are you aware than the number of NATIVE americans that were killed is greater than the amount of jews killed by the nazi's during the holocaust?
technically america was founded with an element of fascism regarding freedom of speech and equal rights that clearly did not include the native inhabitants
Powned? POWNED?!? HAHAHAHAHAHA! You can't even spell it correctly, newfag!
I will leave your parting tirade here, as usual. It clearly shows to all the false bravado you put on as you retreat back to your corner. Perhaps you'll feel better after you break something. Maybe some evil rock CDs from your youth?
Deleted. You WILL acknowledge that you have been corrected (or else refute that correction with sound sources), or else you WILL leave my channel. I won't have your scatter-shot approach littering my videos.
And did they brreed those mice and make more of those who had the DNA removed?
What you are referring to is not evidence of evolution or that DNA is junk. Most of the DNA molecule is used during embryionic development, and does not exist for the purpose of coding protiens, etc.
Oh, and YES, those mice could and did still breed. A quote from the article, published in Nature 431:
"Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."
How are these mice evidence of evolution? They aren't. They aren't even distinguishable from thier siblings.
Did you learn that some of what you call "junk dna" actually codes for protiens and is used during embyonic development? Have you looked into that? No, you have not. Why? Because you don't give a crap about the truth or learning anything that upsets your ill-gotten preconceptions of evolution because you hate God! it does not get simpler than that.
The only DNA that could be called "junk DNA" is that which is NON-CONSERVED over a period of several generations.
The DNA you speak of is HIGHLY CONSERVED. In case you're stupid, HIGHLY CONSERVED and NON-CONSERVED are COMPLETE OPPOSITES.
If the mice with over 2 million deleted base pairs were NORMAL and could still REPRODUCE NORMALLY, then the 2 million base pairs deleted ARE junk. Period. Admit it or get the fuck off my channel.
Your other comment has been deleted, because the mice (sans-2-megabases) that live and reproduce normally clearly illustrate that these 2 million base pairs have NO FUNCTION.
Until you admit that this DNA is CLEARLY FUNCTIONLESS, and that EVERY STATEMENT YOU MADE regarding junk DNA is WRONG, further comments will meet the same fate. I've had it with you.
You do not know what a strawman argument is. Look into it.
Evolutionists have for many years claimed most of the DNA molecule is "junk DNA". They have learned otherwise.
The mice were not normal. They had 2 million base pairs removed! They are no longer the Wild Type! What was removed is likely duplicate genes which are used by error correction to replace mutated genes. This is why they could survive without them.
I know exactly what a strawman argument is. It is when someone (i.e. YOU) redefines terms in a way that they are not meant in the ORIGINAL argument, then you argue against YOUR redefinition, rather than the TRUE stance of your opponent.
In this case, you have redefined "junk DNA" (implicitly, you don't even have the balls to do it outright) to include CONSERVED sequences such as hox genes. You then claim those sequences have function, therefore "junk DNA" is functional.
You see what you did there? You created a false definition, then defeated your own false definition. Well, DUH!
What you HAVEN'T shown is that LINES and SINES have function, or that long stretches of NON-CONSERVED sequences have function.
No one said that they were "wild type." I said that they lived normally, metabolized food normally, and reproduced normally. Hence, this DNA has no function.
And you obviously didn't read the paper, because the DNA removed are segments known as "gene deserts." These aren't "duplicate genes;" they aren't genes at all. And they demonstrate that this DNA is indeed largely "junk" DNA.
Did you know that the most deadly mutations are point mutations, in which a single nucleotide gets removed from the genome? Yup, it's true. Fortunately for the little mice, the men who removed the base pairs knew that what they were removing were sequences which were not critical to living, only to having all functionality.
That's not a "point mutation"; that's a FRAMESHIFT mutation, and it must happen IN A CODING SEQUENCE to have such effects. And yeah, I knew that in like third grade. However, it doesn't apply to the case of the mice above. If you had a point, it fell limply and impotently to the ground.
I like DonExodus's analogy. People such as Neph are like the unqualified, untrained, passenger on a plane who suddenly decides he wants to fly it as he can do it better than the pilots. So he finds himself up in the cockpit shouting and hollering at the people who have spent their lives training and developing expertise at what they do. He however refuses to listen and just remains screeching, despite no indication that he has the slightest clue that he knows what he is talking about.
OK, here is just one piece of evidence for common descent, LINEs (long interspersed elements) and SINEs (short. interspersed elements). These are particular chunks of junk DNA that are accidentally inserted near genes. There is no active mechanism for removing it and once these are inserted it marks a gene in species, and it is then inherited by all the descendents of that species.
Whether or not scientists discover functions for parts of the genome that were previously called 'junk', the fact remains that there's plenty of good evidence that much of our genome can't be functional. You can't simply assert that because some of it has a function therefore all of it does.
I wanted to post more to my previous comment but for some reason it wouldn't post, no matter how many times I tried.
"Junk DNA" can only be defined as segments of DNA that has NON-CONSERVED SEQUENCES. A recent experiment with mice involved DELETING over 2 million base pairs of this DNA from the genome. The mice developed normally (hence no embryonic function) and had no discernable problems resulting from that deletion.
When you choose to REDEFINE the term to include CONSERVED sequences of unknown function, you are being dishonest.
Evolutionis not scintific or science. What are you talking about standards for? The evolutionist standard is to allow assumptions and presumptions to be considered fact and thus conjectured for oothers as such. There is not one claim of evolution that you can make that I cannot prove to you is nothing more than an assumption or presumption. NOT ONE.
MANY of these things have been pointed out to you before. You simply choose to ignore them. When you don't have an answer, you change the subject and hope no one will notice.
ERVs, man. ERVs. You will claim that it is an "assumption" that they are in the same locations in closely related species because a common ancestor was infected. And it is. No one was there.
That said, YOU make a MUCH LESS PLAUSIBLE (indeed, virtually impossible) assumption if you claim that they are the result of separate infections, because they insert very nearly RANDOMLY, at one of about 50,000 possible insertion points in the genome.
Thus, the odds of separate insertions creating even ONE matching location is about 1 in 50,000. Humans and chimpanzees have at least SIXTEEN. There's only about a 1 in 10^75 chance that this would happen with separate infections.
So, which assumption is more unreasonable? The one that actually PREDICTS ERVs in matching locations, or the one that claims it happened that way against all odds?
Oh, and it's not just humans and chimps that have shared ERVs. Virtually any pair of species in the same genus will likewise show this pattern of shared ERVs. So your odds dwindle dramatically from there, and "there" was already pretty damn close to ZERO.
Tell me this. Untill the 19th century, nobody had ventured more than a few dozen feet deep into any ocean. In the 20th century, man developed diving bells and discovered much more. In the later half of the 20yth century, we have been able to take video cameras to the ocean floor.
How did the Bible know the cean floors had spouts that poured water from inside the Earth into the oceans on the ocean floors? By what technology could ancient man have known these fountains exist?
Lets not forget there is about a 100...or was it 1000 year period between when the earliest area was destroyed and the oldest not the short period of conquest the bible describes.
Latin: right = dexter, so right-handed people are dextrous.
Latin: left = sinister - work it out for yourself.
Islam's punishment of chopping off the right hand for theft is worse than non-moslems imagine. The right (good) hand is used for eating and the left (evil hand) is used for wiping your arse (no toilet paper involved). If you no longer have a right hand...
That must be why I argue with you so much (on DP's magnetic motor posts, for example.)
You have proven yourself ignorant of the logical concepts of NEGATIVE PROOF and CHERRY PICKING. When I called out your ignorance, you resorted to MORE ignorance - ad hominems with no basis in fact. THAT'S why I deleted your comments. They added nothing to the discussion, and have no basis in fact.
'NephilimFree' - Speaking of coral, i seem to recall silencing you with evidence of how coral fossils are hard evidence of evolution. Haven't heard from you since.
Article by aquarium experts describing acclimating fresh water fish to salt water in a couple of WEEKS:
"These fishes are mostly sold as brackish aquarium animals in the west, and must be slowly (over a period of weeks) acclimated (back) to full saltwater concentration."
w w w . wetwebmedia . com / BrackishSubWebIndex / 20qsbrmonks . h t m
This is not germane to either topic. Stop trying to pretend that I claimed NO fish can acclimate. As an aquarist, I know that many can, within limits. DISCUS, however, absolutely DO NOT acclimate to salt water.
Any more articles on general acclimation of brackish-to-saltwater fish will be removed, since they don't address the current topic.
Nematostella vectensis is not a salt water coral. Nor is it a reef animal. The other species named are various Hydra (not coral); and Cnidaria (jellyfish).
FAIL. 0-5. You're really good at disproving your own argument, I might add.
I'm serious this time. After reviewing my sources, do you still claim that the Great Barrier Reef is a brackish environment? If not, provide alternate sources to prove your claim. Otherwise, you are (still) a liar, and not even a good one at that.
w w w . sciencedirect . c o m / science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-3YGDD3J-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1 &_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version =1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d2eaa0e519fa9bffd05ccd04d57d fb5a
Article by scientists describing coral adaptations to brackish waters.
w w w . reefland . c o m / forum / reef-aquariums / 21126-brackish-coral . h t m l
Aquarium enthusiasts describe adapting a fish to salt water, a practice of enthusiasts (Did he say brackish corals?":
"but I think (instead of finding brakish corals), you could acclimate your brakish fish to higher salinity"
"Yup, it's possible to acclimate a Green spotted puffer to full marine water, I'm slowly doing that right now with a GSP, he's up to 1.014 and it hasn't bothered him yet..."
