Punctuated equilibrium relates to the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Black holes are essential to the evolution of life in the universe. They emit 'Torsion Waves' which interact with DNA..upgrading it as it moves along. Scientists have correlated the evolution of certain species to these torsion wave impacts here on earth.. guess when we are scheduled for another torsion wave blast? Dec. 21, 2012. It's the next and final step in our evolution.
@boogeyman1967 My point is that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium as developed by Gould and Eldredge is designed solely to explain the patterns of stasis and rapid speciation observed in the fossil record, and nowhere in the development of this theory was posited "torsion waves"(which I'm inclined to believe are made up, unless you've got something to back up your assertion). All that is required is Time, Death, Mutation and changing environments.
@Keinlicht why would you be inclined to believe they are made up? having an open mind and doing some research on the topic might be the more prudent course of action no? think about it, there must be a REASON for punctuated equilibrium.. it doesn't just happen because it has nothing else to do.. scientists have been able to correlate PE with a seismic event which takes place at EVEN intervals.. evidence so far points to massive energy bursts from our Black Hole...
@boogeyman1967 What I mean by "made up" is "Asserted without adequate evidence".
If you actually knew the first thing about Gould and Eldrege's theory you'd understand that the stimulus, the reason, for rapid speciation i.e. "punctuations" is thought to be restriction of small breeding populations under heavy environmental stress.
Given occam's razor, it seems unlikely that speciation is of celestial origin, especially given speciation under laboratory conditions has been observed.
@Keinlicht you may be right.. but there are still points to consider.. what about the 62 Million year cycle? A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation.
@boogeyman1967 Assuming such a cycle does indeed exist, it seems to me a little premature to jump to searching for extraterrestrial sources.
The earth has a great many of cycles, some evident, some very subtle. There is of course the advancing and retreating of glaciers, changes in multiple orbital factors and even chance combinations of weather which may have an impact on life. I simply dont see a reason to leave earthy explanations behind when there is still so much we don't know about Earth.
@Keinlicht what do you think causes the earth to go through these changes? what happens above, affects what is down below.. as above, so below.. our universe is evolving and so are we..the earth will be completing many cycles on Dec. 21, 2012. If you check, you will find that we are scheduled for another PE event on that date also..
@Keinlicht extraterrestrial? we come from the stars.. we are made of the same material that the stars are made of.. if you're familiar with 'entanglement', you know that what happens to entangled objects, affects other entangled objects.. and since all atoms were created together at the moment of the big bang.. we are all 'entangled' therefore, as above, so below...
I know what quantum entanglement is, but what you're saying sound more like new age spurious pseudoscience than anything else. I'm glad we could have a mostly civil conversation, but I think you should take a closer look at why rigor is important in scientific endeavors, and what exactly it means to be rigorous.
@Keinlicht thanks, i appreciate the comment.. As I mentioned before, this has much basis in fact.. instead of arbitrarily dismissing it as 'spurious pseudoscience', maybe approach it with an open mind.. knowledge is constantly evolving..take a look at the video.. i'd like to know what you think.. cheers..
@Keinlicht no disrespect intended.. but why don't you take a look at David Wilcock's 2012 Event Horizon? It makes some very good points and explains, in detail, much better than I can.. with the evidence you are seeking..peace...
@Keinlicht Robert Rohde, Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, says "It is also possible that a 140 million year fossil diversity cycle is driven by passage through the arms of the Milky Way galaxy".
Are these men taking giant steps concerning natural selection the mechanism of evolution based on one find? There is always an exception to the rule. I highly doubt that unexplained variance in this population has much exertion over the whole of planet earth and its distribution of evolved species. Interesting but in no way divergent from Darwin at all.
It is so funny people use phrases like in the description of this video "Is punctuated equilibria real? You bet." And yet all throughout the scientists making these claims they say words like "we think" "this may have happened" what they are really saying is they have no clue and the evidence to back 100% of their claims are just interpretations that could go 100 different ways most of which they never explore. Mainstream science will accept ANY evolution theory even when they use bad evidence.
@cadman2300 You didn't read what I said, I have limited characters here to use obviously I wasn't going into huge detail of the other interpretations of the evidences that can be made. The fact is that when scientists find evidence they always interpret it to go along with their theory of evolution, they never even consider the other possibilities especially when relating science to the bible.
As for saying they use "bad evidence" I had Radiometric Dating in mind to be honest, which is a fraud.
@TruthSeekingOne So now you think radioactive decay rates are made up, and that they should not be used to date rocks and ancient items even if they all agree with each-other and get the same results? What about tree-ring dating, or dendrochronology? It's a radically different dating method but it still agrees with all the others.
@cadman2300 Now on the topic of radioactive decay, I happen to personally believe that Carbon dating is most accurate of them and it probably most correctly dates dinosaur bones to within just a few thousand years not millions by the way. Also a recent discovery found red blood cells in a T-Rex leg bone and soft tissue, pointing to the fact that the bones cannot possibly be millions of years old. The radioactive decay is based on assumptions of how much of the element was present in the past!
@TruthSeekingOne The "soft tissue" you mention was actually a very small section of a marrow cavity containing some micro vessels which had been removed from within an otherwise fully fossilized T-rex femur. Can you explain SPECIFICALLY why this type of preservation is impossible under the accepted timeline of 68 million years?
Also, can you give specific examples of dinosaur "bones" being "carbon dated" to a "few thousand years ago"?
@F1NGER "It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind."
"After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time.."
Before this discovery it was thought impossible that these types of things could be found in the bone of a fossil from a dinosaur. So...
@TruthSeekingOne The news media loves to sensationalize scientific discoveries. They regularly make things sound more world-changing than they actually are because it helps them sell newspapers. There are actually very few absolutes in science. Just because something is treated as an absolute in high school science class doesn't mean it actually is. The prospect that a very small bit of marrow can avoid decomposition or fossilization is not going to turn paleontology (or evolution) on its head.
@F1NGER ..So I would only say that this finding while it may not prove without doubt (I am a skeptic of even my own beliefs) I would say it is a great evidence for the theory that the earth is not over 100,000 years old, for me it is extremely hard to believe that these cells were preserved for millions of years let alone 65 million, can you even fathom that number in years? It is hard to believe it being preserved for just a few thousand years!
@TruthSeekingOne ... This isn't pointless semantics here. If you're going to go saying that you regularly carbon date FOSSILIZED dinosaur bones to a few thousand years, you need to be a lot more thorough. You need to cite every single source, list every single reference. Being sloppy and lazy in the way you present your evidence will only be convincing to people who are... well... sloppy and lazy in their critical thinking (no offense.) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
@F1NGER I can't do your research for you, I have gone to plenty of length to study these matters, if you expect me to link you to every single website that refutes the radiometric dating methods you must be off your rocker.
I will show you one other website however which does go to length to show WHY the other methods of radiometric dating (including argon and others) are faulty.
So once again check your PM and this is a lengthy one.
@F1NGER Hah you think peer review makes something accurate or inaccurate?
Yea that makes sense, lets get a bunch of atheists to review something written by a theistic creationist, obviously you didn't watch that documentary "Expelled" which shows a whole branch of science being attacked by mainstream nazi scientists who only want their views of the world to be taught.
@TruthSeekingOne Peer review is a good way to ensure the type of thorough methodology I was talking about. It promotes accountability and seeks to eliminates researcher bias. Without it, there is no accountability. You can say what you want, avoid citing as many sources as you want, then just slap it on the internet and pretend that it's the equal of publications like Science. No. Sorry. I demand more credibility than that...
@TruthSeekingOne ...Nevertheless, I looked over your link. All it does is list known limitations of various individual dating methods, as though geologists were not aware of them and didn't already know how to account for them. Tell me, if it was all unreliable, then why do the dating methods cross-confirm eachother? Why do the dates consistently adhere to a pattern of distribution identical to that which is predicted by common ancestry by way of taxonomy and comparative genetics?
@F1NGER What dating methods consistently adhere to that pattern? Obviously Carbon Dating, the MOST RELIABLE of any of the other methods, does not fit that "consistent" pattern does it? Like I told you already the dating methods are all very faulty and made with many assumptions and your complaint 2 comments ago was that the assumptions weren't listed so I gave you a link where the assumptions are mentioned and you still complain by saying geologists are aware of these, what the hell?
@F1NGER You put ALL your trust and FAITH in the hope in this being true and accurate but obviously you have to put your trust in these assumptions being right, and there are many assumptions, if you don't know these assumptions you obviously didn't read the whole of that link I shared with you. (And there are more scientists who are honest enough to question the mainstream science if you would do your own research and stop asking me to do it for you)
@TruthSeekingOne If you know how much a neighboring isotope will influence the decay rate of your sample, then you can account for that influence. Again, this is not new to geologists, it's why they use multiple dating methods. If the results are inconsistent, then they know to look for some form of contamination. But I ask again, why would the different methods match up at all if they were all unreliable and arbitrary?
@F1NGER The different methods of dating do not match up like you claim, some of them do closely, some of them do not at all. I can't believe you keep bringing this up, you haven't done the research into this I can tell.
@TruthSeekingOne I actually have researched this subject quite a bit. My research just didn't involve religious apologist websites. Different dating methods DO reveal consistent dates. You can put your fingers in your ears and keep saying "no they don't" if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. Modern geology is built around the fact that they do. Take a geology course sometime and learn how geology is actually done instead of relying on dubious internet websites.
@F1NGER You haven't pointed to me any of these evidences FOR consistent dates using an array of different radiometric dating methods or other types. So you asked me for evidences, I gave you some, now give me some.
As for predicting the locations of "transitional fossils" there have been no such transitional fossils - give me one example! (You will give me the same 4 or 5 examples evolutionists always give and I will tell you why they are not examples at all.) What pattern do you speak of??
@TruthSeekingOne It's such a common practice that providing only one or two examples of it being used would be disingenuous to how common it is. Like singling out the physicists who use algebra. Go to google scholar and type in "geochronology multimethod" and you should get papers where the multiple dating method is the main focus. But like I said, it's very common and there are far more papers where the technique is ancillary to the main subject and therefore not mentioned in the title.
