Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_The CCC]

Believe anything you want. But stay the hell away from science.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMXHKixqOM8

[_spotlight]

A scientist picks up a natural diamond and speculates that it took I billion to 3.3 billion years to create, how is that accurate?

To drive across the United States takes between 36 to 51 hours depending upon the route and who is driving the car. Can I use that to assert that since the time is not one particular value and there is a range of values that therefore the 36 to 51 hours is wrong and 10 seconds is the correct value? That is what creationists argue metaphorically and it is a ridiculous argument.

Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond

Some form for 1 billion years before being brought to the surface some for 3.3 billion years before being brought up to the surface. What of it? Peas can be left on the vine an extra day or two before picking of harvested when they are younger.

You are really scraping here LittleNipper. Have you run out of anti science ammo?

[_spotlight]

It doesn't cause additional kinds or competing species to arise. In fact, the opposite is the truth. There are less species today than there were even a hundred years ago and not more. There are more breeds today of horses, cows, dogs, cats, etc., but not more species.

Cases of witnessed speciation in the last 100 years :

Plants :
Oenothera gigas - Newton and Pellew (1929)
Primula kewensis - Newton and Pellew (1929
Oenothera lamarckiana, - de Vries (1905)
T. dubius and T. pratensis - Owenby (1950)
Raphanobrassica - Karpchenko (1927, 1928)
G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932)
Clausen et al. (1945)- Madia citrigracilis
Frandsen (1943, 1947) - Brassica
Woodsia abbeae , Butters 1941
W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941)
Adiantum pedatum - Rabe and Haufler (1992)


Animals :
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973
Maize (Zea mays) Pasterniani (1969)
Drosophila paulistorum - Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971)
Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962)
Meffert and Bryant (1991)
Rhagoletis pomonella Feder et al. 1988, siehe auch McPheron et al. 1988
Eurosta solidaginis) ( Warin et.al 1990)
Tribolium castaneum - Halliburton and Gall (1981)
Nereis acuminata ( Weinberg 1990)
Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971)

[_spotlight]

Hey LittleNipper,

Why haven't you successfully addressed a single bit of evidence brought by anyone so far against your POV? Now you simply repeat your former assertions once again without any evidence to back it up. How is it possible again that creation with age works with our DNA? Our DNA is significant in determining what we are so how is it possible that god can give it the appearance of age - ERVs, pseudogenes, junk DNA, all pointing to common ancestry - when the makeup of that DNA has an affect on what we are? You are saying that the appearance of age in this instance just happens to coincide with that arrangement that makes us what we are? What a fantastic coincidence! Enough of a coincidence that we can assuredly say that the creation with age argument is also disproved by current scientific findings.

[_LittleNipper]

Hey LittleNipper,

Why haven't you successfully addressed a single bit of evidence brought by anyone so far against your POV? Now you simply repeat your former assertions once again without any evidence to back it up. How is it possible again that creation with age works with our DNA? Our DNA is significant in determining what we are so how is it possible that god can give it the appearance of age - ERVs, pseudogenes, junk DNA, all pointing to common ancestry - when the makeup of that DNA has an affect on what we are? You are saying that the appearance of age in this instance just happens to coincide with that arrangement that makes us what we are? What a fantastic coincidence! Enough of a coincidence that we can assuredly say that the creation with age argument is also disproved by current scientific findings.

Evolution 2—Chapter 6

A sequel to Refuting Evolution that refutes the latest arguments to support evolution (as presented by PBS and Scientific American).

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. with Michael Matthews

Argument: Common design points to common ancestry

Evolutionists say, ‘Studies have found amazing similarities in DNA and biological systems—solid evidence that life on earth has a common ancestor.’

First published in Refuting Evolution 2
Chapter 6

Common structures = common ancestry?

In most arguments for evolution, the debater assumes that common physical features, such as five fingers on apes and humans, point to a common ancestor in the distant past. Darwin mocked the idea (proposed by Richard Owen on the PBS dramatization of his encounter with Darwin) that common structures (homologies) were due to a common creator rather than a common ancestor.

But the common Designer explanation makes much more sense of the findings of modern geneticists, who have discovered just how different the genetic blueprint can be behind many apparent similarities in the anatomical structures that Darwin saw. Genes are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans—the human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds (see diagram below). This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.


Development of human and frog digits

Stylized diagram showing the difference in developmental patterns of frog and human digits.

3271-human-frog-digits 3271-embryonic-development

Left: In humans, programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the ridge into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). [From T.W. Sadler, editor, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 7th ed. (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1995), p. 154–157.]

Right: In frogs, the digits grow outward from buds as cells divide. [From M.J. Tyler, Australian Frogs: A Natural History (Sydney, Australia: Reed New Holland, 1999), p. 80.]