Wow, quotes from a discussion forum of non-experts discussing a hypothetical possibility of "finding brackish corals."
But back to moderating. Your next post will address this question or will be removed:
You claimed the Great Barrier Reef is brackish waters. I've provided numbers from two authorities PROVING it is not. Do you still stand by your claim, or do you admit it was a lie?
You're 0-4 now on finding support for brackish coral reefs, and furthermore you have shown an astounding inability to understand the language of scientific journals.
And you continue to pretend I said that there are no brackish fish. Funny, you STILL have failed to address the ONE species of fish I was talking about, the discus fish. That is the ONLY fish I made any specific claims about. Its existence alone disproves a flood.
w w w . sciencedirect . c o m / science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-3YGDD3J-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d2eaa0e519fa9bffd05ccd04d57dfb5a
Article by scientists describing coral adaptations to brackish waters.
"Species suitable for aquaculture in brackish water culture include estuarine fish such as barramundi, crustaceans such as black tiger, brown tiger and banana prawns. Species which require higher salinity and better quality coastal water include reef fish, snapper and kuruma prawns."
w w w 2 . dpi . qld . gov . au/fishweb/2696. h t m l
The Great barrier Reef has brackish waters, dummy.
None of the species you listed are corals. You fail again in you quote-mining mission. But feel free to keep trying.
You will note that your utterly non-scientific ad hominem was deleted. Similar attacks will meet a similar fate.
Great Barrier Reef waters range form 25 to 42 ppt salinity. Brackish water is defined as water from 0.5 to 17 ppt salinity. 25-42 is outside of this definition.
"Coral reefs DO NOT SURVIVE in brackish water. Period."
UN Atlas of the Oceans
w w w . oceansatlas . o r g / servlet / CDSServlet?status=ND1maWdpczMzMjAuZmlnaXNUb3BpY3MxMzU3MiY2PWVuJjMzPWRvY3VtZW50cyYzNz1pbmZv
I quote:
"Coastal waters (including estuaries and lagoons) constitute the interface between the marine and the freshwater environments, and between the continents and the oceans."
Misquoting me again. You are either a complete liar, or you are completely incompetent with language.
On the first quote, you left off the beginning of the sentence, but in your glorious incompetence, you forgot to delete it from the bottom of your post.
Your dishonest quote-mining has left behind a TRANSITIONAL FORM that lays your dishonesty bare. Nice job.
You claim your flood covered all land to a depth of 1/2 mile. Therefore, there is nowhere a coral could have existed throughout the flood. Hence, if a flood occurred, there would be NO coral reefs today.
There are coral reefs today. Hence there was no flood.
"And as I said, just ONE species that could not survive is enough to disprove your flood."
You can wave a wand over the hundreds of thousands of fish fossils in the fossil record of life and know which ones would not take changes in salenity? You can wave your hand and make those fish today which thrive in brackish waters?
Discus exist TODAY. Discus can't survive in even the SLIGHTEST salinity. Since a violent worldwide flood NECESSITATES the ability to survive in a saline environment, such a flood would have KILLED THIS SPECIES.
The species is not extinct; therefore your flood is IMPOSSIBLE.
You continue to intentionally "misunderstand" my point.
"Third repeat of the same baseless assertion. Doesn't make it any more true."
So you won't look up the fact that many coral reefs thrive in brackish waters, contrary to your claim that such change in salinity will certainly kill it off, then you call it baseless. You pussed out again.
I repeat: Coral reefs DO NOT SURVIVE in brackish water. Period. If you want to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on YOU.
Besides, you're ignoring the other half of the coral reef argument: Under 1/2 mile of floodwater, sunlight DOES NOT PENETRATE. Coral can not survive without light. Furthermore, the cold temperature at that depth is fatal to coral.
1. all of the statements by thew world's prominant evo scientisits that transitions are not provided by fossils and life appeard abrupt and without predecessors, OR
2. Fish like Tiktallik are transitional.
Both are claimed by evo scientists, but only one can be true! Which one do you believe? Wednesday's story or Monday's story?
"If a species exists today that could not have survived a global flood, NO FLOOD COULD HAVE OCCURRED."
Not so. The fossil record is full of species that no longer exist, and many thousands which still do, completely unchanged, just like the tens of thousands of other living fossils.
Sheeesh You can't get one single freaking thing right! Amazing.
"You are an idiot. Yes, some fish tolerate both fresh and salt water. But I only need to show"
You're both stupid and lazy Google will provide it in seconds. Are you afraid to look? I know why you won't. So you don't have to think, "OH NO! I'M WRONG AGAIN!"
Again, all caps for you, because you are thick skulled:
I NEVER CLAIMED THERE ARE NO FISH THAT CAN SURVIVE SALINITY CHANGES. Nor do I need to. I only need to give ONE marine example that can NOT survive salinity changes.
I have provided that example: the discus fish. As usual, you ignore the evidence that you wish would go away.
In Indonesia, many coral reefs are dying due to mangrove destruction, which increases the flow of freshwater into the ocean. This is only a SLIGHT decrease in salinity, yet it's killing the reefs.
Ok, so you've made yet another false statement. You alluded that coral reefs cannot stand brackish water but there are many that exist in brackish water. What happened to your evo fantasy, the one that claims adaptation is evolution? It moves on to argue about soemting else when proven wrong on anyother point?
First of all, I KNOW that discus cannot tolerate brackish water for even a few days, let alone the year that the floodwaters supposedly covered the earth.
Secondly, it doesn't matter whether reefs formed before or after the flood; merely whether coral could survive it. You'd have to prove that EVERY extant coral species can survive in brackish water and in the darkness of 1/2 mile depths.
"As I told you, I won't play your scatter-shot games."
We're discussing facts here. The facts consistently prove you wrong. Over and over I prove you wrong. You are my personal little evo biotch I've been proving you wrong about everything coming outta yer mouth for months kiddo. You're done.
You mean the way you proved me wrong when I said that the fin bones of Tiktaalik were preserved? Oh, wait... no, I proved YOU wrong.
Maybe it was when you said there was only one Tiktaalik fossil? Oops, looks like you lost on that one too.
Perhaps it was when you said that Tiktaalik is just like other fish. I'm awaiting your example of a modern fish that has all of the bones I've listed from Tiktaalik. Maybe you'll get me on that one, but your track record suggests otherwise.
You are proven wrong yet again> Fish are tolerant in general. Many fish can survive in salt or fresh water! Your claim that the flood would kill all fish if the water became brackish is poofed!
As I told you, I won't play your scatter-shot games. But tell me, can discus survive in brackish water? Can a coral reef survive in brackish water 1/2 mile below the ocean's surface? (I've raised both in aquariums, so if your make an unfounded claim, I'll call you out on it.)
Yes. Now which is true? And why are Tiktaalik's bones transitional when fish today have the se bones and have been walking on land forever? Why transitional instead of "just like other fish"? Oh let's hear this one.
1. all of the statements by thew world's prominant evo scientisits that transitions are not provided by fossils and life appeard abrupt and without predecessors, OR
2. Fish like Tiktallik are transitional.
Both are claimed by evo scientists, but only one can be true! Which one do you believe? Wednesday's story or Monday's story?
I will answer your question when you answer mine. After all, I asked it first.
DID THE FIN BONES IN TIKTAALIK FOSSILIZE?
Yes or no, but if you say "yes" now, you must also justify your former claim that they did not. If you say "no," you must disprove the evidence I have provided.
Dinos did not coexist with man? The secular timeline for earth and life is correct? Appearently not: The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina depicts Nile scenes from Egypt to Ethiopia. It depicts Ethiopians pursuing a dinosaur. The Greek Letters above the reptilian animal: KROKODILOPARDALIS, literally translated is "Crocodile-Leopard". It also contains clear depictions of crocodiles and hippos.
h t t p : / / w w w . genesispark . com/ genpark / ancient / ancient . h t m
You're in no position to describe me either, because you still know nothing of my personal spiritual beliefs, except that they don't agree with yours. I also don't try to masquerade them as science.
"You call me filthy names over and over and say this?"
My channel, my rules. If you don't like it, go spam someone else.
Incidentally, you also claimed that there was ONLY ONE known specimen. I thought I had removed this comment, but fortunately I had not, so your LIE is still laid bare for anyone to see:
"See the pics I provided links to of the ONLY TIKTAALIK FOSSIL THAT EXISTS." (Emphasis added.)
Now you want to LIE about what the TWENTY known specimens reveal about the pectoral fins. I've refuted your LIE with evidence. Admit you were wrong on all counts, and the conversation can proceed to other topics.
"Funny, over 200,000 published, peer-reviewed articles say otherwise. And ZERO agree with you."
Secular peer review is slanted, shuts out creationist scientists, discriminates against them in the workplace, and feeds you hegemony and false information.
"believe my fairy-tale or BURN IN HELL!!" that you fucktards spread."