@TruthSeekingOne Tell you what.. Before I go and give you the examples you've seen before, why don't you outline for me what YOU would expect of a transitiolnal fossil. That is, tell me what qualities would convince you that a fossil B represents a transitional intermediate between fossil A and fossil C. That way, I can find examples that best fit your expectations.
@F1NGER Well no fossil would really convince me it is transitional because it is impossible, but what you would have to basically find is this:
1) Hundreds (if not more) of fossils of almost the completely same looking creature with one or two slight changes in each of the hundreds of fossils which show that there was changes over a long long period of time - all relatively within the same locations of where that animal lived...
2) Dating the earlier samples to have lived BEFORE the more complex
I already named the pattern. A branching tree pattern. Where the more generalized organisms are at the very bottom, then branch out and diversify (with some branches dying out and others diversifying even more) up through the fossil record eventually forming the various plant and animal groups we have today. I also named the genetic pattern too. It's called a nested set. The mathematical consequence of a branching-tree process.
@F1NGER ...Dating the earlier samples to have lived BEFORE the more complex creatures lived in the series of fossils.
In every single case I have seen where they try to claim a transitional fossil, there are many things wrong with the picture.
Firstly the bones of these supposed relatives are found on different areas of the world, the creatures look completely different when you examine them closely, the supposed "earlier" fossils are actually more complex than the ones they transitioned into..
@TruthSeekingOne That video is crap. I'm not going derail this discussion going into why it's crap.
The first condition you mentioned is unreasonable. It requires the assumption that fossilization is a common event, when it is not. One might as well demand hundreds of photographs proving that Abraham Lincoln was once a boy.
Your second condition is also a bit arbitrary. Evolution does not require all things to become more complex over time...
@F1NGER So what you are telling me basically is that the evidence required isn't possible to obtain because it doesn't exist. Then you expect me to believe some crappy 5-6 fossils which looks similar but have major major differences and where not chronologically ordered as to the dates the animals lived, so that makes them completely there for something to look at and say "wow they almost look like they transformed from one to the next and so on!" It is all purely imagination my friend.
@TruthSeekingOne Observational science isn't about telling nature what we want and expecting it to deliver. It's about making specific predictions about what we should REASONABLY expect to see in nature if a given hypothesis is true. Evolution does not dictate that all things increase in complexity, so why should we reasonably expect ONLY to see increases? The vast majority of organisms decompose when they die, so why should we expect fossilization to be a frequent event?...
@F1NGER No that video isn't crap, and the real reason your will not "derail" this discussion to consider the arguments in his video is because you have no idea how to come back at those arguments.
You will not admit that evolutionary concepts are seriously flawed, because you want to believe them to erase guilt from your conscience which tells you that there really is a God.
If there is no God, your arguing with me is pointless and so is your life and everyone's life.
@TruthSeekingOne Correction, if there is no god your life is pointless where as mine remains awesome.
Dont project your fears and need of a security blanket onto the rest of us. If you cant play the game your way you want to just pack up all the toys and go home.
For me if there is or is not a god matters zero. I am the same person with the same drive, excitement and humbled respect for life and humanity. This enables me to accept facts based on evidence rather than reject based on emotion.
@TruthSeekingOne ...What we CAN do is make specific predictions based on our hypothesis. Predictions that, if validated, would lend support (but not proof) to that hypothesis. The more predictions that are validated, the more likely that theory is to be true. This is why I was talking about the overall pattern of fossil distribution, rather than simply listing individual fossils. It’s the pattern these fossils are in which would invalidate or validate evolutionary thoery...
@TruthSeekingOne ...So allow me to rephrase my request. I have two fossils. One younger, one older and each found in different locations. Both have a similar basic bone structure, but there are numerous features that differentiate them: The positions of the eyes and the size and shape of individual bones, for example. If the younger did descend from the older, what would you expect an intermediate fossil form to look like? And where would you expect it to be found?
B) Have no idea how to refute the claims in that video as they are all based in complete fact.
The fossils prove absolutely nothing!
Like Kent Hovind says, you can't prove that any of those fossils even procreated - let alone had offspring that were any bit different from the parent! So why in the world would you use those fossils for evidence when the 4th one in the sequence is the OLDEST!
@TruthSeekingOne ...So I ask one more time that you answer my request. Based on the scenario I already outlined, what sort of transitional fossil would you reasonably expect to find IF evolution were true, even if it doesn’t, in-and-of-itself convince you that evolution IS true? How old should it be in relation to the other fossils? What should it look like in relation to the other fossils? Where should it be located in relation to the other fossils?
@F1NGER Well like I think I already mentioned (hard to tell what I said without looking back, since I talk regularly with people in multiple different videos..) the radiometric dating system is severely flawed so dates really don't impress me very much. Like I said though for the bird "transitions" even according to their own made up dates it makes zero sense. Carbon dating is the closest system of dating that actually brings some accuracy and it isn't without flaws either.
@TruthSeekingOne And I've already addressed how we know that radiometric dating is, in fact, reliable. They cross-confirm eachother. Then, when asked, I gave you literally hundreds of examples of them cross-confirming eachother. After that, you dropped the subject. You do not get to go back and just pretend that your assertions hadn't been answered.
@F1NGER So the age it "should" be according to evolutionary theory? Well you would have to first find hundreds of thousands of fossils at least with a transitional look to them, then you would be able to identify what mutations took place and get an idea of how much mutation occurs. Evolutionists love to pretend that mutations must be steady at a pace of quite a few mutations per million years, otherwise there is no way in hell that we could get the cambrian explosion and subsequent animals.
@TruthSeekingOne Did you not read the bit in my previous response about the difference between making DEMANDS of nature and making PREDICTIONS about nature? Why on earth would the laws of fossilization demand that "hundreds and thousands" of fossils be recovered along any one segment of any one lineage? Why on earth would evolution demand that ALL evolutionary lineages increase in complexity? Your demands are simply unreasonable because you don't understand the science involved...
@F1NGER The fossils should also ALWAYS show things being gradually more evolved in a succession of time, which I already showed is not the case in one of the most supported and used as evidence for evolution animals - the bird evolution. Also you find the same problem with regards to supposed "whale" evolution. They mix and match bones that fit their theory, but when you study them they do not make any logical sense as to why they are places in that order other than tricking the public.
@TruthSeekingOne ... So I'll try this another way. Tetrapods (land vertebrates with legs) do not show up in the fossil record until about 360 million years ago in what is now north-eastern Canada (near Greenland.) Flat-headed, bony, lungfish are in the fossil record as far back as 390 million years ago and lived in the same area...
@F1NGER They pick random bones to fit an artistic idea of transformation, the truth is that each individual skeleton (or in some cases a fragment of a skull is all they use to imagine entire body of a creature) is unique unto itself and is not necessarily "directly related" to any of the fossils in the sequence. I already asked you to challenge this at all and you keep ignoring me and directing me to give you your own evidence for the theory you support, I have many arguments against it.
@TruthSeekingOne ...So paleontologists made the prediction: If these tetrapods evolved from these bony lungfish, then we should expect to find a fossil form sharing the common traits between lungfish and tetrapods as well as exhibiting morphological intermediates between the two. For example, more developed fin, shoulder, and pelvis bones, primitive finger and toe bones, eyes closer to the top of the head, and numerous other traits...
@F1NGER So you told me radiometric dating methods all match up with each other and that was a big lie, I already know that there are a ton of different dating methods many of which do not match up with others - they choose which dating method to use based on which dates fit their theories.
And also I am still waiting on a response to the bird evolution series, if its so easy to prove why do they mix the fossils up having the oldest bones in the middle of the sequence and so on?
@TruthSeekingOne This is the comments section of a youtube video with a 500 character limit and we're arguing over a subject so broad and complex that it takes years to fully understand. So I would like to keep things focused. I might go into birds later, at which point I will address the video, but we were talking about the predictive power of the evolutionary model and I'm trying to illustrate that to you, if you'll let me...
@TruthSeekingOne "they choose which dating method to use based on which dates fit their theories."
You've got it backwards. They fit their theories to what dating methods produce consistent results. Half the papers that turn up in that google scholar search I told you to do are about just that; testing and refining the theories behind radiometric dating.
@F1NGER So Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega are all partial fossils (incomplete).
Much of their bodies have been reconstructed based on opinions of artists.
Tiktaalik was fully a fish.
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega both seem to be amphibious.
Its also funny to note that they have listed here Coelacanth as a "Late Devonian lobe finned fish" and a LIVE Coelacanth has been found in deep water so I guess it didn't really live 300+ Million years ago huh?
@TruthSeekingOne Tiktaalik is "just a fish"? really? Why then does it have a flat skull with the eyes on the top, like a tetrapod? Why does it have a neck, like a tetrapod? Why does it have tarsal bones in its limbs, like a tetrapod? And why was it found exactly where evolutionary theory predicted a fish with those traits should be found?
@TruthSeekingOne Coelacanths are not a single species of fish. They're an entire group of fish united by a series of traits that make them different from other fish at a fairly basic level. Like how crocodilomorphs represent an entire group of reptiles. The species that was recently found is a coelacanth, yes, but it's very very different from the ones in the fossil record. All its discovery means is that the coelacanth group didn't completely die out as had been previously thought.
@F1NGER "Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom, but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming."
@TruthSeekingOne I highly doubt your assessment of the limb's support capability, but even if you're right, the arrangement of the bones is still "halfway" between that of fish and that of tetrapods. Exactly what evolution predicts. And you still haven't addressed the other features I brought up. Why does it have a neck? A flat, tetrapod-like head with eyes on top? And why, of all places on Earth, was it found exactly where evolutionary theory predicts such transitional forms should be found?
...They then set out on an expedition guided only by their hypothesis. Looking in a very specific location, in rock of a very specific age, for a very specific fossil. And what did they find? Exactly what they were expecting. A flat-headed, scaly fish with teeth, eyes near the top of its head, rudimentary arms and legs, and the musculature required to support itself on land. Why would such a thing be exactly where the hypothesis predicted it would be if the hypothesis were false?
