogus.

And yet we DO have several annual counting systems that don't rely on radioactive decay that show the earth is well over 500,000 years old and ... amazingly they agree totally with the radiometric dates.

You have yet to even pretend to attempt to posit an explanation for this. All you have is fantasy.

And yet, whether you like it or not, there is an amazing consilience of many different means of measurements all reaching the same conclusion.

So we have:

1. zero evidence of any change in the nature of things
   
2. actual evidence that there has been no change in the nature of things
   
3. no cause to posit a change in the nature of things

FAIL #3

Enjoy

Nothing needs to be ignored to have the flood at the KT time that I have heard about? ...

Then you haven't heard much of the evidence involved.

There are no ape -- to say nothing about human -- fossils found below the KT boundary. They don't show up until many millions of years later.

The KT boundary geology also shows absolutely no evidence of a world wide flying carpet magic flood.

... As for your decay dates, they are garbage. ...

Again an assertion without an ounce of evidence. One can assert that pigs fly and that unicorns are real, but sadly -- for you -- that doesn't make it real.

If you have evidence that decay dates are garbage then let's see it. You've already been asked several times for this. Failure to substantiate your claims make them worthless.

... No better than a belief in aun unproven same nature in the past.

Except that there is actual evidence for consistent nature in SN1987A, Oklo natural generators and the uranium halos, to say nothing of the massive evidence for an old world with annual counting systems corroborating radiometric dating methods at every pass, consistently arriving at the same results -- a fact you have yet to address in any shape or form.

Dodging from one thread to another does not relieve you of the onus to answer the issues that demonstrate you fantasy is just that: imagination.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

quote: Curiously science has tested and tested and tested to see if there was a "different nature" and have found no trace of it. False. The did not and could not.

Another empty assertion based on fantasy and ignorance and wishful thinking, but sadly, not on reality.

You're going to need more than that to have any kind of argument.

quote: Uranium halos for example. See Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? Not in any way. Explain how you think they are?

As I said, see the thread Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?.

Sadly I have to warn you that it is fairly evidence based and may be beyond your apparent understanding of how to make a valid argument: you have yet to provide one (1) →ONE← piece of evidence for any of your assertions.

quote: My opinion at the moment is ... Completely irrelevant. Opinions for some strange reason seem to have absolutely no effect on reality. Bible based opinions matter. Opinions from science with no support do not.

Sadly, for you (once more), this is a science forum topic and bible based opinions are totally irrelevant and to be ignored -- you need to provide actual evidence not opinions and desperate imaginings.

Because IFF that "bible based opinion" had ANY validity you would have scientific evidence for it ... and would not need the opinion.

quote: And yet we DO have several annual counting systems that don't rely on radioactive decay that show the earth is well over 500,000 years old and ... amazingly they agree totally with the radiometric dates. Name them? Why pretend?

Amusingly you have apparently abandoned the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread because you had no answer for the evidence there. You failed there and have moved on to other threads ... but that doesn't make the evidence go away.

Fail #4? I'm beginning to lose count ...

quote: You have yet to even pretend to attempt to posit an explanation for this. No I have no need to pretend to know about creaton and the far past, as science does. Phonies indeed.

Please see the forum guidlines.

You are on a science forum thread, and evidence is expected to support assertions -- objective empirical evidence (but you may not know what that entails ... )

quote: And yet, whether you like it or not, there is an amazing consilience of many different means of measurements all reaching the same conclusion. The ONLY consilience is in your mind and belief set. When you molest evidences with them, they look a certain way to you.

Says the person who can't get beyond the first posts on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 without running away gibbering ...

Once again, your opinion is worthless.

Once again, what is your evidence.

Fail #4

quote: So we have: zero evidence of any change in the nature of things History and Scripture disagree with you. They scream out that it was not the same. YOU have no evidence either way. Don't project onto me your failures.

History (and scripture, what can be tied to historical dates anyway) validated the tree ring data ... but you haven't even looked at the updated version The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) yet have you? Sad. See Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events. Please see the references ...

quote: actual evidence that there has been no change in the nature of things Runaway beliefs are not evidence.

And I'm glad that you agree with me that your runaway beliefs are not evidence, just as your rabid denial of the objective empirical evidence I have provided is just evidence of your inability to deal with reality.