You hate the ideo that you are responible to God. I feel for ya. Too bad nothing you can do to change that.
You're right. It's slanted in favor of theoretical frameworks that EXPLAIN all observed evidence, that are NOT CONTRADICTED by that evidence, and that make USEFUL PREDICTIONS. Evolution: 3, Creationism: 0.
-"Secular peer review is slanted, shuts out creationist scientists, discriminates against them in the workplace, and feeds you hegemony and false information."-
No one is dicriminating against cretio-idiots, please stop repeating the same nonsense that Ben Stein did. You can't simply say any random thing and expect others to take it for real science.
You're ignorant of the world. Secular peer review has always discriminated against creationists. You live with your head inb the sand and that will never help you understand the issue.
-"Secular peer review has always discriminated against creationists."-
Considering how cerationists enjoy to distort information, such as your buddy, Kent Hovind, I wouldn't be surprised if science spits in your face. Science is not meant to prove the existence of God or anything like that, God is the supernatural. Do you want me to elucidate? You never mention how creationists distorted the meaning of a theory and the validity of Archeopteryx.
Coming from the authority of ultimate wisdom, your pointless remarks really don't matter to me. Enjoy having your ideology thrown out of the public schools.
So many? Which ones? I am sure you will bring up the usual suspects; Kenyon, Mimms, Sternberg, Gonzalez (of these, at least the last two don't go in for your young-earth delusion). None of these people was fired for being a creationist. The reason creationists don't attain (and maintain) high academic positions is that they put religious beliefs before scientific evidence, which leads to their being either extremely poor scientists, or not scientists in any meaningful definition of the term.
Speak for yourself. You have learned many things from me that science provides, yet, you refuse to investigate them. Why? Is it because you have decided to convince yourself that there is no God and that you can pretend to believe that you are nothing more than an animal? That is not a sufficient reason to relegate one's self to a future of nothingness.
You know nothing about my spiritual beliefs, so you are in no position to judge me. Nice change of subject again. ADDRESS THE CONTENT OF MY POST, not just the closing comment.
As I told you, I am now moderating this conversation. If you go off topic or post judgemental bullshit, it will be removed. Last warning.
What evidence is there of this fantasy? The immunities you claimed cause morphological change? Give up kid. Science is not with you.
"Easily done within the confines of observed rates of change."
Observed? You're deluded kid. Nothing about evolutionism is observed. It's not within the Scientific method. SHOW US PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OR SHUT THIS EVO FANTASY TALK UP. YOU'RE SCARRING LITTLE KIDS INTO GROWING UP THINKING THIER JUST AN ANIMAL.
Funny, over 200,000 published, peer-reviewed articles say otherwise. And ZERO agree with you.
I'd rather little kids think that they are a PART of nature and therefore must act in an environmentally responsible nature, than to scare them with "believe my fairy-tale or BURN IN HELL!!" that you fucktards spread.
"I provided you a link to a CLEAR PHOTO of the fin rays from specimen NUFV 108, which extend all the way to the margin of the pectoral fin."
Fin rays are not medial bones. They are fringe material. Not the bones needed. Reagarless, the fins don't make it transitional silly. Numerous species of fish living to day have the ability to walk on their fins. What's transitional about Tiktaalik is in your head.
No matter how saline they were or were not, softwater fish, such as discus and freshwater angels, cannot tolerate even the SMALLEST HINT of salinity for more than a few days. Similarly, most oceanic fish species can only survive a VERY NARROW RANGE of salinity, and many ABSOLUTELY DEPEND on coral reefs for survival, and coral are even MORE sensitive to environmental changes. I have kept reef tanks, so I can attest to these ABSOLUTE FACTS first-hand.
"You cherry-pick evidence to fit your preconceived conclusion."
not that i agree with Nephie but aren't you doing a bit of the same here? i mean you fail to mention catfish or scats or numerous other brackish species, not to mention salmon. i keep reef tanks too, and brackish/mangrove tanks so i can attest to these ABSOLUTE FACTS first-hand also. just so there is no misconception here i'm not arguing anything about any species i'm asking if you aren't being a bit of a cherry picker yourself?
No, I'm not cherry-picking, because the vast majority of fish species can only survive in a narrow band of salinity. Even if he claims that freshwater floated on top of saltwater, he still has the problem of light penetration into the saline environment being far too low. Not to mention that a saline gradient won't form in turbulent waters (another argument he likes to make about the flood.)
just because the vast majority can only survive in a narrow band is not a get out of jail free card.
you ARE cherry picking.
you choose 2 examples which are quite intolerant to saline in the water and neglected to mention any that are tolerant. as i mentioned before i am not talking about species, i'm not talking about fresh water floating on top of saltwater... i'm talking about you hand picking DISCUS and ANGELS that fit your argument and neglecting to mention any that would not.
look asshat, your argument would have been better had you CHOSEN to be a bit less of a cherry picker. it would not have HURT your argument to mention catfish or scats or mollies or the numerous other species. the FACT is you CHOSE NOT TO. then you make excuses about why you didn't and how you aren't a cherry picker, your channel your rules indeed. its called "calvinball" right? and when you are caught with your own words.
You've shown that you understand "cherry-picking" no better than you understand "negative proof."
Let me phrase very simply, so that even you can understand. If someone argued ALL life requires oxygen, in order to diprove this comment would I need to mention humans or eastern cardinals or european bullfrogs? NO. All I need to mention is ONE species that breaks that pattern (for example, any Desulfoviridin bacteria) to disprove the ENTIRE claim that "all" require oxygen.
The above argument is EXACTLY analogous to the claim that all creatures on earth survived a "great flood." I only need to mention ONE species that could not have survived such an event (in this case I mentioned at least 10,000, when you include corals) to disprove the entire claim that this flood occurred.
By the way, stop arguing mere semantics. If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, please refrain from posting. Otherwise, I'll make that decision for you.
I have been demanding evidence of your claims and have gotten only the jargon of speculations and insults. You missed this?
Here is the best of the 20 specimines that have been discovered:
h t t p : / / tiktaalik.uchicago . edu/meetTik . h t m l
Go to "Fish Characteristics", click on "Fins". The fins from the middle down are missing. Regardless of this hegemony, it is not evidence of evolution, just an other fish like the ones at any museaum of natural hitory that walk along the bottom.
You originally said that NO fins had fossilized. I provided you a link to a CLEAR PHOTO of the fin rays from specimen NUFV 108, which extend all the way to the margin of the pectoral fin. Look at the photo, and you'll see I provided the evidence you "demanded" four days ago.
Need I remind you that you were ALSO claiming that only 1 specimen was found? So I'll take your acknowledgement of 20 specimens as a tacit admission that you LIED.
"The supposed "human" tracks you speak of have serious problems. Left and right feet on the wrong sides, to start."
Nonsence. They are not reversed, someone has filled your head with more bullcrap. And they are not just in Texas, but several other places around the world. That's called physical, observable, tangible evidence. The tracks are physical. Evolution is conceptual. One is science, the other is faith.
OK, you worthless lightweight, we're playing by MY rules now. One subject at a time. Everything else will be deleted until you address my questions and evidence. (You'll note I deleted your dodging.)
First: After examining the photographs of the fossilized Tiktaalik fins I sent to you, do you still stand by your claim that we have none of their fins? If so, please cite your source.
After you address this, we'll go on to the faked human tracks.
You aren't doing too well my friend. You have said only one thing that is true, and that was that the flood probably could not have laid down the K-T layer. Other than that, you've missed on every count. Please, go study the things i cite. SWtart with the USGS web site and the massive methane deposites around the continents. Take a look at the continental shelves too. See what the receding waters have done to the edges.
I'm doing far, far better than you. You cherry-pick evidence to fit your preconceived conclusion.
There was no flood. The K-T boundary alone refutes it. You lose. Again. But don't worry; your schizophrenia will soon convince you otherwise. I know you.
"Oh, and how did both fresh- and saltwater fish survive?"
Animals adapt don't they? The earth's water was all fresh before the flood. The flood opened salt deposits because it was VIOLENT. It became brackish and eventually salinated. You are completely oblivious to so much. You are mindless and unbinterested in science if it refutes you - a typical symptom of one who is brainwashed - they no longer interest in learning unless it comes from their suitors. It's a little like Stockholm Syndrome.
"If the flood drove floating plants under a half-mile or more of rock, HOW DID THE ARK STAY AFLOAT?"
The USGS site has illustrations of the massive amounts plant material that was dragged off the continents by the receding flood waters, rotted, water-logged, and sank to line the continents and became frozen methane - enough to power the world for decades. You don't know about so many things that defeat evolutionism cuz you're refuse to study creation evidence.
"Creationist scientists get the same treatment by peer-review as anyone else."
Sorry, that's not true. Many are fired or demoted because they let on that they have question about evolutionism. Some have sued their employers, such as Scientific American and the Smithsonian for such practives. Don't allow them to brainwash you forever.
"Different by ONE amino acid, in most cases. That's not much considering that most proteins consist of hundreds of residues."
In some cases. Different by 1,000 amino acids in others. 80% of them are not the same too. No evolution. Just wishful thinking. When 80% different becomes "close ancestors", you know someone has been holding an intellectual pistol to your head. lol
"A disaster that caused 60% of species to become extinct, and nearly every land animal with a body mass of 50 kg or more."