@F1NGER Well that is a very nice story and all but I'm sure there is much more to it than your little pipe dream idea of what it is. Show me where to read more about that and why haven't I ever heard of that before? Whenever evolutionists give their best proofs for evolution they always mention the same lame "evidences".
So go ahead and send me a link where I can read about that little story.
@TruthSeekingOne And on the broader scale, Why does the cumulative distribution of rock layers and the fossils in them adhere to the branching tree pattern predicted by evolution? Why does the classification of living organisms by morphology also adhere to this pattern? Why do various forms of comparative genetic analysis adhere to that pattern as well? Why are multiple sciences converging on the same conclusion so eloquently?
@F1NGER To answer all of your questions simply: they aren't and they don't.
Every prediction you make with evolution that seems to make sense can also be made sense of by use of prediction using the flood of Noah and other biblical themes. You just haven't explored that route. As for genetic patterns, can't you see similarities in all cars, yet they are made by different designers? The reason for this is that each designer found a good design, and used that basic principle for each creation.
@TruthSeekingOne How does Noah's flood explain why paleontologists can use the branching tree pattern of evolution to accurately and reliably PREDICT the locations of transitional fossils? What possible mechanism of a global flood could create a pattern that mirrors the evolutionary tree in such splendid detail, and why is this EXACT PATTERN mirrored in taxonomy AND genetics?...
@TruthSeekingOne ...The genetic pattern I'm talking about is not just simple similarities, but rather the distribution of similarities and differences. They conform to a pattern called a nested set. A nested set is a mathematical consiquence of a branching tree process. Cars do not conform to this patten. Populations do. All life does. If you argue that this was just the way God chose to do it, then you are arguing that God is trying to trick us into thinking everything shares a common ancestor.
@F1NGER I cannot post a link in the comment so I will send it to you in PM of one example of Dinosaur bones being carbon dated within a few thousand years. "With any radiometric dating scheme certain assumptions must be made. The first assumption made is that carbon 14 has always been produced and had the same concentration in the atmosphere. This assumption is more important the older the carbon sample is. After 10,000 years there are no absolute calibration points such as tree rings.."
@TruthSeekingOne The website you linked is a joke. It makes numerous claims that simply go unjustified. It repeatedly asserts that other forms of radiometric dating are "less reliable" because they rely on "assumptions" but it never explains what these assumptions are. It doesn't list its full references and doesn't even cite sources in the body. If I turned in a paper on a subject that broad with only three reference, one which reads "Radiocarbon Journal, numerous articles," I would get an F...
@TruthSeekingOne As for the bible, that book was written between 2000BC to 200AD. Modern science starts with Galileo's observations in the early 1600s. That's a 1400 year gap. How there can be any science in that book is a job left for apologists, not scientists.
I'd much rather the bible be treated as metaphor and fable than a literal history. Reading a book doesn't mean you have to live by it. I read Harry Potter but that doesn't mean I have to treat Harry as though he's a messiah.
@cadman2300 The bible is literal history. Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961. Also MANY many others have been proven as real people from outside sources including: King David, Gedaliah son of Pashhur, Jucal, Baruch, King Sargon, Zedekiah, Prince Belshazzar...
@cadman2300 Now as far as science: 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to “the circle [or, sphere] of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?
The bible is not a book of science but when it touches on scientific truths, it is never wrong!
@TruthSeekingOne You have apparently omitted the second half of Isaiah 40:22:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and SPREADETH THEM OUT AS A TENT to dwell in:"
This is not an accurate description of a vast, rich universe in relation to a tiny, unnoticeable, pale blue dot. It is, however, a fairly accurate description of a very small universe stretched above a very flat earth.
Very sad! Talk about a disappointing video. I cannot believe that they promote “how scientists know about punctuated equilibria” then just give more demonstrations of evolution within species. Same old, same old...
EVIDENCE tells us that that there is no plausible rationale for a sterile slop to come to life after standing 50 years, and even less so after standing 5o billion years.
EVIDENCE tells us that the laws of nature are not suspended by imagination.
EVIDENCE shows not a single undisputed transitional fossil in 150 years!
EVIDENCE does not show it possible for anything to be created by nothing.
EVIDENCE shows voodoo science cannot create the vast amounts of exactly correct novel genetic information required for molecule to you evolution without an external designer and controller.
EVIDENCE tells us that there is a loss ratio applying to any system that always requires the input to be greater than the output. This precludes the possibility of evolutionism ever occurring, as it requires substantially greater output than input products. So, think man! Who is denying reality?
That makes no sense, if science could create that, it wouldn't be evolution, then it would be an example of intelligent design (by scientists). The fact that they can't doesn't prove that it can't happen naturally.
"loss ratio applying to any system that always requires the input to be greater than the output."
What is this drivel? Sounds like a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Guess what, life is an open system.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi It is very telling that only evolutionists take an lack of evidence against their belief as proof for it. As an engineer I can guarantee that the open system argument (so called) is pure ignorance on the part of evolutionists. The quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not.
Ordinarily the second law is usually stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.
Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, IF ENOUGH ORGANIZING ENERGY AND INFORMATION is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!
First of all, the second law of thermodynamics specifically states that entropy tends to increase in closed systems. It does not apply to open systems. It most certainly does not apply to evolution. Complexity and order can (and does) emerge out of simple systems. Evolution doesn't even require an external source of information, that is just nonsense.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Harvard scientist, John Ross: “Ordinarily the second law of thermodynamics is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
In other words, unless someone can show some empirical proof of something that has prevented entropy, corrosion, decay over time, friction, etc. it still applies. I’ll explain what entropy is as it applies neo-darwinian evolution . Entropy is the LOSS of available energy available to ANY system ANY TIME ANY WORK TAKES PLACE. Build a house, tear a house down, both result in entropy.
The closed system argument is invalidated by exposing the system to the additional forces of entropy fomented by the UNDIRECTED energy of the sun WITHOUT ANY BENEFICIAL torque acting on the system. A CLOSED system here is: equivalent to zero EXTERNAL torque acting on the system however, NEITHER system has zero entropy. Without BENEFICIAL externally controlled forces, In either case, entropy ultimately prevails, if only at different rates.
Entropy decreases within the "house system" when you build the house, but it is an open system where total entropy increases. Similarly, entropy decreases in living systems, for example when a zygote turns into an adult. Also, not all instances of evolution even require decreased entropy. Evolution is not a drive toward increased complexity (though that does sometimes happen).
Torque is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis. Your usage here makes no sense.
Yes, and none of those uses of "torque" apply here.
Is your faith so pathetically fragile that you have to attack anything you see as a threat? And why is it that you creationists have to constantly resort to dishonest tactics like misrepresenting scientific theories in an attempt to make them look invalid?
It is infinitely ironic that you a creationist like yourself wants to denigrate evolution by calling it "religious dogma".
Why is it that you atheists have to constantly resort to dishonest tactics like misrepresenting scientific evolution in an attempt to make it fit into the mold of religious evolutionists that insist that animals can go from an apparently successfully asexually reproducing cell to (slowly or quickly) morph into different kinds of sexually reproducing animals?
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The logic behind your arguments fail because you propose a restricted number of options—it is a false dichotomy. If that is your rationale then our conversation is over as you are incapable of valid deductive argument.
The process needed to eventually transform a one-celled organism into a fish, or philosopher involves the addition of MASSIVE amounts of new unique ORGANIZED genetic information. Ignoring evaporation & natural decomposition of the various materials over millions of years, & without addressing insurmountable CHIRALITY this is supposed to have happened outside the lab where having a natural tendency to stasis, rather than forced change accelerated thousands of times by lab processes are the norm.
That kind of faith over impossible conditions makes it a religion, based on spiritual beliefs rather than any proof. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a BLIND FAITH. They have to believe something that is against real science namely, that information and intelligence can arise from disorder by chance.
@Bereitwilligkeit Mutations increase the number of nucleotides in a given DNA strand, natural selection organizes them. You only need to compile this process over successive generations for evolution to occur. All of this has been directly observed. So if you think that mutation can't increase the number of nucleotides, then explain why. If you think natural selection can't organize nucleotides, explain why. If you think small changes can't accumulate over successive generations, explain why.
@F1NGER “DNA studies reveal no consistent evolutionary trend toward increased genomic complexity.” Koonin, E. V. 2009 Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. Nucleic Acids Research. 37 (4): 1011.
Your carefully worded word games of the Bill Clinton: ‘Define sex’ order that supposedly answer my questions with various assertions fails to take into account that MASSIVE (not MINUSCULE) amounts of new UNIQUE ORGANIZED genetic information are required.
You failed to address CHIRALITY, or the fact that this is supposed to have happened outside the lab where having a natural tendency to stasis, rather than forced change accelerated thousands of times by lab processes are the norm. Besides which, you are using the definition of scientific evolution while we are discussing molecule to man evolution. Also you ignored evaporation, & natural decomposition (& dare I say it? entropy). So it’s still in yours to be answering questions, not mine.
@Bereitwilligkeit ... Basically, the article is arguing that non-adaptive evolutionary processes - like recombination, genetic drift, gene duplication, and so forth - play a bigger roll in the emergence of genomic complexity than the simple Darwinian concept of beneficial mutations randomly emerging and being selected for. It does not support creationism. The most it does is correct my oversimplification. But there are still known processes that lead to an increase in ordered information...
@F1NGER How do the MINUSCULE temporary increases equate to the MASSIVE amounts of new UNIQUE ORGANIZED genetic information as required under non lab conditions where stasis is the norm?
@Bereitwilligkeit What makes you think they're temporary increases? While the majority of increases won't continue after their host parent dies, we are still talking about genetic changes. And these changes can and often do get passed on to the next generation. Over generations, these changes accumulate genome. The changes aren't always minuscule either. Gene duplication copies entire sections of chromosomes and there's even such a thing as WHOLE GENOME duplication (referenced in that paper.)
@F1NGER As to WHOLE GENOME duplication, I have a copying machine that does pretty much that. Unfortunately, each time it performs that task it uses energy, ink, and causes wear on the machine. However, it does it does it without having to run for millions of years.