Fail #5

quote: no cause to posit a change in the nature of things No cause not to. There is cause to assume the records of the past are different from the nature today though. In all ways I win.

So entertaining. It's like you are in an axe fight and all you have is a rubber toy hatchet.

You are so far from winning that you can't even see the horizon event.

Next is to run away after declaring victory ...

You have NO evidence. NONE.

Fail #6

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Why would apes be below the former nature layer? Man and most animals could not leave remains then probably. Ha.

Why not? Where do all the older fossils come from then. What makes them special compared to man and most mammals?

"Probably?" -- that is the weakest assertion you have made to date, and that's quite an accomplishment for you.

You also do not explain why the earliest known primate is 10 million years after the KT event.

Or why the first ape is 30 million years later ...

Or why the earliest known hominid is less than 6 million years ago ...

Or why the earliest known humand is less than 4 million years ago ...

Or why the earliest known Homo sapiens is only 300,000 years ago (less than the oldest age derived from annual counting of layers).

This is easy.

Indeed, it is always easy to show that someone who is ignorant is failing when they don't have any evidence and aren't aware of the evidence against them.

What is this ... fail #6?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Very simple. Your ages are wrong. ...

So you continue to assert, but have yet to substantiate with any evidence. This is just an opinion and easy to ignore in the face of substantial evidence for an old earth.

... Man and most creatures only started to appear as fossilized remains after the flood (or more precisely, the nature change a little time after the flood).

Which is just an ad hoc invention on your part to attempt to accommodate the evidence into your fantasy.

Curiously other animals continue to fossilize from before the KT event and after it -- crocodiles and birds for instance -- and they don't show any remarkable difference in ability to fossilize. Bones are made of the same material, DNA of humans, birds and crocodiles show not remarkably different in a way that would suggest one can fossilize and the other cannot.

Additionally you fail to account for the difference in time for primates, hominids and humans. Fail #9

Your "explanation" is laughable in it's inability to deal with the evidence.

Here is a timeline that is closer to reality than the usual geologic column timeline you are familiar with.

Irrelevant for two reasons: first we don't debate by posting link (you post the information and the evidence for it) and second you completely fail to deal with the information in this thread.

If you want to discuss your fantasy timeline, start a new thread at Proposed New Topics.

Your task is to explain the evidence I have presented, and why the different systems correlate, and to back it up with evidence.

You have failed to do that ... fail #10 ... congratulations you've made it to double digits.

All you are doing is posting gormless drool (on thread after thread) that doesn't even rise to a questionable hypothesis.

You haven't dealt in good faith with the thesis of any thread you have posted on.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .

You have no empirical evidence. ...

Then you don't know what empirical evidence is. The stump of the "Prometheus" tree is empirical evidence, objective empirical evidence ... it is there and you can touch it, feel it, count the rings.

... You reject history and the record of Scripture ...

Correction: I reject things that are not substantiated, because ... they are not substantiated. If you provide evidence to substantiate it then -- and only then -- will I consider it. Until that time I see no reason to consider it, especially given the amount of multiple documented and scientifically reviewed objective empirical evidence of an old earth.

As for the radio halos, do not offer some thread as support. ...

It is off topic on this thread, and thus it is appropriate to continue this on a thread where it is the topic:

Curiously, that would be Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

Show us how these halos show what you claim they show

Already covered on Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, where it happens to be the topic of the thread.

I think you are just avoiding this issue, just like you have avoided all the other issues on the other threads you have posted on lately.

Little one or two line quips and groundless assertions seems to be all you can manage ...

Providing evidence once again that creationists don't have an argument worth discussing. They always fail to gain any traction against the evidence of reality. These discussions only show how vapid your arguments are to the people reading these threads.

You've got nothing.

Enjoy

Your ages remain wrong and fantasy until you first prove the same past nature that the claims depend and rest on. As for man not leaving remains...show us that he would have? Oh...wait you are preaching your same state religion again...IF there was one we woulda coulda shoulda fossilized. Gong! As for timelines you use one you believe I will do the same. Yours are silly and faith based.

More evidence void blather and failure to address the issues.

Seems you are stuck in a rut, repeating yourself and not addressing the issues that make your opinions highly questionable.

Repeating failed arguments with no additional support is a violation of forum rules. But it also shows that you have no evidence, your argument quiver is empty.