That's speculation. We know that large dinosaurs have coexisted with humans. There are thousands of dino figurines in many countires, Pakistanis depicted them on temples 1,000 yrs ago, dino tracks in the same rock as human footprints, ancient cave paintings, references in the Bible, so on and so forth. Clearly, the event did not wipe out all large life.
"How'd it all end in a single thin layer? A flood can't do that, period."
I would think not. Not a single, thin, black layer found in many places. However, a flood would lay down numerous layers well over 1 mile deep all over the earth. And that's just what it did, so says the earth.
Read carefully. FLOODS SORT SEDIMENT HYDRODYNAMICALLY. That means BIG shit on the bottom, and SMALL shit on the top. That's not what the geological record shows.
FLOODS CAN'T PRODUCE LIMESTONE. Let alone beds of limestone several hundred feet deep.
FLOODS DON'T PRODUCE EROSION BOUNDARIES between adjacent rock layers that were deposited in the same event.
"Indeed, many reconstructions were made on less evidence that proved to be ACCURATE when more complete specimens were found"
Indeed many more have been wrong. Speculation about bones that are unknown does not qualify the speculation to be scientific evidence. You cannot elevate speculations that comprise evo concepts to scientific you goon! You're attempting to do the very thing that evo scientists do which brainwashed you you! Take your speudoscience outta here.
"Yes, the pectoral fins most certainly were recovered, and in a good state of preservation. We don't need every last ray to determine the structure. (Indeed, many reconstructions were made on less evidence that proved to be ACCURATE when more complete specimens were found.)"
No, the fins are not known. See the pics I provided links to of the only Tiktaalik fossil that exists. No fins. All they have is skin. There are no bones in the half-fin flap of scaly skin that was occified.
i find that last one interesting,
are you aware than the number of NATIVE americans that were killed is greater than the amount of jews killed by the nazi's during the holocaust?
technically america was founded with an element of fascism regarding freedom of speech and equal rights that clearly did not include the native inhabitants
MattChez 2 years ago
well... "native" americans... humans aren't indiginous to north america. the "natives" just got there first. from asia.
and no, i did not know that.
ColeMD17 2 years ago
Fear of being exposed for believing assumptions qualify as scintific is your moticator. You have been powned. Adios.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Powned? POWNED?!? HAHAHAHAHAHA! You can't even spell it correctly, newfag!
I will leave your parting tirade here, as usual. It clearly shows to all the false bravado you put on as you retreat back to your corner. Perhaps you'll feel better after you break something. Maybe some evil rock CDs from your youth?
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
Deleted. You WILL acknowledge that you have been corrected (or else refute that correction with sound sources), or else you WILL leave my channel. I won't have your scatter-shot approach littering my videos.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
And did they brreed those mice and make more of those who had the DNA removed?
What you are referring to is not evidence of evolution or that DNA is junk. Most of the DNA molecule is used during embryionic development, and does not exist for the purpose of coding protiens, etc.
0o
NephilimFree 3 years ago
More self-contradiction from you, Nephi. Two direct quotes:
"What you call junk DNA has been verified to code for protiens"
... followed by ...
"Most of the DNA molecule [...] does not exist for the purpose of coding protiens"
You're so full of shit you can't even keep YOURSELF straight.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
You see a contradiction in those statements? Seriously?
Wow. You're either very stupid or very determined to hate the truth.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Let me make the contradiction even simpler for you, since you have obviously hit your head many, many times.
First you said all DNA codes for proteins (note correct spelling). Then you said most DNA DOESN'T code proteins.
You don't see the self-contradiction? Are you fucking retarded?
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
Both staements are true. Difficulty in seperating them is rather silly.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I think you need a course in elementary logic.
THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION. 'A' and 'NOT-A' can NOT be simultaneously true.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
Oh, and YES, those mice could and did still breed. A quote from the article, published in Nature 431:
"Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."
[Emphasis added.]
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
How are these mice evidence of evolution? They aren't. They aren't even distinguishable from thier siblings.
Did you learn that some of what you call "junk dna" actually codes for protiens and is used during embyonic development? Have you looked into that? No, you have not. Why? Because you don't give a crap about the truth or learning anything that upsets your ill-gotten preconceptions of evolution because you hate God! it does not get simpler than that.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
You have a strawman definition of "junk DNA."
The only DNA that could be called "junk DNA" is that which is NON-CONSERVED over a period of several generations.
The DNA you speak of is HIGHLY CONSERVED. In case you're stupid, HIGHLY CONSERVED and NON-CONSERVED are COMPLETE OPPOSITES.
If the mice with over 2 million deleted base pairs were NORMAL and could still REPRODUCE NORMALLY, then the 2 million base pairs deleted ARE junk. Period. Admit it or get the fuck off my channel.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
Your other comment has been deleted, because the mice (sans-2-megabases) that live and reproduce normally clearly illustrate that these 2 million base pairs have NO FUNCTION.
Until you admit that this DNA is CLEARLY FUNCTIONLESS, and that EVERY STATEMENT YOU MADE regarding junk DNA is WRONG, further comments will meet the same fate. I've had it with you.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
You do not know what a strawman argument is. Look into it.
Evolutionists have for many years claimed most of the DNA molecule is "junk DNA". They have learned otherwise.
The mice were not normal. They had 2 million base pairs removed! They are no longer the Wild Type! What was removed is likely duplicate genes which are used by error correction to replace mutated genes. This is why they could survive without them.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I know exactly what a strawman argument is. It is when someone (i.e. YOU) redefines terms in a way that they are not meant in the ORIGINAL argument, then you argue against YOUR redefinition, rather than the TRUE stance of your opponent.
This is what you do. ALL. THE. TIME.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
In this case, you have redefined "junk DNA" (implicitly, you don't even have the balls to do it outright) to include CONSERVED sequences such as hox genes. You then claim those sequences have function, therefore "junk DNA" is functional.
You see what you did there? You created a false definition, then defeated your own false definition. Well, DUH!
What you HAVEN'T shown is that LINES and SINES have function, or that long stretches of NON-CONSERVED sequences have function.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
No one said that they were "wild type." I said that they lived normally, metabolized food normally, and reproduced normally. Hence, this DNA has no function.
And you obviously didn't read the paper, because the DNA removed are segments known as "gene deserts." These aren't "duplicate genes;" they aren't genes at all. And they demonstrate that this DNA is indeed largely "junk" DNA.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
Did you know that the most deadly mutations are point mutations, in which a single nucleotide gets removed from the genome? Yup, it's true. Fortunately for the little mice, the men who removed the base pairs knew that what they were removing were sequences which were not critical to living, only to having all functionality.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
That's not a "point mutation"; that's a FRAMESHIFT mutation, and it must happen IN A CODING SEQUENCE to have such effects. And yeah, I knew that in like third grade. However, it doesn't apply to the case of the mice above. If you had a point, it fell limply and impotently to the ground.
phoenixshade3 2 years ago
I like DonExodus's analogy. People such as Neph are like the unqualified, untrained, passenger on a plane who suddenly decides he wants to fly it as he can do it better than the pilots. So he finds himself up in the cockpit shouting and hollering at the people who have spent their lives training and developing expertise at what they do. He however refuses to listen and just remains screeching, despite no indication that he has the slightest clue that he knows what he is talking about.
peehead99 3 years ago
OK, here is just one piece of evidence for common descent, LINEs (long interspersed elements) and SINEs (short. interspersed elements). These are particular chunks of junk DNA that are accidentally inserted near genes. There is no active mechanism for removing it and once these are inserted it marks a gene in species, and it is then inherited by all the descendents of that species.
peehead99 3 years ago
What you call junk DNA has been verified to code for protiens and it's information is used during embryonic development.
There is no such thing as junk DNA.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Whether or not scientists discover functions for parts of the genome that were previously called 'junk', the fact remains that there's plenty of good evidence that much of our genome can't be functional. You can't simply assert that because some of it has a function therefore all of it does.
I wanted to post more to my previous comment but for some reason it wouldn't post, no matter how many times I tried.
peehead99 3 years ago
Wrong again, as usual, Nephi.
"Junk DNA" can only be defined as segments of DNA that has NON-CONSERVED SEQUENCES. A recent experiment with mice involved DELETING over 2 million base pairs of this DNA from the genome. The mice developed normally (hence no embryonic function) and had no discernable problems resulting from that deletion.
When you choose to REDEFINE the term to include CONSERVED sequences of unknown function, you are being dishonest.
No surprise there, though.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
Evolutionis not scintific or science. What are you talking about standards for? The evolutionist standard is to allow assumptions and presumptions to be considered fact and thus conjectured for oothers as such. There is not one claim of evolution that you can make that I cannot prove to you is nothing more than an assumption or presumption. NOT ONE.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Nephi, Nephi, Nephi. You're back, old boy!
MANY of these things have been pointed out to you before. You simply choose to ignore them. When you don't have an answer, you change the subject and hope no one will notice.
ERVs, man. ERVs. You will claim that it is an "assumption" that they are in the same locations in closely related species because a common ancestor was infected. And it is. No one was there.
(more...)