@Bereitwilligkeit ... So if two organisms have several identical ERV markings all in the exact same places, the only thing that could mean is that they inherited those markings from a common ancestor. And comparative analysis of ERVs across multiple organisms reveal the SAME NESTED HIERARCHICAL PATTERN seen in comparative genetics AND morphology (as well as the fossil record.) Is this designer trying to trick us into thinking everything shares a common ancestor? Because he's doing a good job.
@Bereitwilligkeit Ok then. Part one of your assertion has been refuted. Natural processes CAN increase the amount of information in a genome. The only disagreement is over how quickly this can happen. I'm still waiting for a model that says it can't happen within the alloted time frame.
Part two of your assertion is that natural processes cannot order/reorder this information. Why not? I've already mentioned recombination, but there are a lot more processes that change how genes are expressed.
@F1NGER No part of my assertions have been refuted. However now you expect me to disprove your assertions. Hello? They're your claims, It's up to you to prove them possible, not me to refute them. Among all the sciences, only evolutionism treats a LACK of evidence to the contrary as PROOF for their “science.”
@Bereitwilligkeit Are you saying that recombination doesn't exist? That horizontal gene transfer doesn't exist? That gene switching doesn't exist? That gene duplication doesn't exist? That mutations don't exist? Are you serious? These are all well understood natural events and they can and do alter gene expression both in a lab and in the wild. Just look at that paper you quote-mined earlier. I'm not the one making baseless assertions here.
@Bereitwilligkeit Most genetic increases like gene duplications are non-coding. Junk. So even if, as you say, stasis is the norm, genetic changes can accumulate passively. The actual functional change happens when bits of accumulated junk DNA is changed into coding DNA, effecting functional change.
@F1NGER And somehow you are able to claim mere occasional undirected "CHANGE" equals the MASSIVE amounts of new UNIQUE ORGANIZED genetic information as required. Better refigure, cause the world would have to be trillions of trillions of years old to make that much "change." Talk about a belief in miracles.
@Bereitwilligkeit Really? Did you do the math? Did you factor in the frequency of all adaptive and non-adaptive evolutionary processes as well as account for the variation of each frequency between genomes? Please give me the details of your mathematical calculations. I am very interested.
@Bereitwilligkeit On the subject of genetics, I would like to know why you think there is a genetic nested hierarchy inherit in all living things if living things do not share a common ancestor? And why is this nested hierarchy cross confirmed in mitochondrial DNA as well as endogenous retro-viral markings AND by morphological classification? How does creationism explain this very consistent pattern that seems to suggest a common ancestry?
It all has to do with your squirrely world view. Yours "suggests" the fairy tale of common ancestry. Mine accepts the plainly obvious, common designer.
@Bereitwilligkeit But if the designer was going to design everything with an inherit pattern in both their genes and morphology, why did he choose a pattern that is the mathematical consiquence of a branching tree process? And how exactly do ERV markings factor in? ERV markings are the product of a retrovirus copying part of its RNA onto an organism's DNA...
@Bereitwilligkeit I'm not going to write a dozen posts responding to every single side subject you raise. Pick which one you think supports your position the best, elaborate on it, then I'll respond to it.
@F1NGER I'm not going to write a dozen posts responding to every single side subject you raise. Pick which one you think supports your position the best, elaborate on it, then I'll respond to it.
@Bereitwilligkeit .That was actually a very interesting article. You should read it instead of copy/pasting out-of-context quotes from the abstract.
Had you even bothered to finish that sentence, you would read: "...and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation."
Holy shit. Man found bones from animals that aren't even mentioned in the bible which are 300 million years old when the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old!11!!one!! Man>gOd
@riothero313 There are 7 major problems shared to some extent by all of the fragile radiometric dating methods. Beyond that, according to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials. So, when you tell me that the earth is millions of years old, are you going by what you’ve been told, or are you using a more suitable method by pulling numbers out of a hat?
@Bereitwilligkeit The data was probably erroneous due to incorrect sampling or analysis. The original group that reported the data would correct it, or another scientist would do so. Science is self-correcting and scientists partially develop their reputations by finding errors in the work of others and correcting those errors. The errors you're talking about have most likely been corrected, and you probably obtained incorrect information from a creationist web site. Creationists are liars.
This question has been answered by wikis, faqs and textbooks across the world so many times. There is a brief description of radiometrics from the christian perspective if you google for "Dr. Roger C. Wiens" He's a bit of an expert and deserves much kudos.
The short answer is, Igneous rock often contains samples of different ages... If radiometric dating worked correctly, you'd expect to be able to determine the ages of different spots - which it does.
Secondly, errors do occur in the dating process. If you can remember the site where these measurements were made we can look it up and see if the results have been verified, validated or corrected since then. Scientists don't tend to believe unbelievable claims, so its likely somebody has revisited the site and taken more samples if the results were unusual.
@Bereitwilligkeit -- Explain why coral fossils dated 400 mya have daily growth rings showing a 22.6 hour day? We know the rate of slowing of the earth's rotation ( 1 sec/50,000 years). Works out that approx. 400 millions years ago, the day length was under 23 hours----exactly what the fossilized corals show.
No getting around that one, and shows how dating methods can be calibrated with a fair degree of accuracy.
@LordSauceness Can you show me where a single one of the twenty or so radiometric dating methods has ever been calibrated by fossilized corals? Daily growth rings showing a 22.6 hour day is untestable speculation against unknown conditions. Besides which, you make your ridiculous assertions without reference. More numbers out of a hat.
@Bereitwilligkeit Our day-length is increasing and they know the rate of increase. They just have to back-pedal to know how long the days were 400 mya and thereby how many days/year. Corals keep a nice record of this for us. No numbers- out-of-the-hat tricks. Unlike the 6 magic days of Genesis.
@LordSauceness Dhhhhhhh! You're not really very cerebral are you? Or maybe you've never heard of circular reasoning? you know, thats where the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.
@Bereitwilligkeit ---uh, *circular*? Where? Which part? We have 2 INDEPENDENT methods of dating that have zero correlation to one another. And both come up with the same results. Are you claimning the earth's rotation is NOT slowing and that we can't know the rate of slowing? Are you saying we cannot backtrack the slowing to demonstrate that the day-length was shorter eons ago? Are you claiming that corals do not keep accurate records of daily/yearly growth rings?
Apparently the bonds of evolutionism restrict your imagination and paralyze coherent thought or; you would recognize that you are accepting the old earth belief a priori. In using this as foundational proof for all the rest, to any but a brain injured atheist is: circular reasoning. But then, I don’t expect you will understand this as long as your present condition prevails.
Prove it. Get out your counter-data disproving 1. radiometric dating being inaccurate. 2. corals not keeping accurate ring growths along with the earth's rotation not slowing or science not able to calculate the rate of slowing.
3. Pulbish your results in the appropriate peer reviewed journal so your results can be judged by a jury of your peers......... oh wait........what comic book would that be???
@LordSauceness They’re your circular assumptions proving that the earth is millions of years old, all based on that assumption that the earth is millions of years old, not justified by actual experimental results or empirical testability. That makes them YOUR claims so, it’s up to YOU to prove them, not for me to disprove. You cannot SERIOUSLY be that obtuse... can you?
@LordSauceness The only relevant argument you post is regarding radiometric dating. A study of the dacite lava dome that had formed over Mount Saint Helens in 1986 revealed that five samples sent to a laboratory returned five separate dates, varying from 350,000 to 2,800,000 years--on rock that had formed only TEN YEARS earlier.
@Bereitwilligkeit The researcher that gathered and tested those samples admitted in his paper that he did not remove any phenocrysts from his samples. That means that the newly-solidified glass he was trying to date was contaminated with material that likely predates the eruption. So of course the samples will date wrong. One guy doing sloppy science does not make potassium decay a billion times faster.
@F1NGER You’re lying, no such legitimate “paper” exists. The samples were given to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA. The only information provided to the lab was that the samples came from dacite & that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimens came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old. The results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Close enough for 10 year old samples?
@MomoTheBellyDancer How very sweet of you to come to F1GER's defense. Hello? Apparently, F1GERS being caught in major lies seems to have escaped you.
Btw. The fact that the lab was told that “‘low argon’ should be expected” should have given them all the heads up required. Disingenuous much yourself?
Punctuated equilibrium relates to the black hole at the center of our galaxy. Black holes are essential to the evolution of life in the universe. They emit 'Torsion Waves' which interact with DNA..upgrading it as it moves along. Scientists have correlated the evolution of certain species to these torsion wave impacts here on earth.. guess when we are scheduled for another torsion wave blast? Dec. 21, 2012. It's the next and final step in our evolution.
boogeyman1967 1 month ago
@boogeyman1967 what.
Keinlicht 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht what?
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@boogeyman1967 u best be trollin
Keinlicht 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht nope. dead serious.your point??
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@boogeyman1967 My point is that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium as developed by Gould and Eldredge is designed solely to explain the patterns of stasis and rapid speciation observed in the fossil record, and nowhere in the development of this theory was posited "torsion waves"(which I'm inclined to believe are made up, unless you've got something to back up your assertion). All that is required is Time, Death, Mutation and changing environments.
Keinlicht 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht why would you be inclined to believe they are made up? having an open mind and doing some research on the topic might be the more prudent course of action no? think about it, there must be a REASON for punctuated equilibrium.. it doesn't just happen because it has nothing else to do.. scientists have been able to correlate PE with a seismic event which takes place at EVEN intervals.. evidence so far points to massive energy bursts from our Black Hole...
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@boogeyman1967 What I mean by "made up" is "Asserted without adequate evidence".
If you actually knew the first thing about Gould and Eldrege's theory you'd understand that the stimulus, the reason, for rapid speciation i.e. "punctuations" is thought to be restriction of small breeding populations under heavy environmental stress.
Given occam's razor, it seems unlikely that speciation is of celestial origin, especially given speciation under laboratory conditions has been observed.
Keinlicht 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht you may be right.. but there are still points to consider.. what about the 62 Million year cycle? A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation.
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@boogeyman1967 Assuming such a cycle does indeed exist, it seems to me a little premature to jump to searching for extraterrestrial sources.