Thank you for showing forum readers that creationists have nothing to offer.

Enjoy

The stump is evidence of...what!!? ...

The tree was alive when cut down, ...

... That a lots of rings exist? Or..? ...

... so the rings show the age of the tree when it was cut down. As anyone who had actually read the thread would know.

... Spit it out.

That your age fantasy is falsified by the objective empirical evidence provided by the dendrochronologies from 4 different locations that all correlate with one another and with historic events.

All you have tried to counter it with is assertion and ad hoc make believe fantasy, but without a scintilla of evidence.

Fail #11.

If halos are off topic why did YOU bring them up here? You can't post the goods and plead that the reason is that it is off topic. Circular. Ridiculous.

Except that I provided the link to the thread where it is on topic - you're just scared you'll get hammered on another thread for having no argument and having an inability to counter the evidence there.

You are just making flimsy excuses to hide your failures.

Enjoy

Starman has failed to even try to address the evidence he asked for, and which I provided in Message 432.

His posts are excellent examples of why creationism is not science and does not refute science.

Every time he posts he provides an opportunity to show the thread readers how bad his belief based arguments are and how they fail against the scientific evidence based arguments.

Enjoy

Gotta hurt then that the two Creation myths in Genesis ...

Why stop there, every faith belief system has some version of creation -- what makes one special and the others mundane mythology? Ask any believer and it is the specific faith they believe, because they believe it.

Enjoy

Blather. Your one and only option here is to prove a same state past on earth or you may not use it in models. Period.

Nope, because the option I choose is to ignore your assertions as vapid imagination until such time as you provide evidence to substantiate it.

Fail #21

Science will happily proceed to investigate the universe based on tested theory and objective evidence, and not willow-the-wisp fantasies.

Enjoy

Anyone can spam links. You can't even post the gist of the matter regarding the issues here in a short concise way. If you could I would beat it to chaff in a New York minute anyhow. So I get why you beat around the bush pretending you could do wonders here. I know better.

Says the black knight ... Fail #22.

There is a difference between spamming links and referencing existing posts on threads within this forum, especially when you easily hop between several threads already -- not that you read them (no evidence of that in your posts) -- you're just scared you can't handle it.

As for the tree ring business I hope you get the point by now that everything in a dead or living tree depends on what nature it grew. Period.

Indeed, and what we have established on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 so far is that we have not found the end of the present nature period, and we are over 36,000 years into the past at this point. We also established that 14C dating is valid.

It seems you are backing into a corner again.

Enjoy

Your same state past based godless models of the past are fake news so called science.

And still no evidence to substantiate a claim of a different nature in the past, just denial of the evidence for an old earth. You have an argument based on fantasy and ignorance and will-o-the-whisp imagination.

You have so little evidence that you can't even prop up an argument that your fantasy should be considered as having any purpose to consider.

Fail #23,

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

As predicted in Message 1 starman failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his position ... fail #31

Let's look at what he says:

Message 483: Not true. All DNA we have is very post flood era.

Whiffff ....

This statement has no meaning without first establishing that (a) there was a flood of world wide proportions and (b) that anything was different before such a fantasy event. This has not even been attempted by starman to say nothing of not providing evidence.

Total failure.

This, children, is why creationists like starman have nothing to say of any value.

Message 484: Maybe cite a post that shows evolution was the same as now? I wasn't born yesterday.

Another whiff ... no evidence provided to establish or even question whether or not it hasn't been the same as now. Thus everything is evidence that it is the same.

Message 485: You have not shown that there was a present nature along with it's decay. Forget rates. How about starting off showing us with support that there was ANY decay on earth?

Really? Going for Last-Thursdayism now in a desperate attempt to deny reality?

Of course there is always the information in this post that starman has ignored.

Missed again.

Message 486: Gen 2 is after the fact. After it was all done, the events it revisits are not an order. Period.

Another claim without evidence. Have you, starman, demostrated the Gen 1 is not after the fact as well? Have you done anything to establish that there was ever a before the fact (ie that it was a fact in the first place)?

Things that haven't happened aren't fact.

Not a single post of any value. Children are laughing. Adults are laughing. Christians are laughing.

Thanks again for these teachable moments that show how devoid of rational thought and evidence starman in particular and creationism in general are worthless beliefs that clash with reality and with beliefs of other christians.

Enjoy