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
(con'd)
That said, YOU make a MUCH LESS PLAUSIBLE (indeed, virtually impossible) assumption if you claim that they are the result of separate infections, because they insert very nearly RANDOMLY, at one of about 50,000 possible insertion points in the genome.
Thus, the odds of separate insertions creating even ONE matching location is about 1 in 50,000. Humans and chimpanzees have at least SIXTEEN. There's only about a 1 in 10^75 chance that this would happen with separate infections.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
So, which assumption is more unreasonable? The one that actually PREDICTS ERVs in matching locations, or the one that claims it happened that way against all odds?
Oh, and it's not just humans and chimps that have shared ERVs. Virtually any pair of species in the same genus will likewise show this pattern of shared ERVs. So your odds dwindle dramatically from there, and "there" was already pretty damn close to ZERO.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
Tell me this. Untill the 19th century, nobody had ventured more than a few dozen feet deep into any ocean. In the 20th century, man developed diving bells and discovered much more. In the later half of the 20yth century, we have been able to take video cameras to the ocean floor.
How did the Bible know the cean floors had spouts that poured water from inside the Earth into the oceans on the ocean floors? By what technology could ancient man have known these fountains exist?
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Great Vid!! Loz
LozTheAtheist 3 years ago
Lets not forget there is about a 100...or was it 1000 year period between when the earliest area was destroyed and the oldest not the short period of conquest the bible describes.
wolfwing1 3 years ago
left handedness (me) = sign of the devil apparently :P
theatheistguy 3 years ago
Latin: right = dexter, so right-handed people are dextrous.
Latin: left = sinister - work it out for yourself.
Islam's punishment of chopping off the right hand for theft is worse than non-moslems imagine. The right (good) hand is used for eating and the left (evil hand) is used for wiping your arse (no toilet paper involved). If you no longer have a right hand...
bdf2718 3 years ago
"If you no longer have a right hand"
You use a fork?
mindwis3 3 years ago
Good idea, but you're meant to eat with your fingers and by scooping stuff into your palm.
Then again, if everyone can see you've had a hand chopped off you probably don't care about offending etiquette by using a fork.
Of course, some people get convicted of theft a second time. But it's very rare for a third offence...
bdf2718 3 years ago
"Of course, some people get convicted of theft a second time. But it's very rare for a third offence"
Roflmao ;)
mindwis3 3 years ago
"Worlds such as Saturn's moon Titan" =P
Sorry, had to point that out, but love your videos, how come you haven't made any recently? And why is there none on you naturallyselectable account?
theatheistguy 3 years ago
"he only chooses to argue with idiots."
That must be why I argue with you so much (on DP's magnetic motor posts, for example.)
You have proven yourself ignorant of the logical concepts of NEGATIVE PROOF and CHERRY PICKING. When I called out your ignorance, you resorted to MORE ignorance - ad hominems with no basis in fact. THAT'S why I deleted your comments. They added nothing to the discussion, and have no basis in fact.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
i only found you the other day but the more i hear what you say the sounder your judgements prove to be. love your video's
ooglebydoogleby 4 years ago
Another analogy I like to use sometimes when talking about the bewilderingly big universe:
There are more stars in the sky than there are grains of sand upon all the beaches of the entire world.
Can't remember where I got it from.....but love it.
RationalByChoice 4 years ago
Another excellent feature of buddhism: it's a self-described "buffet." Take what appeals to you, leave what does not look good behind.
None of the "you better believe ALL or you in essence believe NONE. And then, if course, you are CONDEMNED.
RationalByChoice 4 years ago
"You already posted that one"
No, I didn't:
Salt water corals cultured in the lab by scientists in brackish water, exactly what you said is impossible:
w w w . s a r s . uib . no / facilities / cnidaria . p h p
Adios!
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Yes, you did, and you already posted THAT one, too.
Count back 8 of your posts. It's exactly the same URL as the one from 4 of your posts back.
Likewise, THIS URL matches the one from 3 of your posts back.
Both were refuted. Since you denied it, I'm rescinding my earlier generosity. This makes you 0-7 now.
Give up. You are looking incredibly foolish.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
'NephilimFree' - Speaking of coral, i seem to recall silencing you with evidence of how coral fossils are hard evidence of evolution. Haven't heard from you since.
playd76 3 years ago
I wouldn't be surprised if NephilimFree didn't answer.
fetrug 3 years ago
Article by aquarium experts describing acclimating fresh water fish to salt water in a couple of WEEKS:
"These fishes are mostly sold as brackish aquarium animals in the west, and must be slowly (over a period of weeks) acclimated (back) to full saltwater concentration."
w w w . wetwebmedia . com / BrackishSubWebIndex / 20qsbrmonks . h t m
NephilimFree 4 years ago
The discussion is on:
CORAL REEFS
and
DISCUS FISH.
This is not germane to either topic. Stop trying to pretend that I claimed NO fish can acclimate. As an aquarist, I know that many can, within limits. DISCUS, however, absolutely DO NOT acclimate to salt water.
Any more articles on general acclimation of brackish-to-saltwater fish will be removed, since they don't address the current topic.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
-"You live with your head inb the sand and that will never help you understand the issue."-
And you're oblivious to the dishonesty of your brethren, so sorry.
fetrug 3 years ago
Salt water corals cultured in the lab by scientists in brackish water, exactly what you said is impossible:
w w w . s a r s . uib . no / facilities / cnidaria . p h p
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Nematostella vectensis is not a salt water coral. Nor is it a reef animal. The other species named are various Hydra (not coral); and Cnidaria (jellyfish).
FAIL. 0-5. You're really good at disproving your own argument, I might add.
I'm serious this time. After reviewing my sources, do you still claim that the Great Barrier Reef is a brackish environment? If not, provide alternate sources to prove your claim. Otherwise, you are (still) a liar, and not even a good one at that.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
w w w . sciencedirect . c o m / science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-3YGDD3J-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1 &_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version =1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d2eaa0e519fa9bffd05ccd04d57d fb5a
Article by scientists describing coral adaptations to brackish waters.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You already posted that one, and I already pointed out to you that the article does not say a SINGLE WORD about coral reefs.
I'm feeling generous, so even though you posted it twice, I won't count it twice.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
w w w . reefland . c o m / forum / reef-aquariums / 21126-brackish-coral . h t m l
Aquarium enthusiasts describe adapting a fish to salt water, a practice of enthusiasts (Did he say brackish corals?":
"but I think (instead of finding brakish corals), you could acclimate your brakish fish to higher salinity"
"Yup, it's possible to acclimate a Green spotted puffer to full marine water, I'm slowly doing that right now with a GSP, he's up to 1.014 and it hasn't bothered him yet..."
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Wow, quotes from a discussion forum of non-experts discussing a hypothetical possibility of "finding brackish corals."
But back to moderating. Your next post will address this question or will be removed:
You claimed the Great Barrier Reef is brackish waters. I've provided numbers from two authorities PROVING it is not. Do you still stand by your claim, or do you admit it was a lie?
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
But, since you cited this page, some other quotes:
"I don't know of any corals that would survive in brackish systems."
"There aren't any corals that would tolerate such a low salinity."
Two affirmations of my viewpoint. Your quote is only ambiguous at best. You lose again.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
w w w . mosquitocatalog . o r g / pdfs / 096450-0 . P D F
Article by a sciewntist describing backish water coral habitats, which states:
"in brackish water of coral rock holes and artificial containers along the shore."
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Yet another colossal failure on your part.
A coral rock hole is a DEAD coral formation.
You're 0-4 now on finding support for brackish coral reefs, and furthermore you have shown an astounding inability to understand the language of scientific journals.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
h t t p : / / aqualandpetsplus . c o m / Brackish%20Water%20I . h t m
Pictures of brackish water tropical fishes.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
And you continue to pretend I said that there are no brackish fish. Funny, you STILL have failed to address the ONE species of fish I was talking about, the discus fish. That is the ONLY fish I made any specific claims about. Its existence alone disproves a flood.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
w w w . sciencedirect . c o m / science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-3YGDD3J-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d2eaa0e519fa9bffd05ccd04d57dfb5a
Article by scientists describing coral adaptations to brackish waters.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Again, the article you linked does NOT discuss coral AT ALL. So far on these links in supposed support of your claim, you are 0 for 3.
Great job!
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Notice the scientists say ESTUARIES.
"Species suitable for aquaculture in brackish water culture include estuarine fish such as barramundi, crustaceans such as black tiger, brown tiger and banana prawns. Species which require higher salinity and better quality coastal water include reef fish, snapper and kuruma prawns."
w w w 2 . dpi . qld . gov . au/fishweb/2696. h t m l
The Great barrier Reef has brackish waters, dummy.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
None of the species you listed are corals. You fail again in you quote-mining mission. But feel free to keep trying.
You will note that your utterly non-scientific ad hominem was deleted. Similar attacks will meet a similar fate.
Great Barrier Reef waters range form 25 to 42 ppt salinity. Brackish water is defined as water from 0.5 to 17 ppt salinity. 25-42 is outside of this definition.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Sources:
GBR salinity: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
w ww. gbrmpa. gov. au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/principal_influences. html
Brackish Water Definition: Office of Naval Research.
w ww. onr. navy. mil/Focus/ocean/water/salinity1. htm
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Well, well, well if it ain't neph.
fetrug 3 years ago
"Coral reefs DO NOT SURVIVE in brackish water. Period."