The earth has a great many of cycles, some evident, some very subtle. There is of course the advancing and retreating of glaciers, changes in multiple orbital factors and even chance combinations of weather which may have an impact on life. I simply dont see a reason to leave earthy explanations behind when there is still so much we don't know about Earth.
Keinlicht 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht what do you think causes the earth to go through these changes? what happens above, affects what is down below.. as above, so below.. our universe is evolving and so are we..the earth will be completing many cycles on Dec. 21, 2012. If you check, you will find that we are scheduled for another PE event on that date also..
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@boogeyman1967 I just told you. Orbital factors cause the changes I'm talking about.
Keinlicht 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht extraterrestrial? we come from the stars.. we are made of the same material that the stars are made of.. if you're familiar with 'entanglement', you know that what happens to entangled objects, affects other entangled objects.. and since all atoms were created together at the moment of the big bang.. we are all 'entangled' therefore, as above, so below...
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@boogeyman1967 Extraterrestrial = not on the earth.
I know what quantum entanglement is, but what you're saying sound more like new age spurious pseudoscience than anything else. I'm glad we could have a mostly civil conversation, but I think you should take a closer look at why rigor is important in scientific endeavors, and what exactly it means to be rigorous.
Keinlicht 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht thanks, i appreciate the comment.. As I mentioned before, this has much basis in fact.. instead of arbitrarily dismissing it as 'spurious pseudoscience', maybe approach it with an open mind.. knowledge is constantly evolving..take a look at the video.. i'd like to know what you think.. cheers..
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht no disrespect intended.. but why don't you take a look at David Wilcock's 2012 Event Horizon? It makes some very good points and explains, in detail, much better than I can.. with the evidence you are seeking..peace...
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht Robert Rohde, Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, says "It is also possible that a 140 million year fossil diversity cycle is driven by passage through the arms of the Milky Way galaxy".
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
@Keinlicht do some research on David Wilcock's research. Specifically, his theory of evolution.. do you honestly think this stuff is made up?
boogeyman1967 3 weeks ago
Interesting Documentary
Invulnerability11 1 month ago
Darwin was wrong . Species do not evolve slowly ; rather they were punctuated into existence.
villontre 1 month ago
Are these men taking giant steps concerning natural selection the mechanism of evolution based on one find? There is always an exception to the rule. I highly doubt that unexplained variance in this population has much exertion over the whole of planet earth and its distribution of evolved species. Interesting but in no way divergent from Darwin at all.
TheAntiFascist2010 7 months ago
It is so funny people use phrases like in the description of this video "Is punctuated equilibria real? You bet." And yet all throughout the scientists making these claims they say words like "we think" "this may have happened" what they are really saying is they have no clue and the evidence to back 100% of their claims are just interpretations that could go 100 different ways most of which they never explore. Mainstream science will accept ANY evolution theory even when they use bad evidence.
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne So you'd rather attack semantics than point to any objective evidence that proves them wrong. A typical stevebee92653 tactic.
cadman2300 10 months ago
@cadman2300 You didn't read what I said, I have limited characters here to use obviously I wasn't going into huge detail of the other interpretations of the evidences that can be made. The fact is that when scientists find evidence they always interpret it to go along with their theory of evolution, they never even consider the other possibilities especially when relating science to the bible.
As for saying they use "bad evidence" I had Radiometric Dating in mind to be honest, which is a fraud.
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne So now you think radioactive decay rates are made up, and that they should not be used to date rocks and ancient items even if they all agree with each-other and get the same results? What about tree-ring dating, or dendrochronology? It's a radically different dating method but it still agrees with all the others.
cadman2300 10 months ago
@cadman2300 Now on the topic of radioactive decay, I happen to personally believe that Carbon dating is most accurate of them and it probably most correctly dates dinosaur bones to within just a few thousand years not millions by the way. Also a recent discovery found red blood cells in a T-Rex leg bone and soft tissue, pointing to the fact that the bones cannot possibly be millions of years old. The radioactive decay is based on assumptions of how much of the element was present in the past!
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne The "soft tissue" you mention was actually a very small section of a marrow cavity containing some micro vessels which had been removed from within an otherwise fully fossilized T-rex femur. Can you explain SPECIFICALLY why this type of preservation is impossible under the accepted timeline of 68 million years?
Also, can you give specific examples of dinosaur "bones" being "carbon dated" to a "few thousand years ago"?
F1NGER 10 months ago
@F1NGER "It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind."
"After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time.."
Before this discovery it was thought impossible that these types of things could be found in the bone of a fossil from a dinosaur. So...
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne The news media loves to sensationalize scientific discoveries. They regularly make things sound more world-changing than they actually are because it helps them sell newspapers. There are actually very few absolutes in science. Just because something is treated as an absolute in high school science class doesn't mean it actually is. The prospect that a very small bit of marrow can avoid decomposition or fossilization is not going to turn paleontology (or evolution) on its head.
F1NGER 10 months ago
@F1NGER ..So I would only say that this finding while it may not prove without doubt (I am a skeptic of even my own beliefs) I would say it is a great evidence for the theory that the earth is not over 100,000 years old, for me it is extremely hard to believe that these cells were preserved for millions of years let alone 65 million, can you even fathom that number in years? It is hard to believe it being preserved for just a few thousand years!
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ... This isn't pointless semantics here. If you're going to go saying that you regularly carbon date FOSSILIZED dinosaur bones to a few thousand years, you need to be a lot more thorough. You need to cite every single source, list every single reference. Being sloppy and lazy in the way you present your evidence will only be convincing to people who are... well... sloppy and lazy in their critical thinking (no offense.) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
F1NGER 10 months ago
@F1NGER I can't do your research for you, I have gone to plenty of length to study these matters, if you expect me to link you to every single website that refutes the radiometric dating methods you must be off your rocker.
I will show you one other website however which does go to length to show WHY the other methods of radiometric dating (including argon and others) are faulty.
So once again check your PM and this is a lengthy one.
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Only send the peer-reviewed papers please.
F1NGER 10 months ago
@F1NGER Hah you think peer review makes something accurate or inaccurate?
Yea that makes sense, lets get a bunch of atheists to review something written by a theistic creationist, obviously you didn't watch that documentary "Expelled" which shows a whole branch of science being attacked by mainstream nazi scientists who only want their views of the world to be taught.
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Peer review is a good way to ensure the type of thorough methodology I was talking about. It promotes accountability and seeks to eliminates researcher bias. Without it, there is no accountability. You can say what you want, avoid citing as many sources as you want, then just slap it on the internet and pretend that it's the equal of publications like Science. No. Sorry. I demand more credibility than that...
F1NGER 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ...Nevertheless, I looked over your link. All it does is list known limitations of various individual dating methods, as though geologists were not aware of them and didn't already know how to account for them. Tell me, if it was all unreliable, then why do the dating methods cross-confirm eachother? Why do the dates consistently adhere to a pattern of distribution identical to that which is predicted by common ancestry by way of taxonomy and comparative genetics?
F1NGER 10 months ago
@F1NGER What dating methods consistently adhere to that pattern? Obviously Carbon Dating, the MOST RELIABLE of any of the other methods, does not fit that "consistent" pattern does it? Like I told you already the dating methods are all very faulty and made with many assumptions and your complaint 2 comments ago was that the assumptions weren't listed so I gave you a link where the assumptions are mentioned and you still complain by saying geologists are aware of these, what the hell?
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@F1NGER You put ALL your trust and FAITH in the hope in this being true and accurate but obviously you have to put your trust in these assumptions being right, and there are many assumptions, if you don't know these assumptions you obviously didn't read the whole of that link I shared with you. (And there are more scientists who are honest enough to question the mainstream science if you would do your own research and stop asking me to do it for you)
You are just trying to find a way around God.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne If you know how much a neighboring isotope will influence the decay rate of your sample, then you can account for that influence. Again, this is not new to geologists, it's why they use multiple dating methods. If the results are inconsistent, then they know to look for some form of contamination. But I ask again, why would the different methods match up at all if they were all unreliable and arbitrary?
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER The different methods of dating do not match up like you claim, some of them do closely, some of them do not at all. I can't believe you keep bringing this up, you haven't done the research into this I can tell.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne I actually have researched this subject quite a bit. My research just didn't involve religious apologist websites. Different dating methods DO reveal consistent dates. You can put your fingers in your ears and keep saying "no they don't" if you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. Modern geology is built around the fact that they do. Take a geology course sometime and learn how geology is actually done instead of relying on dubious internet websites.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER You haven't pointed to me any of these evidences FOR consistent dates using an array of different radiometric dating methods or other types. So you asked me for evidences, I gave you some, now give me some.
As for predicting the locations of "transitional fossils" there have been no such transitional fossils - give me one example! (You will give me the same 4 or 5 examples evolutionists always give and I will tell you why they are not examples at all.) What pattern do you speak of??
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne It's such a common practice that providing only one or two examples of it being used would be disingenuous to how common it is. Like singling out the physicists who use algebra. Go to google scholar and type in "geochronology multimethod" and you should get papers where the multiple dating method is the main focus. But like I said, it's very common and there are far more papers where the technique is ancillary to the main subject and therefore not mentioned in the title.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Tell you what.. Before I go and give you the examples you've seen before, why don't you outline for me what YOU would expect of a transitiolnal fossil. That is, tell me what qualities would convince you that a fossil B represents a transitional intermediate between fossil A and fossil C. That way, I can find examples that best fit your expectations.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER Well no fossil would really convince me it is transitional because it is impossible, but what you would have to basically find is this:
1) Hundreds (if not more) of fossils of almost the completely same looking creature with one or two slight changes in each of the hundreds of fossils which show that there was changes over a long long period of time - all relatively within the same locations of where that animal lived...
2) Dating the earlier samples to have lived BEFORE the more complex
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne "What pattern do you speak of??"
I already named the pattern. A branching tree pattern. Where the more generalized organisms are at the very bottom, then branch out and diversify (with some branches dying out and others diversifying even more) up through the fossil record eventually forming the various plant and animal groups we have today. I also named the genetic pattern too. It's called a nested set. The mathematical consequence of a branching-tree process.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER ...Dating the earlier samples to have lived BEFORE the more complex creatures lived in the series of fossils.