The PBS program and other evolutionary propagandists claim that the DNA code is universal, and proof of a common ancestor. But this is false—there are exceptions, some known since the 1970s, not only in mitochondrial but also nuclear DNA sequencing. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids. More examples are being found constantly.1 The Discovery Institute has pointed out this clear factual error in the PBS program.2 Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.3

The reaction by the PBS spokeswoman, Eugenie Scott, showed how the evolutionary establishment is more concerned with promoting evolution than scientific accuracy. Instead of conceding that the PBS show was wrong, she attacked the messengers, citing statements calling their (correct!) claim ‘so bizarre as to be almost beyond belief.’ Then she even implicitly conceded the truth of the claim by citing this explanation: ‘Those exceptions, however, are known to have derived from organisms that had the standard code.’

To paraphrase: ‘It was wrong to point out that there really are exceptions, even though it’s true; and it was right for PBS to imply something that wasn’t true because we can explain why it’s not always true.’

But assuming the truth of Darwinism as ‘evidence’ for their explanation is begging the question. There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors. There is also the theoretical problem that if we change the code, then the wrong proteins would be made, and the organism would die—so once a code is settled on, we’re stuck with it. The Discovery Institute also demonstrated the illogic of Scott’s claim.4 Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors.5 But the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.

DNA comparisons—subject to interpretation

Scientific American repeats the common argument that DNA comparisons help scientists to reconstruct the evolutionary development of organisms:


Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. [SA 80]

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation—similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.6 And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.

Debunking the ‘molecular clock’

Scientific American repeats the common canard that DNA gives us a ‘molecular clock’ that tells us the history of DNA’s evolution from the simplest life form to mankind:


Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution. [SA 83]

Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non-creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64–69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.

The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome → fish → amphibian → reptile → mammal or bird.

Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms (despite some anomalies discussed earlier which present even more problems). For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved.

References and notes
1.National Institutes of Health <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Taxonomy/wprintgc?mode=c>, 29 August 2002.
2.10 September 2001 press release, PBS Charged with ‘False Claim’ on ‘Universal Genetic Code,’ <www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_FalseClaim. php>.
3.Certain archaea and eubacteria code for 21st or 22nd amino acids, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine—see J.F. Atkins and R. Gesteland, The 22nd Amino Acid, Science 296(5572):1409–10, 24 May 2002; commentary on technical papers on p. 1459–62 and 1462–66.
4.20 September 2001, press release, Offscreen, ‘Evolution’ Spokesperson Tries to Tar Scientific Critics Who Are Ignored, </www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_ScientistsTar.php>.
5.J. Knight, Top Translator, New Scientist 158(2130):15, 18 April 1998. Natural selection cannot explain this code optimality, since there is no way to replace the first functional code with a ‘better’ one without destroying functionality.
6.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95:11,804; cited in New Scientist 160(2154):23, 3 October 1998.

Note about citations: Quotations from the Scientific American article by John Rennie will be labeled ‘SA,’ followed by the page number. Quotations from, and other mentions of, the PBS-TV series ‘Evolution,’ will be labeled ‘PBS,’ followed by the episode number, e.g. ‘PBS 6’ refers to Episode 6.

[Guest]

LittleNipper -

1. Is it important that the Earth possesses an exact date of creation? Why or why not?

2. What is a reasonable definition of exact, in this case?

3. What is the exact age of the Earth according to yourself? Explain how this figure is determined.

Thanks,

-cp-

I believe the issue is that we are told that evolution is a fact and that the science is exact. Then we are told the Universe is Billions of years old. We are told the earth is billions of years old. Exactly how many billions? Do they really know or are they surmising? And if they are surmising, then how is this an exact science?

I believe Our Almighty Lord created the Universe and time approximately 10,000 years ago.

LittleNipper -

This portion of your response seems most relevant to the questions asked. Thank you for your answer.

'Approximately 10,000' is a little loose. This could be 9,000 or 11,000 years, given. That would allow a 20% margin of difference, more or less - can you get this figure a little tighter?

Also, please tell me how this is determined.

Thanks,

-cp-

[_spotlight]

LittleNipper - Still unwilling to think this through for yourself I see. You love to cut and paste. It has become how you "think."

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution- ... n-ancestry

Choose your position. Either common design is due to a common designer or it is not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There are two separate issues here. Common structures which become adapted to different uses. And differing structures which are adapted to the same use. The second of which does not support the common designer argument very well.

And this completely ignores damage to the DNA from things like ERVs. Why do animals that were "separately created" have the same damage to their DNA in the exact same locations of their DNA? Each piece of damage is uniquely different from its neighboring piece of damage. Each has suffered mutation damage since it occurred. Why should all of these details match up across species separately created? It does not make any sense.

A paramecium is a critter that broke away early in its evolutionary past. The fact that it subsequently evolves novel characteristics is not evidence against evolution. It is evidence against a common designer though. See how this works?

Then she even implicitly conceded the truth of the claim by citing this explanation: ‘Those exceptions, however, are known to have derived from organisms that had the standard code.’

In other words it is not evidence against a common ancestor but it is against a common designer.

But assuming the truth of Darwinism as ‘evidence’ for their explanation is begging the question. There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors.

Already mentioned, ERVs prove common ancestry. (And how is assuming the truth of creationism is not begging the question?)

The Discovery Institute also demonstrated the illogic of Scott’s claim.4 Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors.5 But the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.

Actually exceptions on divergent branches do nothing to harm the ToE but they are catastrophic to the idea of a common designer 6,000 years ago. You can't have that much change in that little time. There is no viable explanation that makes any sense. It is not enough time for even the 200,000 ERVs to arise in our DNA. One every 11 days? That is ludicrous LittleNipper and is proof against your 6,000 year past.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA.

But we would not expect similar creatures to have DNA damage that is similar. This is the failure of your argument or of those who do your thinking for you LittleNipper. Why has a creature like the human but separately created lost the ability to create Vitamin C in exactly the same manner as we have? The very same mutation to the DNA in the very same location. Wow that is just amazing LittleNipper! What a coincidence. Not just two different species either, but multiple species all created separately. Wow, that makes perfect sense! NOT!

similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related.

No more a problem for evolution than dissimilarities between organisms that perform a common function is for a common designer. In other words it is not a conclusive argument one way or the other. It is just hand waving.

Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist.

Actually this is a proof against your POV, not evolution. Like I posted before you can't get a new ERV into the genome every 11 days LittleNipper. That is impossible. QED - creationism is dead, at least your variety of it. You keep posting material that is actually arguments for theistic evolution for the most part without being aware that you are doing that. That doesn't help your argument LittleNipper.

Cytochrome-C, etc

Just testing one protein is dangerous and firm conclusions cannot be drawn.

Mutations are measured in real time LittleNipper. You have some hundred mutations to your genome that you did not get from either of your parents. These can be measured in all different kinds of animals as well. So the last paragraph is another non starter.

So you have no evidence for creationism, just a bunch of thoughts that you think discredit evolution but really don't and again you ignore those areas of DNA sequencing that are catastrophic to creationism, that are sufficient to disprove it.

[_LittleNipper]

LittleNipper - Still unwilling to think this through for yourself I see. You love to cut and paste. It has become how you "think."

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution- ... n-ancestry

Choose your position. Either common design is due to a common designer or it is not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There are two separate issues here. Common structures which become adapted to different uses. And differing structures which are adapted to the same use. The second of which does not support the common designer argument very well.

And this completely ignores damage to the DNA from things like ERVs. Why do animals that were "separately created" have the same damage to their DNA in the exact same locations of their DNA? Each piece of damage is uniquely different from its neighboring piece of damage. Each has suffered mutation damage since it occurred. Why should all of these details match up across species separately created? It does not make any sense.

A paramecium is a critter that broke away early in its evolutionary past. The fact that it subsequently evolves novel characteristics is not evidence against evolution. It is evidence against a common designer though. See how this works?

Then she even implicitly conceded the truth of the claim by citing this explanation: ‘Those exceptions, however, are known to have derived from organisms that had the standard code.’

In other words it is not evidence against a common ancestor but it is against a common designer.

But assuming the truth of Darwinism as ‘evidence’ for their explanation is begging the question. There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors.

Already mentioned, ERVs prove common ancestry. (And how is assuming the truth of creationism is not begging the question?)

The Discovery Institute also demonstrated the illogic of Scott’s claim.4 Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors.5 But the exceptions thwart evolutionary explanations.

Actually exceptions on divergent branches do nothing to harm the ToE but they are catastrophic to the idea of a common designer 6,000 years ago. You can't have that much change in that little time. There is no viable explanation that makes any sense. It is not enough time for even the 200,000 ERVs to arise in our DNA. One every 11 days? That is ludicrous LittleNipper and is proof against your 6,000 year past.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA.

But we would not expect similar creatures to have DNA damage that is similar. This is the failure of your argument or of those who do your thinking for you LittleNipper. Why has a creature like the human but separately created lost the ability to create Vitamin C in exactly the same manner as we have? The very same mutation to the DNA in the very same location. Wow that is just amazing LittleNipper! What a coincidence. Not just two different species either, but multiple species all created separately. Wow, that makes perfect sense! NOT!

similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related.

No more a problem for evolution than dissimilarities between organisms that perform a common function is for a common designer. In other words it is not a conclusive argument one way or the other. It is just hand waving.

Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist.

Actually this is a proof against your POV, not evolution. Like I posted before you can't get a new ERV into the genome every 11 days LittleNipper. That is impossible. QED - creationism is dead, at least your variety of it. You keep posting material that is actually arguments for theistic evolution for the most part without being aware that you are doing that. That doesn't help your argument LittleNipper.

Cytochrome-C, etc

Just testing one protein is dangerous and firm conclusions cannot be drawn.

Mutations are measured in real time LittleNipper. You have some hundred mutations to your genome that you did not get from either of your parents. These can be measured in all different kinds of animals as well. So the last paragraph is another non starter.

So you have no evidence for creationism, just a bunch of thoughts that you think discredit evolution but really don't and again you ignore those areas of DNA sequencing that are catastrophic to creationism, that are sufficient to disprove it.

The one trying to force feed cake is YOU. If everything looked the same YOU would say that is because there is a common ancestry. If there exists broad variation, YOU would say that is proof of evolution and a common ancestry...

Yes, I have mutations to my DNA and so do you; however, that doesn't make you any more human than a mentally slow individual ---- Not now and not in 10,000 years. Sorry, I know GOD exists and that you exist by way of His creation and not through happenstance.

You have not proven GOD doesn't exist. You have not proven that Jesus is not a historical character. You have not been able to create biological life of any sort from dirt. There is absolute proof of the uniqueness of everything in creation which indicates an Omnipotent GOD who values a one on one personal relationship with each and every creature in His creation and doesn't just stamp out generic plastic soldiers.

[_Maksutov]

There is absolute proof of the uniqueness of everything in creation which indicates an Omnipotent GOD who values a one on one personal relationship with each and every creature in His creation and doesn't just stamp out generic plastic soldiers.

I refute you thus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClffzUrRDXk

[_LittleNipper]

I believe the issue is that we are told that evolution is a fact and that the science is exact. Then we are told the Universe is Billions of years old. We are told the earth is billions of years old. Exactly how many billions? Do they really know or are they surmising? And if they are surmising, then how is this an exact science?

I believe Our Almighty Lord created the Universe and time approximately 10,000 years ago.

LittleNipper -

This portion of your response seems most relevant to the questions asked. Thank you for your answer.

'Approximately 10,000' is a little loose. This could be 9,0000 or 11,0000 years, given. That would allow a 20% margin of difference, more or less - can you get this figure a little tighter?

Also, please tell me how this is determined.

Thanks,

-cp-

It is determined by the revelation of the genealogy of man in the Bible. Now there is a possibility that not every ancestor was recorded. Though I do believe no one was left out. However, we do not know how long Adam existed without woman in Eden, nor how long Adam and Eve existed together in the garden. Now Adam is recorded to have lived 930 years. And that in fact may represent his entire life from the day of his creation. HOWEVER, this may also only represent the number of years Adam lived after he sinned and began to succumb to death.

Total Time from Creation (years)


God created everything. Genesis 1–2 0
Adam became the father of Seth at 130. Genesis 5:3 0 + 130 = 130
Seth became the father of Enosh at 105. Genesis 5:6 130 + 105 = 235
Enosh became the father of Kenan at 90. Genesis 5:9 235 + 90 = 325
Cainan became the father of Mahalalel at 70. Genesis 5:12 325 + 70 = 395
Mahalalel became the father of Jared at 65. Genesis 5:15 395 + 65 = 460
Jared became the father of Enoch at 162. Genesis 5:18 460 + 162 = 622
Enoch became the father of Methuselah at 65. Genesis 5:21 622 + 65 = 687
Methuselah became the father of Lamech at 187. Genesis 5:25 687 + 187 = 874
Lamech became the father of Noah at 182. Genesis 5:28 874 + 182 = 1056
The Flood started when Noah was 600. Genesis 7:6 1056 + 600 = 1656

As you can see from Table 1, the year in which the Flood came was 1656 AM1 (Anno Mundi – “year of the world”). From the rest of the Old Testament and other well-documented historical events we understand that creation, as calculated by Ussher, was about 4004 BC. So with a little more math we can calculate the second date.

Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359

Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.

Footnotes
1.Since the Bible does not provide the number of months in the age of each patriarch listed from Adam to Noah, then we could add about five more years to this number. For example, Adam may have been 130 years and 10 months old when Seth was born, and Seth may have been 105 years and four months. On average, there would likely be an additional six months for each generation. The same would be true for the genealogy in Genesis 10.
2.We need to subtract one year from this calculation since there was not a “year zero.” The calendar we use jumps from 1 BC to AD 1.