UN Atlas of the Oceans
w w w . oceansatlas . o r g / servlet / CDSServlet?status=ND1maWdpczMzMjAuZmlnaXNUb3BpY3MxMzU3MiY2PWVuJjMzPWRvY3VtZW50cyYzNz1pbmZv
I quote:
"Coastal waters (including estuaries and lagoons) constitute the interface between the marine and the freshwater environments, and between the continents and the oceans."
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You quote out of context.
NOWHERE on the link you provided is the idea of a brackish coral reef supported. In fact, it is CONTRADICTED. Here's a RELEVENT quote:
"Coral reefs are the dominant type of ecosystems in tropical areas with LOW UPWELLING OR FRESHWATER INPUTS."
Do you know what "low upwelling or freshwater inputs" means? It means that they exist in SALTWATER. Another dishonest quote-mining expedition EXPOSED.
You really suck at this, don't you?
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"because even slightly brackish water KILLS them."
"Yes, some fish tolerate both fresh and salt water."
"that could not have survived a global flood, NO FLOOD COULD HAVE OCCURRED."
"I NEVER CLAIMED THERE ARE NO FISH THAT CAN SURVIVE SALINITY CHANGES."
LMAO!!!
You bonehead. You don't know jack. You talk too much and read too little
"Discus fish cannot survive a global flood, because even slightly brackish water KILLS them"
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Misquoting me again. You are either a complete liar, or you are completely incompetent with language.
On the first quote, you left off the beginning of the sentence, but in your glorious incompetence, you forgot to delete it from the bottom of your post.
Your dishonest quote-mining has left behind a TRANSITIONAL FORM that lays your dishonesty bare. Nice job.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Can a coral reef survive in brackish water 1/2 mile below the ocean's surface?"
Coral reefs don't go that far down. A few hundred feet is max. The deepest around the US is about 250 ft whereas 1/4 mile is 1320 ft.
*sigh* Still can't get one thing right can you.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Thank you for proving my point.
You claim your flood covered all land to a depth of 1/2 mile. Therefore, there is nowhere a coral could have existed throughout the flood. Hence, if a flood occurred, there would be NO coral reefs today.
There are coral reefs today. Hence there was no flood.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"And as I said, just ONE species that could not survive is enough to disprove your flood."
You can wave a wand over the hundreds of thousands of fish fossils in the fossil record of life and know which ones would not take changes in salenity? You can wave your hand and make those fish today which thrive in brackish waters?
What are you doing on the Internet?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Who the hell is talking about a fossil species?
Discus exist TODAY. Discus can't survive in even the SLIGHTEST salinity. Since a violent worldwide flood NECESSITATES the ability to survive in a saline environment, such a flood would have KILLED THIS SPECIES.
The species is not extinct; therefore your flood is IMPOSSIBLE.
You continue to intentionally "misunderstand" my point.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Third repeat of the same baseless assertion. Doesn't make it any more true."
So you won't look up the fact that many coral reefs thrive in brackish waters, contrary to your claim that such change in salinity will certainly kill it off, then you call it baseless. You pussed out again.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
I repeat: Coral reefs DO NOT SURVIVE in brackish water. Period. If you want to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on YOU.
Besides, you're ignoring the other half of the coral reef argument: Under 1/2 mile of floodwater, sunlight DOES NOT PENETRATE. Coral can not survive without light. Furthermore, the cold temperature at that depth is fatal to coral.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
You have avoided my question. Which is true:
1. all of the statements by thew world's prominant evo scientisits that transitions are not provided by fossils and life appeard abrupt and without predecessors, OR
2. Fish like Tiktallik are transitional.
Both are claimed by evo scientists, but only one can be true! Which one do you believe? Wednesday's story or Monday's story?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Question was answered six hours ago, fool. Do you even read, or just rant mindlessly on Kent Hovind talking points?
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"If a species exists today that could not have survived a global flood, NO FLOOD COULD HAVE OCCURRED."
Not so. The fossil record is full of species that no longer exist, and many thousands which still do, completely unchanged, just like the tens of thousands of other living fossils.
Sheeesh You can't get one single freaking thing right! Amazing.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You really seem to have no comprehension at all of more than ten words strung together. I'll say it again. Respond in full or not at all:
Discus fish cannot survive a global flood, because even slightly brackish water KILLS them.
Discus fish exist today.
Therefore, the existence of discus fish DISPROVES the notion of a global flood.
(As does the K-T Boundary layer, which despite your claims to the contrary, you have not explained.)
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
You have stood what I said completely on its head. The only amazing thing is that you continue to intentionally misrepresent what was said.
If you are so obviously dishonest in removing my quotes from context, how can anyone trust your quotes from ANYONE????
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"You are an idiot. Yes, some fish tolerate both fresh and salt water. But I only need to show"
You're both stupid and lazy Google will provide it in seconds. Are you afraid to look? I know why you won't. So you don't have to think, "OH NO! I'M WRONG AGAIN!"
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Really, you must be completely retarded.
Again, all caps for you, because you are thick skulled:
I NEVER CLAIMED THERE ARE NO FISH THAT CAN SURVIVE SALINITY CHANGES. Nor do I need to. I only need to give ONE marine example that can NOT survive salinity changes.
I have provided that example: the discus fish. As usual, you ignore the evidence that you wish would go away.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"In Indonesia, many coral reefs are dying due to mangrove destruction,"
In other places, coral reefs thrive in brackish water. Google kiddo. Don't remain ignorant knowingly.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Third repeat of the same baseless assertion. Doesn't make it any more true.
And as I said, just ONE species that could not survive is enough to disprove your flood.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"While your at it, make sure your living example also has a broad, flat skull"
Many living fish do.
"with spiracles and lacks an operculum."
Sharks, sturgeons, rays, skates, Guitar Fishes, mantas...
You just can't get anything right, can you.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
It must have ALL of those features: the bones, AND the spiracles, AND the lack of an operculum.
Sharks, sturgeons, rays, and skates don't have bones at all. Nor do they have spiracles in the skull.
Please, feel free to try again.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"cannot tolerate brackish water for even a few days,"
Many fish tolerate salt and fresh water. That's a fact. Are you saying it's not so?
"let alone the year that the floodwaters supposedly covered the earth."
Catfish live in water so muddy you cannot see more than 2 inches in it! Wrong again boy.
"it doesn't matter whether reefs formed before or after the flood; merely whether coral could survive it."
But it has. There are brackish water coral reefs! Wrong again boy.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You are an idiot. Yes, some fish tolerate both fresh and salt water. But I only need to show
ONE EXAMPLE
of a living fish to prove that species could not have survived a flood.
If a species exists today that could not have survived a global flood, NO FLOOD COULD HAVE OCCURRED.
I notice you repeat your bare assertion about coral reefs. Evidence, please?
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
I notice you conveniently excised the specific species I was talking about:
DISCUS (Symphysodon aequifasciatus).
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
In Indonesia, many coral reefs are dying due to mangrove destruction, which increases the flow of freshwater into the ocean. This is only a SLIGHT decrease in salinity, yet it's killing the reefs.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Ok, so you've made yet another false statement. You alluded that coral reefs cannot stand brackish water but there are many that exist in brackish water. What happened to your evo fantasy, the one that claims adaptation is evolution? It moves on to argue about soemting else when proven wrong on anyother point?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
I've never done that, only you.
Where's your evidence? I only see a bare assertion. You didn't even name a species.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Can a coral reef survive in brackish water 1/2 mile below the ocean's surface?"
So, you think the coral reefs formed before the flood eh. You think they are like fish, and cannot tollerate brackish water eh?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
First of all, I KNOW that discus cannot tolerate brackish water for even a few days, let alone the year that the floodwaters supposedly covered the earth.
Secondly, it doesn't matter whether reefs formed before or after the flood; merely whether coral could survive it. You'd have to prove that EVERY extant coral species can survive in brackish water and in the darkness of 1/2 mile depths.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"As I told you, I won't play your scatter-shot games."
We're discussing facts here. The facts consistently prove you wrong. Over and over I prove you wrong. You are my personal little evo biotch I've been proving you wrong about everything coming outta yer mouth for months kiddo. You're done.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You mean the way you proved me wrong when I said that the fin bones of Tiktaalik were preserved? Oh, wait... no, I proved YOU wrong.
Maybe it was when you said there was only one Tiktaalik fossil? Oops, looks like you lost on that one too.
Perhaps it was when you said that Tiktaalik is just like other fish. I'm awaiting your example of a modern fish that has all of the bones I've listed from Tiktaalik. Maybe you'll get me on that one, but your track record suggests otherwise.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Those were just EXAMPLES."
You are proven wrong yet again> Fish are tolerant in general. Many fish can survive in salt or fresh water! Your claim that the flood would kill all fish if the water became brackish is poofed!
NephilimFree 4 years ago
As I told you, I won't play your scatter-shot games. But tell me, can discus survive in brackish water? Can a coral reef survive in brackish water 1/2 mile below the ocean's surface? (I've raised both in aquariums, so if your make an unfounded claim, I'll call you out on it.)