In every single case I have seen where they try to claim a transitional fossil, there are many things wrong with the picture.
Firstly the bones of these supposed relatives are found on different areas of the world, the creatures look completely different when you examine them closely, the supposed "earlier" fossils are actually more complex than the ones they transitioned into..
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@F1NGER I will give you one good example of what I am talking about since comments don't allow enough characters to get half a thought through.
/watch?v=1yS-r83aw6k
Please watch that and the rest of the series about birds he has, he also has a few more great videos that totally flip evolution on its head.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne That video is crap. I'm not going derail this discussion going into why it's crap.
The first condition you mentioned is unreasonable. It requires the assumption that fossilization is a common event, when it is not. One might as well demand hundreds of photographs proving that Abraham Lincoln was once a boy.
Your second condition is also a bit arbitrary. Evolution does not require all things to become more complex over time...
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER So what you are telling me basically is that the evidence required isn't possible to obtain because it doesn't exist. Then you expect me to believe some crappy 5-6 fossils which looks similar but have major major differences and where not chronologically ordered as to the dates the animals lived, so that makes them completely there for something to look at and say "wow they almost look like they transformed from one to the next and so on!" It is all purely imagination my friend.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Observational science isn't about telling nature what we want and expecting it to deliver. It's about making specific predictions about what we should REASONABLY expect to see in nature if a given hypothesis is true. Evolution does not dictate that all things increase in complexity, so why should we reasonably expect ONLY to see increases? The vast majority of organisms decompose when they die, so why should we expect fossilization to be a frequent event?...
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER No that video isn't crap, and the real reason your will not "derail" this discussion to consider the arguments in his video is because you have no idea how to come back at those arguments.
You will not admit that evolutionary concepts are seriously flawed, because you want to believe them to erase guilt from your conscience which tells you that there really is a God.
If there is no God, your arguing with me is pointless and so is your life and everyone's life.
There is no true purpose..?
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Correction, if there is no god your life is pointless where as mine remains awesome.
Dont project your fears and need of a security blanket onto the rest of us. If you cant play the game your way you want to just pack up all the toys and go home.
For me if there is or is not a god matters zero. I am the same person with the same drive, excitement and humbled respect for life and humanity. This enables me to accept facts based on evidence rather than reject based on emotion.
myjizzureye 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ...What we CAN do is make specific predictions based on our hypothesis. Predictions that, if validated, would lend support (but not proof) to that hypothesis. The more predictions that are validated, the more likely that theory is to be true. This is why I was talking about the overall pattern of fossil distribution, rather than simply listing individual fossils. It’s the pattern these fossils are in which would invalidate or validate evolutionary thoery...
F1NGER 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ...So allow me to rephrase my request. I have two fossils. One younger, one older and each found in different locations. Both have a similar basic bone structure, but there are numerous features that differentiate them: The positions of the eyes and the size and shape of individual bones, for example. If the younger did descend from the older, what would you expect an intermediate fossil form to look like? And where would you expect it to be found?
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER I honestly believe you either:
A) Didn't fully watch the video I pasted, or
B) Have no idea how to refute the claims in that video as they are all based in complete fact.
The fossils prove absolutely nothing!
Like Kent Hovind says, you can't prove that any of those fossils even procreated - let alone had offspring that were any bit different from the parent! So why in the world would you use those fossils for evidence when the 4th one in the sequence is the OLDEST!
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ...So I ask one more time that you answer my request. Based on the scenario I already outlined, what sort of transitional fossil would you reasonably expect to find IF evolution were true, even if it doesn’t, in-and-of-itself convince you that evolution IS true? How old should it be in relation to the other fossils? What should it look like in relation to the other fossils? Where should it be located in relation to the other fossils?
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER Well like I think I already mentioned (hard to tell what I said without looking back, since I talk regularly with people in multiple different videos..) the radiometric dating system is severely flawed so dates really don't impress me very much. Like I said though for the bird "transitions" even according to their own made up dates it makes zero sense. Carbon dating is the closest system of dating that actually brings some accuracy and it isn't without flaws either.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne And I've already addressed how we know that radiometric dating is, in fact, reliable. They cross-confirm eachother. Then, when asked, I gave you literally hundreds of examples of them cross-confirming eachother. After that, you dropped the subject. You do not get to go back and just pretend that your assertions hadn't been answered.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER So the age it "should" be according to evolutionary theory? Well you would have to first find hundreds of thousands of fossils at least with a transitional look to them, then you would be able to identify what mutations took place and get an idea of how much mutation occurs. Evolutionists love to pretend that mutations must be steady at a pace of quite a few mutations per million years, otherwise there is no way in hell that we could get the cambrian explosion and subsequent animals.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Did you not read the bit in my previous response about the difference between making DEMANDS of nature and making PREDICTIONS about nature? Why on earth would the laws of fossilization demand that "hundreds and thousands" of fossils be recovered along any one segment of any one lineage? Why on earth would evolution demand that ALL evolutionary lineages increase in complexity? Your demands are simply unreasonable because you don't understand the science involved...
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER The fossils should also ALWAYS show things being gradually more evolved in a succession of time, which I already showed is not the case in one of the most supported and used as evidence for evolution animals - the bird evolution. Also you find the same problem with regards to supposed "whale" evolution. They mix and match bones that fit their theory, but when you study them they do not make any logical sense as to why they are places in that order other than tricking the public.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ... So I'll try this another way. Tetrapods (land vertebrates with legs) do not show up in the fossil record until about 360 million years ago in what is now north-eastern Canada (near Greenland.) Flat-headed, bony, lungfish are in the fossil record as far back as 390 million years ago and lived in the same area...
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER They pick random bones to fit an artistic idea of transformation, the truth is that each individual skeleton (or in some cases a fragment of a skull is all they use to imagine entire body of a creature) is unique unto itself and is not necessarily "directly related" to any of the fossils in the sequence. I already asked you to challenge this at all and you keep ignoring me and directing me to give you your own evidence for the theory you support, I have many arguments against it.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ...So paleontologists made the prediction: If these tetrapods evolved from these bony lungfish, then we should expect to find a fossil form sharing the common traits between lungfish and tetrapods as well as exhibiting morphological intermediates between the two. For example, more developed fin, shoulder, and pelvis bones, primitive finger and toe bones, eyes closer to the top of the head, and numerous other traits...
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER So you told me radiometric dating methods all match up with each other and that was a big lie, I already know that there are a ton of different dating methods many of which do not match up with others - they choose which dating method to use based on which dates fit their theories.
And also I am still waiting on a response to the bird evolution series, if its so easy to prove why do they mix the fossils up having the oldest bones in the middle of the sequence and so on?
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne This is the comments section of a youtube video with a 500 character limit and we're arguing over a subject so broad and complex that it takes years to fully understand. So I would like to keep things focused. I might go into birds later, at which point I will address the video, but we were talking about the predictive power of the evolutionary model and I'm trying to illustrate that to you, if you'll let me...
F1NGER 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne "they choose which dating method to use based on which dates fit their theories."
You've got it backwards. They fit their theories to what dating methods produce consistent results. Half the papers that turn up in that google scholar search I told you to do are about just that; testing and refining the theories behind radiometric dating.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER So Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega are all partial fossils (incomplete).
Much of their bodies have been reconstructed based on opinions of artists.
Tiktaalik was fully a fish.
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega both seem to be amphibious.
Its also funny to note that they have listed here Coelacanth as a "Late Devonian lobe finned fish" and a LIVE Coelacanth has been found in deep water so I guess it didn't really live 300+ Million years ago huh?
No evolution, just different species.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Tiktaalik is "just a fish"? really? Why then does it have a flat skull with the eyes on the top, like a tetrapod? Why does it have a neck, like a tetrapod? Why does it have tarsal bones in its limbs, like a tetrapod? And why was it found exactly where evolutionary theory predicted a fish with those traits should be found?
F1NGER 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Coelacanths are not a single species of fish. They're an entire group of fish united by a series of traits that make them different from other fish at a fairly basic level. Like how crocodilomorphs represent an entire group of reptiles. The species that was recently found is a coelacanth, yes, but it's very very different from the ones in the fossil record. All its discovery means is that the coelacanth group didn't completely die out as had been previously thought.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER "Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom, but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming."
I find that very interesting..
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne I highly doubt your assessment of the limb's support capability, but even if you're right, the arrangement of the bones is still "halfway" between that of fish and that of tetrapods. Exactly what evolution predicts. And you still haven't addressed the other features I brought up. Why does it have a neck? A flat, tetrapod-like head with eyes on top? And why, of all places on Earth, was it found exactly where evolutionary theory predicts such transitional forms should be found?
F1NGER 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne "Much of their bodies have been reconstructed based on opinions of artists.
Tiktaalik was fully a fish."
.....so why the fuck aren't YOU the one drawing the artistic reconstructions if you're such an amazing fucking expert, sir?
GuacamoleKun 3 months ago
...They then set out on an expedition guided only by their hypothesis. Looking in a very specific location, in rock of a very specific age, for a very specific fossil. And what did they find? Exactly what they were expecting. A flat-headed, scaly fish with teeth, eyes near the top of its head, rudimentary arms and legs, and the musculature required to support itself on land. Why would such a thing be exactly where the hypothesis predicted it would be if the hypothesis were false?
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER Well that is a very nice story and all but I'm sure there is much more to it than your little pipe dream idea of what it is. Show me where to read more about that and why haven't I ever heard of that before? Whenever evolutionists give their best proofs for evolution they always mention the same lame "evidences".
So go ahead and send me a link where I can read about that little story.
Oh and you still didn't address MY issues at all.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne The fossil in question is called tiktaalik, I forgot to name it in my post. Google it and learn more.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne And on the broader scale, Why does the cumulative distribution of rock layers and the fossils in them adhere to the branching tree pattern predicted by evolution? Why does the classification of living organisms by morphology also adhere to this pattern? Why do various forms of comparative genetic analysis adhere to that pattern as well? Why are multiple sciences converging on the same conclusion so eloquently?
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER To answer all of your questions simply: they aren't and they don't.
Every prediction you make with evolution that seems to make sense can also be made sense of by use of prediction using the flood of Noah and other biblical themes. You just haven't explored that route. As for genetic patterns, can't you see similarities in all cars, yet they are made by different designers? The reason for this is that each designer found a good design, and used that basic principle for each creation.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne How does Noah's flood explain why paleontologists can use the branching tree pattern of evolution to accurately and reliably PREDICT the locations of transitional fossils? What possible mechanism of a global flood could create a pattern that mirrors the evolutionary tree in such splendid detail, and why is this EXACT PATTERN mirrored in taxonomy AND genetics?...
F1NGER 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne ...The genetic pattern I'm talking about is not just simple similarities, but rather the distribution of similarities and differences. They conform to a pattern called a nested set. A nested set is a mathematical consiquence of a branching tree process. Cars do not conform to this patten. Populations do. All life does. If you argue that this was just the way God chose to do it, then you are arguing that God is trying to trick us into thinking everything shares a common ancestor.
F1NGER 9 months ago
@F1NGER I cannot post a link in the comment so I will send it to you in PM of one example of Dinosaur bones being carbon dated within a few thousand years. "With any radiometric dating scheme certain assumptions must be made. The first assumption made is that carbon 14 has always been produced and had the same concentration in the atmosphere. This assumption is more important the older the carbon sample is. After 10,000 years there are no absolute calibration points such as tree rings.."
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne The website you linked is a joke. It makes numerous claims that simply go unjustified. It repeatedly asserts that other forms of radiometric dating are "less reliable" because they rely on "assumptions" but it never explains what these assumptions are. It doesn't list its full references and doesn't even cite sources in the body. If I turned in a paper on a subject that broad with only three reference, one which reads "Radiocarbon Journal, numerous articles," I would get an F...
F1NGER 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne As for the bible, that book was written between 2000BC to 200AD. Modern science starts with Galileo's observations in the early 1600s. That's a 1400 year gap. How there can be any science in that book is a job left for apologists, not scientists.
I'd much rather the bible be treated as metaphor and fable than a literal history. Reading a book doesn't mean you have to live by it. I read Harry Potter but that doesn't mean I have to treat Harry as though he's a messiah.
cadman2300 10 months ago
@cadman2300 The bible is literal history. Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961. Also MANY many others have been proven as real people from outside sources including: King David, Gedaliah son of Pashhur, Jucal, Baruch, King Sargon, Zedekiah, Prince Belshazzar...
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@cadman2300 Now as far as science: 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to “the circle [or, sphere] of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?
The bible is not a book of science but when it touches on scientific truths, it is never wrong!
TruthSeekingOne 10 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne You have apparently omitted the second half of Isaiah 40:22:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and SPREADETH THEM OUT AS A TENT to dwell in:"
This is not an accurate description of a vast, rich universe in relation to a tiny, unnoticeable, pale blue dot. It is, however, a fairly accurate description of a very small universe stretched above a very flat earth.
F1NGER 10 months ago
Very sad! Talk about a disappointing video. I cannot believe that they promote “how scientists know about punctuated equilibria” then just give more demonstrations of evolution within species. Same old, same old...
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
Why is it that you creationists always insist on denying reality?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Reality? How about evidence?
EVIDENCE tells us that that there is no plausible rationale for a sterile slop to come to life after standing 50 years, and even less so after standing 5o billion years.
EVIDENCE tells us that the laws of nature are not suspended by imagination.
EVIDENCE shows not a single undisputed transitional fossil in 150 years!
EVIDENCE does not show it possible for anything to be created by nothing.
(CONT)
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
(CONT)
EVIDENCE shows voodoo science cannot create the vast amounts of exactly correct novel genetic information required for molecule to you evolution without an external designer and controller.
EVIDENCE tells us that there is a loss ratio applying to any system that always requires the input to be greater than the output. This precludes the possibility of evolutionism ever occurring, as it requires substantially greater output than input products. So, think man! Who is denying reality?
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
"voodoo science cannot create the...."
That makes no sense, if science could create that, it wouldn't be evolution, then it would be an example of intelligent design (by scientists). The fact that they can't doesn't prove that it can't happen naturally.
"loss ratio applying to any system that always requires the input to be greater than the output."
What is this drivel? Sounds like a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Guess what, life is an open system.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi It is very telling that only evolutionists take an lack of evidence against their belief as proof for it. As an engineer I can guarantee that the open system argument (so called) is pure ignorance on the part of evolutionists. The quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not.
Ordinarily the second law is usually stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.
(cont)
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
(cont)
Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, IF ENOUGH ORGANIZING ENERGY AND INFORMATION is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
First of all, the second law of thermodynamics specifically states that entropy tends to increase in closed systems. It does not apply to open systems. It most certainly does not apply to evolution. Complexity and order can (and does) emerge out of simple systems. Evolution doesn't even require an external source of information, that is just nonsense.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Harvard scientist, John Ross: “Ordinarily the second law of thermodynamics is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
(cont)
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
(cont)
In other words, unless someone can show some empirical proof of something that has prevented entropy, corrosion, decay over time, friction, etc. it still applies. I’ll explain what entropy is as it applies neo-darwinian evolution . Entropy is the LOSS of available energy available to ANY system ANY TIME ANY WORK TAKES PLACE. Build a house, tear a house down, both result in entropy.
(cont)
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
(cont)
The closed system argument is invalidated by exposing the system to the additional forces of entropy fomented by the UNDIRECTED energy of the sun WITHOUT ANY BENEFICIAL torque acting on the system. A CLOSED system here is: equivalent to zero EXTERNAL torque acting on the system however, NEITHER system has zero entropy. Without BENEFICIAL externally controlled forces, In either case, entropy ultimately prevails, if only at different rates.
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
Entropy decreases within the "house system" when you build the house, but it is an open system where total entropy increases. Similarly, entropy decreases in living systems, for example when a zygote turns into an adult. Also, not all instances of evolution even require decreased entropy. Evolution is not a drive toward increased complexity (though that does sometimes happen).
Torque is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis. Your usage here makes no sense.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi LEARN! In engineering and physics torque can be thought of as a twist OR as a force as in a push or a pull.
As you are incapable of accepting anything that isn't tainted by evolutionist religious dogma, I'm wasting my time trying to teach you.
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
Yes, and none of those uses of "torque" apply here.
Is your faith so pathetically fragile that you have to attack anything you see as a threat? And why is it that you creationists have to constantly resort to dishonest tactics like misrepresenting scientific theories in an attempt to make them look invalid?
It is infinitely ironic that you a creationist like yourself wants to denigrate evolution by calling it "religious dogma".
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi ATHEISTS DISHONOSTY
Why is it that you atheists have to constantly resort to dishonest tactics like misrepresenting scientific evolution in an attempt to make it fit into the mold of religious evolutionists that insist that animals can go from an apparently successfully asexually reproducing cell to (slowly or quickly) morph into different kinds of sexually reproducing animals?
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
Way to not address any of my points/questions.
Do you really think that if you managed to disprove evolution, that people would suddenly become creationists like yourself?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The logic behind your arguments fail because you propose a restricted number of options—it is a false dichotomy. If that is your rationale then our conversation is over as you are incapable of valid deductive argument.
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
Alright lets get back to the topic then.
How is it that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by evolution, but not by the growth of the organism from a zygote to an adult?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bereitwilligkeit
"EVIDENCE tells us that the laws of nature are not suspended by imagination."
But isn't that exactly how God supposedly does miracles? Evolution is most certainly allowed by the laws of nature.
Actually every fossil and every living creature is a transitional form.
Evolution has nothing to do with where everything came from, so I don't know why you're brining that up.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
Actually, it's equilibriA. Or so Niles, et al, tells me! -rl
NatCen4ScienceEd 11 months ago
EquilibriUM, surely?
hackenbollox 11 months ago
Stephen Jay Gould, my favorite author. Wonderful life, his best book
demonorse 11 months ago
The process needed to eventually transform a one-celled organism into a fish, or philosopher involves the addition of MASSIVE amounts of new unique ORGANIZED genetic information. Ignoring evaporation & natural decomposition of the various materials over millions of years, & without addressing insurmountable CHIRALITY this is supposed to have happened outside the lab where having a natural tendency to stasis, rather than forced change accelerated thousands of times by lab processes are the norm.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit (cont)
That kind of faith over impossible conditions makes it a religion, based on spiritual beliefs rather than any proof. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a BLIND FAITH. They have to believe something that is against real science namely, that information and intelligence can arise from disorder by chance.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Mutations increase the number of nucleotides in a given DNA strand, natural selection organizes them. You only need to compile this process over successive generations for evolution to occur. All of this has been directly observed. So if you think that mutation can't increase the number of nucleotides, then explain why. If you think natural selection can't organize nucleotides, explain why. If you think small changes can't accumulate over successive generations, explain why.
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER “DNA studies reveal no consistent evolutionary trend toward increased genomic complexity.” Koonin, E. V. 2009 Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. Nucleic Acids Research. 37 (4): 1011.
Your carefully worded word games of the Bill Clinton: ‘Define sex’ order that supposedly answer my questions with various assertions fails to take into account that MASSIVE (not MINUSCULE) amounts of new UNIQUE ORGANIZED genetic information are required.
(cont)
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
(cont)
You failed to address CHIRALITY, or the fact that this is supposed to have happened outside the lab where having a natural tendency to stasis, rather than forced change accelerated thousands of times by lab processes are the norm. Besides which, you are using the definition of scientific evolution while we are discussing molecule to man evolution. Also you ignored evaporation, & natural decomposition (& dare I say it? entropy). So it’s still in yours to be answering questions, not mine.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit ... Basically, the article is arguing that non-adaptive evolutionary processes - like recombination, genetic drift, gene duplication, and so forth - play a bigger roll in the emergence of genomic complexity than the simple Darwinian concept of beneficial mutations randomly emerging and being selected for. It does not support creationism. The most it does is correct my oversimplification. But there are still known processes that lead to an increase in ordered information...
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER How do the MINUSCULE temporary increases equate to the MASSIVE amounts of new UNIQUE ORGANIZED genetic information as required under non lab conditions where stasis is the norm?
