The Age of the Earth ! (Based on Ocean Salt Content) ...

[alyosha24601]

@jontibloom You've been suckered with the usual bait 'n switch, just like I was. The two changes you have cited involve a LOSS of genetic information already there, none of them involve a GAIN of information.

[alyosha24601]

@alyosha24601 (Part 2) Why? Because mutations or magic cannot produce specified complexity, in addition, all the features of a complex system must work perfectly - all at once - to convey any survival advantage. Evolution is a religious concept, not scientific - it's quack science. The rest of the world knows it!

[alyosha24601]

@jontibloom That's the theory I was taught in school as well. What they didn't tell me is why there even is a field called taxonomy, when all species should be blurred together. They told me about drug resistance, peppered moths, dog breeding, and Galapagos finches as well. What they didn't tell me was that all these changes occur through a LOSS of information, not a gain of it. They've all reversed since. Small changes cannot progress because they convey no survival advantage. Evolution = bunk.

[jontibloom]

@alyosha24601 Its taught at school for good reason ......Its correct ! Whats your alternative, Biblical studies, where students come away from education even more intellectually retarded than they are today ? It doesn't matter if there is a gain or loss of information during evoutionay changes, neither occurance would prove the existence of God nordebunk evolution. You and I are science minnows when c/w Darwim, Dawkins, Gould etc. So whose evidence would you accept, yours or theirs ???

[alyosha24601]

@jontibloom So, here we have a religious declaration, an insult, and an appeal to authority, no science. Let's stick to science: If evolution is true, why do we observe only DNA degeneration, extinction, and mutation today? Why does the curator of the largest fossil collection on the planet admit he knows of no transitional fossil? How could sexual reproduction occur - millions of perfectly complementary mutations in a single generation !?! Evolution is quack science, most of the world knows it.

[jontibloom]

@alyosha24601 You're confused again. Its because I dont believe a word in the Bible particularly nonsense stories like the Flood, that nothing I would say could possible be construed as being a "religious declaration". FYI the largest collection of fossils is in the British Natural History Museum and am sure that the curator would not utter such nonsense. The rest of what you write is equal nonsense. Time wasting over ....idiot discourse concluded

[alyosha24601]

@jontibloom The dated quote is freely available. It's the second most famous evolutionary quote undermining their own quack science. No flood? Then why is this whole planet covered with instantly-formed fossils? Then why does every alluvial river cone on earth date at about 30,000 years at present rates? Then why do the Sahara and the Great Barrier Reef both date at 5000 years? Did the Colorado River flow backwards? You don't WANT to know - it would violate your evolutionary quack religion.

[victorms17]

religious people are so simple minded & stubborn! they really think some old man from the sky pointed his finger & started making random shit appear. Most humans can't deal w/ the fact that we still don't have the technology & maybe never will, to find out what really went down! so what do we do? ..to get comfort & relief we want to believe in an explanation! what ever it might be! god, religion, aliens etc.. & these silly religious freaks are at the lowest! like kids believing in santa lol smh

[alyosha24601]

@victorms17 My channel has 20 videos pointing out scientific problems with old earth and evolutionary interpretations. If you would like to debate the science with me I will be happy to follow it through to creation. But your comment here is basically just a religious affirmation in a naturalistic presupposition, plus an insult. I encourage you to listen to a few creation PhDs without the presupposition. The science lead you to creation. Evolution is religious quack science. Good luck to you.

[allusernamestaken01]

Bahahaha!

[RethysTarrent]

Don't feed the trolls. That is all.

[LemUUU]

Why is it that you must ONLY come to the conclusion that the earth is young, and that means god created it. You aren't willing to even consider the evidence that proves otherwise. Instead you stay inside your little warped ball of "science" that supports your predetermined ideology.

[alyosha24601]

@LemUUU You don't understand how people work. We ALL have a framework with which to evaluate facts. I am indeed biased but you are just as much so. Our task however is to discover the bias (if you will) that actually represents reality, not just what we like. I believe science demonstrates the earth is young and that evolution is quack science. If you can abandon your naturalistic presupposition then just follow the science, I believe you may come to different conclusions as well. I'll be here!

[LemUUU]

@alyosha24601 I followed the evidence, and like most people, I have concluded that the earth is old. It wasn't like I believed the earth was young/old, and looked for whatever evidence I could find to support that. If you want to determine what is true, you cannot only look at the narrow field that supports your bias. How old do you think earth is

And science has proven evolution to be a fact, since we have witnessed evolution happening.

How about this, do you think the UNIVERSE is also young?

[alyosha24601]

@LemUUU We have not witnessed evolution happening (the creation of traits bringing change). We have witnessed only natural selection (the destruction of traits bringing change). Don't fall for the bait n'switch. What we actually observe is mutation, extinction, and the degrading of DNA. A recent paper concluded humans will not be able to reproduce after 100,000 years, because the male DNA is unwinding at the ends. Then they tell you we "evolved" in 2.3 M years?! That's quack science!

[LemUUU]

@alyosha24601 Firstly natural selection is the engine that drives evolution. Second, you are ignoring/distorting a hell of a lot of research to say scientists have not witnessed evolution happening. Third, how about my question... do you think the UNIVERSE is young, or just the earth?

[alyosha24601]

@LemUUU Natural selection is dishonestly promoted as an "engine", yes. But you tell me, if you put a quality control guy at the exit of a car factory whose job is to destroy any car that doesn't run perfectly, how long will this process take to produce an airplane? The answer is never. Natural selection rejects the worst 3% of mutations. That's all it does. No one has witnessed evolution, what we witness is the DNA degrading. This is what we observe today, & quickly! I think the universe is old.

[LemUUU]

@alyosha24601 Natural selection doesn't 'reject' the worst anything. It works through reproduction. The more suited to an environment an organism is, the more likely it is to reproduce and possibly pass on those beneficial traits. I don't see where you come to the conclusion that means "...reject the worst 3% of mutations"

Its a 2 way street here, bad traits are less likely to be passed on, and good traits are more likely to be passed on. What's dishonest here, is your representation of science

[LemUUU]

@alyosha24601 you said "No one has witnessed evolution, what we witness is the DNA degrading" this is demonstrably false. Just because YOU haven't witnessed evolution, and refuse to believe those who have. Doesn't mean others haven't, and that its false. And what is your evidence that says "the DNA is degrading" I have read about the degradation of the genome in specific species, but not regarding life as a whole.

[alyosha24601]

@LemUUU Have a look at my video "DNA Mutation Rates Invalidate..." by Dr Sanford. Frankly, it's shocking. So, what do you call evolution? Dog breeding? Peppered moth? Galapagos finch? Antibiotic? Human races? Every instance cited is actually just natural selection - REMOVING information already there. When the special situation ends, the species returns to it's original state (unless the original genes are just totally gone). Evolutionists teach it to kids as "proof" - the ol' bait & switch!

[LemUUU]

@alyosha24601 I have seen this propaganda that you believe to be true. I am sorry, but I am gonna go with the evidence on this one. I don't care if you want to be stuck in your little fantasy world, but some day maybe you can join us here in this place we call reality. The whole part about "removing information" is just not true. Either you don't know it, or don't want to believe it. It's the same kind of crap creationists have been cooking up for centuries.

[alyosha24601]

@LemUUU Just be aware that your comments are religious/philosophical. You have expressed confidence in "evolution", but not countered with evidence where it is observed. In reality you have a naturalistic presupposition that just cannot be questioned - it's religious. But mutation rates, lack of fossil record, irreducible complexity, the mathematics of living units by chance, the impossibility of transitioning to sexual reproduction in one generation, current mutation rates, etc still testify.

[LemUUU]

@alyosha24601 No, you are incorrect. My comments are not religious in any way. I have seen the evidence, I came to this conclusion. It can be challenged with good evidence, and reasoned argument. Your entire argument is an argument from ignorance. Most of what you have claimed has been debunked, if you would care to look it up.

and "lack of fossil record" WTF are you talking about, the fossil record may not be complete... but there are certainly many samples

[alyosha24601]

@LemUUU This is a myth which is perpetuated to maintain the fiction. A few years ago the head of the British Museum of Natural History, the largest collection of fossils in the world, and he's an evolutionist, went on record as saying he was not aware of a single transitional fossil! We argue about (the possible fraud) Archeopteryx, but there should be millions of such fossils. The very existence of the field of taxonomy is testimony that evolution is an fictional process. It's quack science.

[LemUUU]

@alyosha24601 I am just going to stop, you have made up your mind. Hopefully as time progresses, less and less people will be so gullible. I wish you would just research the evidence that is out there, I imagine you would probably change your mind. If research isn't your thing, try watching aronra's "foundational falsehoods of creationism" series. Or falsifying phylogeny.

[dman7714]

I'm going to start off with saying i believe in god. However to actually see a video with such closed minded ideas is amazing. The earth as we see it today and its inhabitants were not created recently. Modern humans have been here for thousands upon thousands of years. The oceans have been here for millions longer.

[alyosha24601]

@dman7714 My tack on this issue is to basically just follow the science WITHOUT a bias insisting that the earth is old. When you add up the evidence *without* the naturalistic presupposition, you can easily conclude the earth is young. I can take you through the evidence. If you're sure it's old and don't want to hear the contrary evidence, then, OK, I guess I'm just a stupid and closed minded cretard. If not, start with salt - there is no mechanism to remove salt. How can the ocean be so pure?

[dman7714]

@alyosha24601 First of all you do have a bias view if you hear that the earth is young and instantly go to that god just created it. The earth is extremely old to us however from a geological and universal standpoint its very young. also ever hear of Desalination? The ocean is pure because the trickle of salt coming into it is not enough to pollute the billions of square miles of ocean water.

[alyosha24601]

@dman7714 Yes, you did not read the numbers while watching the video; and there is no mechanism to take salt out of the ocean. But now, explain why He and C-14 are not yet in equilibrium in the atmosphere - it is still increasing. The strength of the geomagnetic field is 14% less than when it was discovered in 1829. That's no dynamo. They find C-14 in diamond matrices! Consider dropping the naturalistic presupposition, then you'll see this earth is young. I'm here if you have questions. Thanks

[dman7714]

@alyosha24601 i did read the numbers in the video all 2 of them. Water evaporates leaving the salt behind. The TONS of salt being added to the ocean is SO tiny compared to the actual ocean, PLUS the main way salt is getting into the ocean is from rivers which are most likely FRESH water. Thus diluting the ocean water even more. Add in slowly melting ice and its no surprise that the ocean has so little salt. C-14 decays, it dissolves with water, and it can change into carbon dioxide.

[alyosha24601]

@dman7714 Salt added to the ocean cannot be removed. 450 million tons a year are added, and the rate must have been higher in the past, probably much higher. Meanwhile the water is continually removed / recycled through evaporation. If you do the multiplication you'll find that the ocean MUST be younger than 15 million years. Not even quack evolutionary scientists will tell you evolution occurred in less than 15 million years. Evolution did not occur and the earth is young - all created by God.

[alyosha24601]

@dman7714 "C-14 decays, it dissolves with water, and it can change into carbon dioxide." C-14 is an isotope of Carbon created from gamma rays striking Nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. It represents a small amount of carbon and half of it decays away in 5730 years. So you have it being added at one rate, and decaying at another. The fact that the C-14 has not yet balanced given the two measured rates is proof that the earth is young. It's like filling a barrel that has holes with water.

[dman7714]

@alyosha24601 C-14 produces and degrades at the SAME rate. Plus C-14 is moved through out the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form CO2 which is then absorbed by plants. Its like filling a barrel with no bottom with water.

[alyosha24601]

@dman7714 No, not the same rate. C-14 is still increasing in the atmosphere - it is not yet in equilibrium. Neither is the Helium. THis fact means the atmosphere is very young indeed. But it's not the only fact. We find C-4 in diamond matrices. That means the diamonds are less than 50,000 years old as Carbon, or anything else, does not seep into diamonds. C-14 is even in dino bones - all of them. They are NOT millions of years old. It is a religious fiction, not based on observational science.

[dynamowhum]

Great stuff. I enjoyed the video and the debate. I have just one comment and it is on science in general. He who marries science today is a widower tomorrow. I forget who came up with it but I wish I had.

[alyosha24601]

@EqualAndFree Imagine how much time? Go to my channel and watch "Geo-Blunder" and you'll see that such things take at least 15 minutes. In fact, that's about all they can take because erosion works way faster than "millions of years". Enjoy the film: It's a shocker!

[alyosha24601]

@EqualAndFree Exactly! Now you're doing your own thinking! The world is not all underwater with just a few igneous islands bugging out. This world is young - created by God. Erosion is not at all the only indication of this fact either. Let the facts take you to a conclusion, never just assume the world is billions of years old then try to twist the facts to fit. Cheers!

[alyosha24601]

@EqualAndFree Tha's an average of course, but your comments actually support my viewpoint. If sediments and salts are building up on land, this means erosion is occurring and the average altitude is decreasing. Those cones under the ocean at river deltas are growing larger every year. This earth is way younger than we think (and why are those cones so small, by the way, only 30,000 years of sediment?) Sure some uplift could occur, but that doesn't help, it's igneous. This world is young.

[alyosha24601]

@EqualAndFree That is nothing but an assumption about the past. We do not observe any "oceans evaporating" today. The only cycle is the variation of a few percent between different layers and seas due to temperature, rainfall, and glacial/ice melt/freezing. The cumulative level continues to grow. It's not just the salt either, if this world were as old as scientists assume, all the salt, topsoil, and sedimentary rock would be gone as well. Erosion occurs on solid rock (!) at 0.2 mm / yr.

[alyosha24601]

@EqualAndFree That was the speculation to deal with the rather obvious math that repudiated the old-earth theory. But modern science has found no mechanism to remove salt from the oceans. It does not condense out, and indeed, what we observe today is a continual increase. Your science is old. This one fact should cause you to reevaluate your whole life.

[alyosha24601]

Yes, I also hate the evolution myth/religion. Transitional fossils don't exist, actual observation demonstrates DNA is degenerating - not "evolving", and no one can explain away irreducible complexity or where such complex information can come from. How can tiny changes, which cannot be selected for, accumulate slowly when a complex organ that is not yet 100% functional conveys no survival benefit at all. And, harmful mutations outnumber good ones by 1 billion to 1. See my channel.

[alyosha24601]

@CthuluHasChannel Yes, too much school! Masters degree and now I'm a school teacher! And you, have you ever considered hearing some forbidden science? I'll take you through a lot of facts you've never heard if you'll agree to just stick to science with me. I get worn out with slander and mockery. By the way, there is no mechanism to remove accumulating salt from the oceans - yet our oceans have not yet reached equilibrium! Don't tell me - nobody taught that in school did they?

[alyosha24601]

HuluChannel says "have you ever been to school?" But he can't say a word about the facts? Why do you think this never comes up in school? If it were the only such fact, it'd be no big deal - but there are dozens, even hundreds, of problems with the state-sponsored model.