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"DID THE FIN BONES IN TIKTAALIK FOSSILIZE?"
Yes. Now which is true? And why are Tiktaalik's bones transitional when fish today have the se bones and have been walking on land forever? Why transitional instead of "just like other fish"? Oh let's hear this one.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You didn't justify your former claim that they had not, but I'll let that slide for now. But I will be returning to it.
Name any existing fish that has the following bones:
coracoid
clavicle
humerus
ulna
radial bones
If you find one, then and only then can you claim it is "just like other fish."
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
While your at it, make sure your living example also has a broad, flat skull with spiracles and lacks an operculum.
Seriously, you'd have to be either stupid, blind, or insane to assert that Tiktaalik as anything like any fish living today.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
phoenixshade3, which is true:
1. all of the statements by thew world's prominant evo scientisits that transitions are not provided by fossils and life appeard abrupt and without predecessors, OR
2. Fish like Tiktallik are transitional.
Both are claimed by evo scientists, but only one can be true! Which one do you believe? Wednesday's story or Monday's story?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
I will answer your question when you answer mine. After all, I asked it first.
DID THE FIN BONES IN TIKTAALIK FOSSILIZE?
Yes or no, but if you say "yes" now, you must also justify your former claim that they did not. If you say "no," you must disprove the evidence I have provided.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Statement one: Straw-man. Cite one published article where a "prominent evo scientist" claims that "life appeard abrupt and without predecessors."
Statment two is essentially correct; fish like Tiktaalik are clear intermediaries between fish and tetrapods.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Dinos did not coexist with man? The secular timeline for earth and life is correct? Appearently not: The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina depicts Nile scenes from Egypt to Ethiopia. It depicts Ethiopians pursuing a dinosaur. The Greek Letters above the reptilian animal: KROKODILOPARDALIS, literally translated is "Crocodile-Leopard". It also contains clear depictions of crocodiles and hippos.
h t t p : / / w w w . genesispark . com/ genpark / ancient / ancient . h t m
NephilimFree 4 years ago
So if the Greeks had a word for a mythical animal, it MUST EXIST!
Tibetans and Nepalis have words for the mythical yeti. By your logic, this is indisputable evidence that yeti exist.
Native Americans have the word "sasquatch." By your logic, this is indisputable evidence for the existance of bigfoot.
The Greeks had names for half-human offspring of their gods. By your logic, this is indisputable proof that the Greek pantheon are the true gods!
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"You know nothing about my spiritual beliefs, so you are in no position to judge me."
"I am not judging you. I am describing you."
"If you go off topic or post judgemental bullshit, it will be removed."
It's all on-topic. Judgemental? You call me filthy names over and over and say this?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
"I am describing you."
You're in no position to describe me either, because you still know nothing of my personal spiritual beliefs, except that they don't agree with yours. I also don't try to masquerade them as science.
"You call me filthy names over and over and say this?"
My channel, my rules. If you don't like it, go spam someone else.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"It's all on-topic."
No it isn't. The topic is:
DID THE FIN BONES OF TIKTAALIK FOSSILIZE?
You claimed first that the fin didn't fossilize at all. I provided photographic evidence that they did.
You next claimed that the bones of the fin didn't fossilize. Ironic, because the photo I had already linked shows those too, and I gave you a list.
You didn't address this. Hence, you are off-topic.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Incidentally, you also claimed that there was ONLY ONE known specimen. I thought I had removed this comment, but fortunately I had not, so your LIE is still laid bare for anyone to see:
"See the pics I provided links to of the ONLY TIKTAALIK FOSSIL THAT EXISTS." (Emphasis added.)
Now you want to LIE about what the TWENTY known specimens reveal about the pectoral fins. I've refuted your LIE with evidence. Admit you were wrong on all counts, and the conversation can proceed to other topics.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Funny, over 200,000 published, peer-reviewed articles say otherwise. And ZERO agree with you."
Secular peer review is slanted, shuts out creationist scientists, discriminates against them in the workplace, and feeds you hegemony and false information.
"believe my fairy-tale or BURN IN HELL!!" that you fucktards spread."
You hate the ideo that you are responible to God. I feel for ya. Too bad nothing you can do to change that.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
"Secular peer review is slanted."
You're right. It's slanted in favor of theoretical frameworks that EXPLAIN all observed evidence, that are NOT CONTRADICTED by that evidence, and that make USEFUL PREDICTIONS. Evolution: 3, Creationism: 0.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
-"Secular peer review is slanted, shuts out creationist scientists, discriminates against them in the workplace, and feeds you hegemony and false information."-
No one is dicriminating against cretio-idiots, please stop repeating the same nonsense that Ben Stein did. You can't simply say any random thing and expect others to take it for real science.
fetrug 3 years ago
You're ignorant of the world. Secular peer review has always discriminated against creationists. You live with your head inb the sand and that will never help you understand the issue.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
-"Secular peer review has always discriminated against creationists."-
Considering how cerationists enjoy to distort information, such as your buddy, Kent Hovind, I wouldn't be surprised if science spits in your face. Science is not meant to prove the existence of God or anything like that, God is the supernatural. Do you want me to elucidate? You never mention how creationists distorted the meaning of a theory and the validity of Archeopteryx.
fetrug 3 years ago
-"You're ignorant of the world."-
Coming from the authority of ultimate wisdom, your pointless remarks really don't matter to me. Enjoy having your ideology thrown out of the public schools.
fetrug 3 years ago
"Secular peer review has always discriminated against creationists."
Peer review certainly discriminates against poor science and non-science.
And creationism is not falsifiable and makes no predictions, therefore it is just not science.
ytmoog 3 years ago
Is that why so many scientists and professors who let on that they believe in creation have been fired?
Again, you are ignorant of the world.
NephilimFree 3 years ago
So many? Which ones? I am sure you will bring up the usual suspects; Kenyon, Mimms, Sternberg, Gonzalez (of these, at least the last two don't go in for your young-earth delusion). None of these people was fired for being a creationist. The reason creationists don't attain (and maintain) high academic positions is that they put religious beliefs before scientific evidence, which leads to their being either extremely poor scientists, or not scientists in any meaningful definition of the term.
peehead99 3 years ago
"DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK."
Speak for yourself. You have learned many things from me that science provides, yet, you refuse to investigate them. Why? Is it because you have decided to convince yourself that there is no God and that you can pretend to believe that you are nothing more than an animal? That is not a sufficient reason to relegate one's self to a future of nothingness.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You know nothing about my spiritual beliefs, so you are in no position to judge me. Nice change of subject again. ADDRESS THE CONTENT OF MY POST, not just the closing comment.
As I told you, I am now moderating this conversation. If you go off topic or post judgemental bullshit, it will be removed. Last warning.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Bacteria to Humans: 4 BILLION years"
What evidence is there of this fantasy? The immunities you claimed cause morphological change? Give up kid. Science is not with you.
"Easily done within the confines of observed rates of change."
Observed? You're deluded kid. Nothing about evolutionism is observed. It's not within the Scientific method. SHOW US PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OR SHUT THIS EVO FANTASY TALK UP. YOU'RE SCARRING LITTLE KIDS INTO GROWING UP THINKING THIER JUST AN ANIMAL.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
"Give up kid. Science is not with you."
Funny, over 200,000 published, peer-reviewed articles say otherwise. And ZERO agree with you.
I'd rather little kids think that they are a PART of nature and therefore must act in an environmentally responsible nature, than to scare them with "believe my fairy-tale or BURN IN HELL!!" that you fucktards spread.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"I provided you a link to a CLEAR PHOTO of the fin rays from specimen NUFV 108, which extend all the way to the margin of the pectoral fin."
Fin rays are not medial bones. They are fringe material. Not the bones needed. Reagarless, the fins don't make it transitional silly. Numerous species of fish living to day have the ability to walk on their fins. What's transitional about Tiktaalik is in your head.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
The following bones are included in NUFV 110 (but I notice you are flip-flopping again):
coracoid
clavicle
humerus
ulna
radial bones
and that's just a partial list. All are clearly shown in the photo link I gave you, which you obviously refuse to look at.
As you like to say, DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
You know how saline the oceans were before the global flood? You know that fish could not have adapted to the increase?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
No matter how saline they were or were not, softwater fish, such as discus and freshwater angels, cannot tolerate even the SMALLEST HINT of salinity for more than a few days. Similarly, most oceanic fish species can only survive a VERY NARROW RANGE of salinity, and many ABSOLUTELY DEPEND on coral reefs for survival, and coral are even MORE sensitive to environmental changes. I have kept reef tanks, so I can attest to these ABSOLUTE FACTS first-hand.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"You cherry-pick evidence to fit your preconceived conclusion."
not that i agree with Nephie but aren't you doing a bit of the same here? i mean you fail to mention catfish or scats or numerous other brackish species, not to mention salmon. i keep reef tanks too, and brackish/mangrove tanks so i can attest to these ABSOLUTE FACTS first-hand also. just so there is no misconception here i'm not arguing anything about any species i'm asking if you aren't being a bit of a cherry picker yourself?
WilbyInebriated 4 years ago
Thanks for the comment...