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit What makes you think they're temporary increases? While the majority of increases won't continue after their host parent dies, we are still talking about genetic changes. And these changes can and often do get passed on to the next generation. Over generations, these changes accumulate genome. The changes aren't always minuscule either. Gene duplication copies entire sections of chromosomes and there's even such a thing as WHOLE GENOME duplication (referenced in that paper.)
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER As to WHOLE GENOME duplication, I have a copying machine that does pretty much that. Unfortunately, each time it performs that task it uses energy, ink, and causes wear on the machine. However, it does it does it without having to run for millions of years.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit ... So if two organisms have several identical ERV markings all in the exact same places, the only thing that could mean is that they inherited those markings from a common ancestor. And comparative analysis of ERVs across multiple organisms reveal the SAME NESTED HIERARCHICAL PATTERN seen in comparative genetics AND morphology (as well as the fossil record.) Is this designer trying to trick us into thinking everything shares a common ancestor? Because he's doing a good job.
F1NGER 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit But do you at least admit that that gene (and genome) duplication does, in fact, lead to an increase in genomic size?
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER Certainly! Under the right conditions It can work like my pre-described copying machine.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Ok then. Part one of your assertion has been refuted. Natural processes CAN increase the amount of information in a genome. The only disagreement is over how quickly this can happen. I'm still waiting for a model that says it can't happen within the alloted time frame.
Part two of your assertion is that natural processes cannot order/reorder this information. Why not? I've already mentioned recombination, but there are a lot more processes that change how genes are expressed.
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER No part of my assertions have been refuted. However now you expect me to disprove your assertions. Hello? They're your claims, It's up to you to prove them possible, not me to refute them. Among all the sciences, only evolutionism treats a LACK of evidence to the contrary as PROOF for their “science.”
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Are you saying that recombination doesn't exist? That horizontal gene transfer doesn't exist? That gene switching doesn't exist? That gene duplication doesn't exist? That mutations don't exist? Are you serious? These are all well understood natural events and they can and do alter gene expression both in a lab and in the wild. Just look at that paper you quote-mined earlier. I'm not the one making baseless assertions here.
F1NGER 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Most genetic increases like gene duplications are non-coding. Junk. So even if, as you say, stasis is the norm, genetic changes can accumulate passively. The actual functional change happens when bits of accumulated junk DNA is changed into coding DNA, effecting functional change.
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER And somehow you are able to claim mere occasional undirected "CHANGE" equals the MASSIVE amounts of new UNIQUE ORGANIZED genetic information as required. Better refigure, cause the world would have to be trillions of trillions of years old to make that much "change." Talk about a belief in miracles.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Really? Did you do the math? Did you factor in the frequency of all adaptive and non-adaptive evolutionary processes as well as account for the variation of each frequency between genomes? Please give me the details of your mathematical calculations. I am very interested.
F1NGER 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit On the subject of genetics, I would like to know why you think there is a genetic nested hierarchy inherit in all living things if living things do not share a common ancestor? And why is this nested hierarchy cross confirmed in mitochondrial DNA as well as endogenous retro-viral markings AND by morphological classification? How does creationism explain this very consistent pattern that seems to suggest a common ancestry?
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER That is too simple a question.
It all has to do with your squirrely world view. Yours "suggests" the fairy tale of common ancestry. Mine accepts the plainly obvious, common designer.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit But if the designer was going to design everything with an inherit pattern in both their genes and morphology, why did he choose a pattern that is the mathematical consiquence of a branching tree process? And how exactly do ERV markings factor in? ERV markings are the product of a retrovirus copying part of its RNA onto an organism's DNA...
F1NGER 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit I'm not going to write a dozen posts responding to every single side subject you raise. Pick which one you think supports your position the best, elaborate on it, then I'll respond to it.
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER I'm not going to write a dozen posts responding to every single side subject you raise. Pick which one you think supports your position the best, elaborate on it, then I'll respond to it.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit .That was actually a very interesting article. You should read it instead of copy/pasting out-of-context quotes from the abstract.
Had you even bothered to finish that sentence, you would read: "...and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation."
...
F1NGER 11 months ago
Holy shit. Man found bones from animals that aren't even mentioned in the bible which are 300 million years old when the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old!11!!one!! Man>gOd
riothero313 11 months ago
@riothero313 There are 7 major problems shared to some extent by all of the fragile radiometric dating methods. Beyond that, according to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials. So, when you tell me that the earth is millions of years old, are you going by what you’ve been told, or are you using a more suitable method by pulling numbers out of a hat?
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
Or answer this. Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit The data was probably erroneous due to incorrect sampling or analysis. The original group that reported the data would correct it, or another scientist would do so. Science is self-correcting and scientists partially develop their reputations by finding errors in the work of others and correcting those errors. The errors you're talking about have most likely been corrected, and you probably obtained incorrect information from a creationist web site. Creationists are liars.
heathdwatts 11 months ago 2
@Bereitwilligkeit
This question has been answered by wikis, faqs and textbooks across the world so many times. There is a brief description of radiometrics from the christian perspective if you google for "Dr. Roger C. Wiens" He's a bit of an expert and deserves much kudos.
The short answer is, Igneous rock often contains samples of different ages... If radiometric dating worked correctly, you'd expect to be able to determine the ages of different spots - which it does.
AjnaKotobide 11 months ago
@AjnaKotobide
Secondly, errors do occur in the dating process. If you can remember the site where these measurements were made we can look it up and see if the results have been verified, validated or corrected since then. Scientists don't tend to believe unbelievable claims, so its likely somebody has revisited the site and taken more samples if the results were unusual.
AjnaKotobide 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit -- Explain why coral fossils dated 400 mya have daily growth rings showing a 22.6 hour day? We know the rate of slowing of the earth's rotation ( 1 sec/50,000 years). Works out that approx. 400 millions years ago, the day length was under 23 hours----exactly what the fossilized corals show.
No getting around that one, and shows how dating methods can be calibrated with a fair degree of accuracy.
FYI> corals have daily & yearly growth rings.
LordSauceness 11 months ago
@LordSauceness Can you show me where a single one of the twenty or so radiometric dating methods has ever been calibrated by fossilized corals? Daily growth rings showing a 22.6 hour day is untestable speculation against unknown conditions. Besides which, you make your ridiculous assertions without reference. More numbers out of a hat.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Our day-length is increasing and they know the rate of increase. They just have to back-pedal to know how long the days were 400 mya and thereby how many days/year. Corals keep a nice record of this for us. No numbers- out-of-the-hat tricks. Unlike the 6 magic days of Genesis.
LordSauceness 11 months ago
@LordSauceness Dhhhhhhh! You're not really very cerebral are you? Or maybe you've never heard of circular reasoning? you know, thats where the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit ---uh, *circular*? Where? Which part? We have 2 INDEPENDENT methods of dating that have zero correlation to one another. And both come up with the same results. Are you claimning the earth's rotation is NOT slowing and that we can't know the rate of slowing? Are you saying we cannot backtrack the slowing to demonstrate that the day-length was shorter eons ago? Are you claiming that corals do not keep accurate records of daily/yearly growth rings?
LMFAO....
LordSauceness 11 months ago
@LordSauceness Both with the same results? Liar!
Apparently the bonds of evolutionism restrict your imagination and paralyze coherent thought or; you would recognize that you are accepting the old earth belief a priori. In using this as foundational proof for all the rest, to any but a brain injured atheist is: circular reasoning. But then, I don’t expect you will understand this as long as your present condition prevails.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit You're crazy.
F1NGER 11 months ago
@F1NGER Here's a sign for your cage: STAY BACK
MONKEY WILL THROW FECES
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit " Both with the same results? Liar!"
Prove it. Get out your counter-data disproving 1. radiometric dating being inaccurate. 2. corals not keeping accurate ring growths along with the earth's rotation not slowing or science not able to calculate the rate of slowing.
3. Pulbish your results in the appropriate peer reviewed journal so your results can be judged by a jury of your peers......... oh wait........what comic book would that be???
LordSauceness 11 months ago
@LordSauceness They’re your circular assumptions proving that the earth is millions of years old, all based on that assumption that the earth is millions of years old, not justified by actual experimental results or empirical testability. That makes them YOUR claims so, it’s up to YOU to prove them, not for me to disprove. You cannot SERIOUSLY be that obtuse... can you?
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@LordSauceness The only relevant argument you post is regarding radiometric dating. A study of the dacite lava dome that had formed over Mount Saint Helens in 1986 revealed that five samples sent to a laboratory returned five separate dates, varying from 350,000 to 2,800,000 years--on rock that had formed only TEN YEARS earlier.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit The researcher that gathered and tested those samples admitted in his paper that he did not remove any phenocrysts from his samples. That means that the newly-solidified glass he was trying to date was contaminated with material that likely predates the eruption. So of course the samples will date wrong. One guy doing sloppy science does not make potassium decay a billion times faster.
F1NGER 11 months ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@F1NGER You’re lying, no such legitimate “paper” exists. The samples were given to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA. The only information provided to the lab was that the samples came from dacite & that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimens came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old. The results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Close enough for 10 year old samples?
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
"d. The laboratory was not told that the specimens came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old."
Which is, of course, very crucial information., since it tells the researchers that they can't get any reliable results. Disingenuous much?
MomoTheBellyDancer 11 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer How very sweet of you to come to F1GER's defense. Hello? Apparently, F1GERS being caught in major lies seems to have escaped you.
Btw. The fact that the lab was told that “‘low argon’ should be expected” should have given them all the heads up required. Disingenuous much yourself?
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
"come to F1GER's defense."
I simply point out a falsehood in your claims. Geologists know how to date ingenuous rocks when you tell them their origins.
"The fact that the lab was told that “‘low argon’ should be expected”"
Which simply tells them a very important boundary condition, like "this comes from a sea floor" or "this comes from a volcano".
MomoTheBellyDancer 11 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
"five samples sent to a laboratory returned five separate dates"
If you don't tell the lab that it comes from a freshly erupted volcano, that's to be expected.
MomoTheBellyDancer 11 months ago