No, I'm not cherry-picking, because the vast majority of fish species can only survive in a narrow band of salinity. Even if he claims that freshwater floated on top of saltwater, he still has the problem of light penetration into the saline environment being far too low. Not to mention that a saline gradient won't form in turbulent waters (another argument he likes to make about the flood.)
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
just because the vast majority can only survive in a narrow band is not a get out of jail free card.
you ARE cherry picking.
you choose 2 examples which are quite intolerant to saline in the water and neglected to mention any that are tolerant. as i mentioned before i am not talking about species, i'm not talking about fresh water floating on top of saltwater... i'm talking about you hand picking DISCUS and ANGELS that fit your argument and neglecting to mention any that would not.
WilbyInebriated 4 years ago
Those were just EXAMPLES. I don't have space in 500 chars (nor the inclination) to list many fluctuation-intolerant species.
Besides, I only need ONE example that could not have survived a flood but is nevertheless still extant to disprove the entire thesis.
(By the way, you neglected the fact that I also mentioned coral reefs. That's at least a few tens of thousands of species. Hardly "cherry-picking.")
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
more back pedaling and twisting away.
look asshat, your argument would have been better had you CHOSEN to be a bit less of a cherry picker. it would not have HURT your argument to mention catfish or scats or mollies or the numerous other species. the FACT is you CHOSE NOT TO. then you make excuses about why you didn't and how you aren't a cherry picker, your channel your rules indeed. its called "calvinball" right? and when you are caught with your own words.
WilbyInebriated 4 years ago
You've shown that you understand "cherry-picking" no better than you understand "negative proof."
Let me phrase very simply, so that even you can understand. If someone argued ALL life requires oxygen, in order to diprove this comment would I need to mention humans or eastern cardinals or european bullfrogs? NO. All I need to mention is ONE species that breaks that pattern (for example, any Desulfoviridin bacteria) to disprove the ENTIRE claim that "all" require oxygen.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
The above argument is EXACTLY analogous to the claim that all creatures on earth survived a "great flood." I only need to mention ONE species that could not have survived such an event (in this case I mentioned at least 10,000, when you include corals) to disprove the entire claim that this flood occurred.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Looks like you could use a course in elementary logic, since left to your own devices you are so obviously lacking in it.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
And just in case you decide to nit-pick on that analogy, substitute "elemental oxygen (O2)" for "oxygen."
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
By the way, stop arguing mere semantics. If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, please refrain from posting. Otherwise, I'll make that decision for you.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"pour a container of Morton's salt into a freshwater aquarium and see how long the fish live"
You mean organisms adapted from bacteria to humans but fish cannot adapt to salt water? You have proof that fish cannot adapt to salt water?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Bacteria to Humans: 4 BILLION years; several HUNDRED BILLION generations. Easily done within the confines of observed rates of change.
Freshwater to Saltwater - 1 year of the "flooded earth;" ONE generation. Contraindicated by observed rates of change.
You have only to do my suggested experiment to prove it to yourself.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
I have been demanding evidence of your claims and have gotten only the jargon of speculations and insults. You missed this?
Here is the best of the 20 specimines that have been discovered:
h t t p : / / tiktaalik.uchicago . edu/meetTik . h t m l
Go to "Fish Characteristics", click on "Fins". The fins from the middle down are missing. Regardless of this hegemony, it is not evidence of evolution, just an other fish like the ones at any museaum of natural hitory that walk along the bottom.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You originally said that NO fins had fossilized. I provided you a link to a CLEAR PHOTO of the fin rays from specimen NUFV 108, which extend all the way to the margin of the pectoral fin. Look at the photo, and you'll see I provided the evidence you "demanded" four days ago.
Need I remind you that you were ALSO claiming that only 1 specimen was found? So I'll take your acknowledgement of 20 specimens as a tacit admission that you LIED.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"The supposed "human" tracks you speak of have serious problems. Left and right feet on the wrong sides, to start."
Nonsence. They are not reversed, someone has filled your head with more bullcrap. And they are not just in Texas, but several other places around the world. That's called physical, observable, tangible evidence. The tracks are physical. Evolution is conceptual. One is science, the other is faith.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
OK, you worthless lightweight, we're playing by MY rules now. One subject at a time. Everything else will be deleted until you address my questions and evidence. (You'll note I deleted your dodging.)
First: After examining the photographs of the fossilized Tiktaalik fins I sent to you, do you still stand by your claim that we have none of their fins? If so, please cite your source.
After you address this, we'll go on to the faked human tracks.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Oh, one other thing. I notice you didn't comment on the photo from Nature of the Tiktaalik fin, clearly showing fossilized fin rays.
Here's a better link, with the caption.
ww w. nature. com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/fig_tab/nature04637_F1. html
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
You aren't doing too well my friend. You have said only one thing that is true, and that was that the flood probably could not have laid down the K-T layer. Other than that, you've missed on every count. Please, go study the things i cite. SWtart with the USGS web site and the massive methane deposites around the continents. Take a look at the continental shelves too. See what the receding waters have done to the edges.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
I'm doing far, far better than you. You cherry-pick evidence to fit your preconceived conclusion.
There was no flood. The K-T boundary alone refutes it. You lose. Again. But don't worry; your schizophrenia will soon convince you otherwise. I know you.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Oh, and how did both fresh- and saltwater fish survive?"
Animals adapt don't they? The earth's water was all fresh before the flood. The flood opened salt deposits because it was VIOLENT. It became brackish and eventually salinated. You are completely oblivious to so much. You are mindless and unbinterested in science if it refutes you - a typical symptom of one who is brainwashed - they no longer interest in learning unless it comes from their suitors. It's a little like Stockholm Syndrome.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Yes, they adapt. Over many generations. Not in one year.
I challenge you to pour a container of Morton's salt into a freshwater aquarium and see how long the fish live. Get back to me when you've done it.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"If the flood drove floating plants under a half-mile or more of rock, HOW DID THE ARK STAY AFLOAT?"
The USGS site has illustrations of the massive amounts plant material that was dragged off the continents by the receding flood waters, rotted, water-logged, and sank to line the continents and became frozen methane - enough to power the world for decades. You don't know about so many things that defeat evolutionism cuz you're refuse to study creation evidence.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You quoted my question, but still didn't answer it. It's even in ALL CAPS. Are you still searching for just the right straw to grasp at?
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Creationist scientists get the same treatment by peer-review as anyone else."
Sorry, that's not true. Many are fired or demoted because they let on that they have question about evolutionism. Some have sued their employers, such as Scientific American and the Smithsonian for such practives. Don't allow them to brainwash you forever.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
"Different by ONE amino acid, in most cases. That's not much considering that most proteins consist of hundreds of residues."
In some cases. Different by 1,000 amino acids in others. 80% of them are not the same too. No evolution. Just wishful thinking. When 80% different becomes "close ancestors", you know someone has been holding an intellectual pistol to your head. lol
NephilimFree 4 years ago
WRONG. I challenge you to name ONE analogous enzyme that has 1,000 or more amino acid differences between humans and chimps. Just one.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"A disaster that caused 60% of species to become extinct, and nearly every land animal with a body mass of 50 kg or more."
That's speculation. We know that large dinosaurs have coexisted with humans. There are thousands of dino figurines in many countires, Pakistanis depicted them on temples 1,000 yrs ago, dino tracks in the same rock as human footprints, ancient cave paintings, references in the Bible, so on and so forth. Clearly, the event did not wipe out all large life.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
The supposed "human" tracks you speak of have serious problems.
Left and right feet on the wrong sides, to start.
Clear evidence of chemical etching to make them look human, for another.
Typical creationist lies.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"How'd it all end in a single thin layer? A flood can't do that, period."
I would think not. Not a single, thin, black layer found in many places. However, a flood would lay down numerous layers well over 1 mile deep all over the earth. And that's just what it did, so says the earth.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Read carefully. FLOODS SORT SEDIMENT HYDRODYNAMICALLY. That means BIG shit on the bottom, and SMALL shit on the top. That's not what the geological record shows.
FLOODS CAN'T PRODUCE LIMESTONE. Let alone beds of limestone several hundred feet deep.
FLOODS DON'T PRODUCE EROSION BOUNDARIES between adjacent rock layers that were deposited in the same event.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Indeed, many reconstructions were made on less evidence that proved to be ACCURATE when more complete specimens were found"
Indeed many more have been wrong. Speculation about bones that are unknown does not qualify the speculation to be scientific evidence. You cannot elevate speculations that comprise evo concepts to scientific you goon! You're attempting to do the very thing that evo scientists do which brainwashed you you! Take your speudoscience outta here.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
"Many more" have not been wrong. Support your spew with evidence or get the hell off my channel.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
"Yes, the pectoral fins most certainly were recovered, and in a good state of preservation. We don't need every last ray to determine the structure. (Indeed, many reconstructions were made on less evidence that proved to be ACCURATE when more complete specimens were found.)"
No, the fins are not known. See the pics I provided links to of the only Tiktaalik fossil that exists. No fins. All they have is skin. There are no bones in the half-fin flap of scaly skin that was occified.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Anyone who wants to can go to
ww w. nature. com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/images/nature04637-f1. 2. jpg
and see very clearly the preserved fin, including fin rays.
As to your (deleted) comment that "only one specimen is known," that is false. There are about 20 specimens.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago