Author Topic: I don't get YEC.  (Read 33039 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #435 on: September 11, 2013, 12:42:59 AM »
You win?

What: getting your ass handed to you? Yeah, you won.

-Nam

I was, solemnly, trying to be funny. If that makes any sense. Why are you trolling me?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #436 on: September 11, 2013, 12:50:06 AM »
You win?

What: getting your ass handed to you? Yeah, you won.

-Nam

I was, solemnly, trying to be funny. If that makes any sense. Why are you trolling me?

I'm not "trolling" you. Stop feeling persecuted.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3049
  • Darwins +272/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #437 on: September 11, 2013, 01:41:38 AM »
It is my understanding tho that there would be c-14 in {diamonds}, but it should not be at the level that exists. i.e. it should probably be undetectable by current methods

Well, My understanding is that current methods are extraordinarily good.  U of California (Berkeley) can now do actual photographs of molecules in a chemical reaction, so quantifying C-14 should be comparatively easy now.

I see a more serious problem here if one takes a YEC approach to diamonds, 'tho.  How are they getting formed, if not by pressure on carbon deposits over millions of years?  Either what we know about diamond formation is wrong, or some enormous force crushed that carbon into shape in a much shorter period of time.  A cataclysmic event would have done a lot more disruption to the earth than just squishing carbon atoms together to make hard shiny things, and so far I haven't seen that nice Kryptonian boy Kal-El wandering about, randomly squishing barbecue briquettes in his hands.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5094
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #438 on: September 11, 2013, 10:16:36 AM »
I win! I mean, goodbye and thank you for the discussion without being rude. I came on here really in the hopes that I would have a good discussion, because really there aren't that many atheists that I talk to on a regular basis.
One thing about humor on the Internet is that it's really easy to take in the wrong way.  Just something to keep in mind.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It is equally speculative to say that those things are true, which is why I mentioned it later in my reply, and the burden of proof is on the ones who call it science. You're right that I can't think of any evidence, per se, that would disqualify current radiocarbon dating methods as being possible, and I even I agree that within the last couple thousand years they are reasonably accurate, in fact. But, something like a catastrophic flood or the creation of earth, for example, might change the amount of c-14 around. Indeed, a creationist would say that past a certain point radiocarbon dating would be totally unreliable.
It is no more speculative than to say that the gravitational constant is the same here as on some galaxy halfway across the universe.  Because the rate of radioactive nuclear decay is governed by the weak nuclear force, which is one of the four fundamental forces, along with gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force (which holds protons together).  To point to extremely dubious myths in the Bible (such as the creation story and the flood story) and claim that those things would make carbon dating unreliable is not reasonable.  Both of those myths contain elements from other myths, such as the reference to a snake tempting Eve (snakes were considered sacred to matristic[1] Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures, which the patriarchial Jewish culture would have detested, thus the "snake tempting woman" part of the myth) and the clear similarities between the Genesis flood myth and the epic of Gilgamesh.

Here's another point for consideration.  Yes, the rate of c14 production does vary somewhat.  But we can check it against other dating methods (such as counting tree rings in bristlecone pines, which have been reliably dated to at least 6200 BCE).  Doing that, we've found that the rate of c14 decay has fluctuated over time - it's being produced faster than it decays today, but more than about 3,000 years ago, it was decaying faster than it was being produced.  In other words, this points to a natural cycle of fluctuation which can be accounted for, not the kind of massive variations that would be needed to cast doubt on carbon dating.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Come to think of it, and I realize you may not accept this, but the RATE project did find c-14 in diamonds, which should not be there. http://www.icr.org/rate/
The amount of c-14 that the RATE project 'found' in diamonds was probably less than the measurement error of the machines they used to measure it.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
They are the only ones who have looked for c-14 in diamonds, as far as I know, but if anyone wanted to prove that wasn't the case I imagine they would get a team of researchers on it straight away
As this journal illustrates, c14 dating is known to be unreliable on things that are older than 50,000 years, because the residual beta radiation from c14 decay in a sample that old would be swamped by other sources of beta radiation (such as cosmic rays).

----

Burden of proof is on the people who accept it is accurate, not the people who dispute. It must be shown to be reliable before it is in the field of science.
And radiometric dating has been shown to be reliable, though scientists still check any anomalies they discover in them, such as in this article.  Nobody has ever been able to do anything that affects the rate of radioactive decay, and until we find something that does, it is not reasonable to assume otherwise.  Therefore, it has been shown to be reliable, and thus if you want to disprove it, you need to find something that actually shows that it's wrong, not simply assert that there are things that would make it wrong if they actually existed.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
What you're saying is, I'm only allowed to use creationist sources, right? Since you brought it up, which evolutionist scientist did you have in mind that DOESN'T think evolution is necessary for other sciences?
Not at all.  But if you use sources that include information that you dispute, then you really should explain why the rest of the information in them is reliable when you question something that is fundamental to that information.  It makes no sense to use an article that talks about dogs having been domesticated before 33,000 BC (by radiometric dating) as evidence that dogs have always been a 'type' when you do not accept the date of the remains in the first place.  In other words, if you don't accept the date of the remains, how does this prove anything about dogs always having been a 'type'?

As for your other question, this is disingenuous on your part.  You are the one trying to prove that scientists think evolution is necessary for other sciences to make sense, so why are you trying to shift the burden of proof to me by asking me to find scientists who do not think this?  I don't think even the most rampant supporter of evolutionary theory would try to claim that evolution was necessary for every other science to begin with.  At most, they might claim that it was necessary to understand biology, as Dobzhansky (who you quoted before) said.  I can agree with that, but it is not because biology has been made to fit evolutionary theory, but because evolutionary theory works so well to explain things within biology.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I fail to see how the fact I claim it, and other creationists do to, makes it wrong.
Did you even go back and look at the page to see what fallacies I was talking about?  I thought you would have done that much, at least.  But since you apparently did not, let me cite those fallacies for you.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist

The claim is that evolution promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of biological origins.  However, this is nonsensical.  It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather, or that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work.  In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one.

Now, for the actual fallacies:
  • Irrelevant conclusion - the statement has no bearing on whether evolution is actually true.
  • Appeal to consequences - by accepting evolution, one becomes an atheist.
  • Appeal to motive - the scientific method isn't about feeling fulfilled, intellectually or otherwise.
  • Strawman - evolution has nothing to do with atheism in the first place.
  • False dilemma - the statement inflates the supposed 'consequences' and implications of evolutionary theory.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
The article about dogs was to show that dog fossils have been found. You can't suggest that I use ONLY sources that strictly support me, otherwise I would be only using creationist sites, and I'm still not convinced that's what you want.
I want you to be consistent - if you use a source that contains information that you disagree with, I want you to explain how that does not affect the other conclusions in the article.  By the way, the mere fact that dog fossils have been found doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself.  We've found wolf fossils that are much older than that.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Take a look at the website again. The different genetic codes are unable to cross over to each other.
Which is irrelevant, unless you're talking about how the genetic codes for eyes can't change to suddenly start coding for giant fingers.  But that has nothing to do with your point.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Because slight variations in those things tend to cause severe damage to the species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
Except that we aren't talking about the consequences of polyploidy in diploid organisms in the first place.  My question, "how is this a hurdle", was about what this had to do with evolution, which you haven't yet explained.  Also, having extra copies or sets of chromosomes is not what I would call a 'slight' variation.  Slight variations are changes within a chromosome.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
More probable? This is what I'm getting at, it's an unprovable assumption.
Except that it is neither unprovable nor an assumption, your assertion notwithstanding.  Your argument is basically that even though we can observe speciation within a 'type' of animal, there is a point at which those 'types' would have had a "first type", and that there wouldn't have been any organisms that combined the traits of different 'types'.  Whereas my argument is that you can trace that further back - that there are no insurmountable differences between 'types'.  However, your argument flies in the face of what we already know about speciation.  It is essentially saying that that there is a point at which you simply can't go further back in tracing lines of descent, even though you can trace lines of descent to that point.  Yet that flies in the face of evidence we've already discovered.

For example, all carnivores, whether feline, canine, weasel, bear, or something else, share traits with each other, just as all species of insects share traits with each other.  And these are not traits that they generally share with animals outside of that grouping.  For example, all insects share physiological traits such as having segmented bodies (head, thorax, and abdomen), three pairs of limbs, a single pair of antennae, compound eyes, and exoskeletons.  Since insects all share these, it strongly suggests a common ancestor.  Similarly, mammals also share characteristics, such as hair, mammary glands, a single jawbone, dyphodonty (tooth replacement), the three middle ear bones, endothermy (body temperature regulation), and many others.  Since mammals all share these, it strongly suggests a common ancestor.

Not only that, but when you compare the DNA between two insects (or two mammals), it is much closer than you would get from comparing an insect and a mammal (which are pretty far apart as classes go), further strengthening the common ancestor argument.

So, how does your argument explain these similarities?
 1. matrilineal but not matriarchial
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 10:36:46 AM by jaimehlers »

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12579
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #439 on: September 11, 2013, 12:08:21 PM »
So, how does your argument explain these similarities?

More importantly, what does his explanation predict and how would it be falsified?  If a god made everything then that would mean...what? 

He forgets (ignores? never knew in the first place?) that evolution made a lot of predictions without knowing the answers beforehand.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2120
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #440 on: September 11, 2013, 01:47:42 PM »
More importantly, what does his explanation predict and how would it be falsified?  If a god made everything then that would mean...what? 

And that's the crux of the problem when debating against Creationism, isn't it? There are no predictions. There is nothing to be falsified. There will never be a new discovery. Instead of making predictions and testing hypotheses, Young Earth Creationism only offers one biblical interpretation. One. The entire worldview of a YEC rests on adding up dates from the genealogies in Genesis:

Adam was created on the 6th day.
Abraham was born about 2,000 years after Adam.
It's been about 4,000 years since Abraham.
Bam. 6,000 years. There's our answer.
The earth is 6,000 years old.


Ridiculous. Yet what? 40% or so of the U.S. population accepts this as truth based on an elementary addition problem from a middle eastern creation myth? It's embarrassing. The only reason these people don't accept the theory of evolution is because it conflicts with their religious views.

Food for thought: The only thing separating flat-earthers and geocentrists from YECs is interpretation. That's poor company if you ask me.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #441 on: September 11, 2013, 02:06:10 PM »
So, how does your argument explain these similarities?

More importantly, what does his explanation predict and how would it be falsified?  If a god made everything then that would mean...what? 

He forgets (ignores? never knew in the first place?) that evolution made a lot of predictions without knowing the answers beforehand.

What I'd like to know, if the NT is the only book of importance, and YEC follow the guidelines of Genesis, and Genesis isn't in the NT, then how come he's a YEC?[1]

-Nam
 1. based on the things he said earlier this morning
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #442 on: September 11, 2013, 06:07:32 PM »
Quote
It is no more speculative than to say that the gravitational constant is the same here as on some galaxy halfway across the universe.  Because the rate of radioactive nuclear decay is governed by the weak nuclear force, which is one of the four fundamental forces, along with gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force (which holds protons together).  To point to extremely dubious myths in the Bible (such as the creation story and the flood story) and claim that those things would make carbon dating unreliable is not reasonable.  Both of those myths contain elements from other myths, such as the reference to a snake tempting Eve (snakes were considered sacred to matristic[1] Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures, which the patriarchial Jewish culture would have detested, thus the "snake tempting woman" part of the myth) and the clear similarities between the Genesis flood myth and the epic of Gilgamesh.
 1. matrilineal but not matriarchial

You're going extremely far off-topic. It is irrelevant how speculative it is, because c-14 assumptions are still speculative, and therefore not in the realm of science.

Quote
Here's another point for consideration.  Yes, the rate of c14 production does vary somewhat.  But we can check it against other dating methods (such as counting tree rings in bristlecone pines, which have been reliably dated to at least 6200 BCE).  Doing that, we've found that the rate of c14 decay has fluctuated over time - it's being produced faster than it decays today, but more than about 3,000 years ago, it was decaying faster than it was being produced.  In other words, this points to a natural cycle of fluctuation which can be accounted for, not the kind of massive variations that would be needed to cast doubt on carbon dating.

Tree rings are not always reliable http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf
I realise that may not be an easy read, but note the part about "missing and intra-annual rings"

You have to be more specific or site sources about c-14 decay fluctuation

Quote
The amount of c-14 that the RATE project 'found' in diamonds was probably less than the measurement error of the machines they used to measure it.

I think, being PhDs, they thought of that possibility. Perhaps you should ask them if you feel like this is the case.

Quote
residual beta radiation from c14 decay in a sample that old would be swamped by other sources of beta radiation (such as cosmic rays).

Only using older methods of dating. Learn about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope-ratio_mass_spectrometry

Quote
And radiometric dating has been shown to be reliable, though scientists still check any anomalies they discover in them, such as in this article.  Nobody has ever been able to do anything that affects the rate of radioactive decay, and until we find something that does, it is not reasonable to assume otherwise.  Therefore, it has been shown to be reliable, and thus if you want to disprove it, you need to find something that actually shows that it's wrong, not simply assert that there are things that would make it wrong if they actually existed.

I mentioned it as a possibility for you to consider, not that I was unaware, but I'm glad you researched it. Like I said, I generally agree with dates in the last few thousand years, using c-14. HOWEVER there is evidence of accelerated decay in other radioisotopes, but it may take a long time to debate this with you.

Quote
Not at all.  But if you use sources that include information that you dispute, then you really should explain why the rest of the information in them is reliable when you question something that is fundamental to that information.  It makes no sense to use an article that talks about dogs having been domesticated before 33,000 BC (by radiometric dating) as evidence that dogs have always been a 'type' when you do not accept the date of the remains in the first place.  In other words, if you don't accept the date of the remains, how does this prove anything about dogs always having been a 'type'?

Because the dogs are still dogs, regardless of how old the findings are.

Quote
As for your other question, this is disingenuous on your part.  You are the one trying to prove that scientists think evolution is necessary for other sciences to make sense, so why are you trying to shift the burden of proof to me by asking me to find scientists who do not think this?  I don't think even the most rampant supporter of evolutionary theory would try to claim that evolution was necessary for every other science to begin with.  At most, they might claim that it was necessary to understand biology, as Dobzhansky (who you quoted before) said.  I can agree with that, but it is not because biology has been made to fit evolutionary theory, but because evolutionary theory works so well to explain things within biology.

I don't want to be mean, but this is a bit muddled. I'd prefer you make a clear sentence or two statement about what you're saying. Really tho, I don't think my original point is very vital to this whole argument anyway.

Quote
Did you even go back and look at the page to see what fallacies I was talking about?  I thought you would have done that much, at least.  But since you apparently did not, let me cite those fallacies for you.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist

The claim is that evolution promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of biological origins.  However, this is nonsensical.  It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather, or that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work.  In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one.

Now, for the actual fallacies:
  • Irrelevant conclusion - the statement has no bearing on whether evolution is actually true.
  • Appeal to consequences - by accepting evolution, one becomes an atheist.
  • Appeal to motive - the scientific method isn't about feeling fulfilled, intellectually or otherwise.
  • Strawman - evolution has nothing to do with atheism in the first place.
  • False dilemma - the statement inflates the supposed 'consequences' and implications of evolutionary theory.

"It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather"
is a false analogy, because no religion claims that weather is not a natural phenomenon.

"that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work"
is also a false analogy, at least for Christianity, but possibly not for some witchdoctors, who presumably ignore germ theory.

"In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one"
Unless, of course, it is 1 Tim 6:20 "...science falsely so called" which I'm trying to show, and which this article and you are ipse dixit-ing that it is not.

1. Irrelevant irrelevance, I wasn't suggesting it was true or untrue.
2. Also irrelevant, we already discussed theistic evolution
3. The whole point of this argument is to show how evolution is not a necessary outcome of the scientific method.
4. That could be easily argued with Darwin's book, not that this "fallacy" is relevant to the quote at all
5. Something that could be even more easily argued

Quote
I want you to be consistent - if you use a source that contains information that you disagree with, I want you to explain how that does not affect the other conclusions in the article.  By the way, the mere fact that dog fossils have been found doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself.  We've found wolf fossils that are much older than that.

I did that already. C-14 is bogus, the dog fossils are not. Also, dogs descended from wolves.

Quote
Which is irrelevant, unless you're talking about how the genetic codes for eyes can't change to suddenly start coding for giant fingers.  But that has nothing to do with your point.

I told you twice to actually read it. If you are not going to, don't pretend to know what I'm talking about. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

Quote
Except that we aren't talking about the consequences of polyploidy in diploid organisms in the first place.  My question, "how is this a hurdle", was about what this had to do with evolution, which you haven't yet explained.  Also, having extra copies or sets of chromosomes is not what I would call a 'slight' variation.  Slight variations are changes within a chromosome.

It has to do with evolution because the supposed ancestors of certain animals have different amounts of polyploidy and chromosomes, whereas the variations within a kind (which is slight changes within a chromosome) generally do not, the exceptions generally being sterile or stillborn.

Quote
Except that it is neither unprovable nor an assumption, your assertion notwithstanding.  Your argument is basically that even though we can observe speciation within a 'type' of animal, there is a point at which those 'types' would have had a "first type", and that there wouldn't have been any organisms that combined the traits of different 'types'.  Whereas my argument is that you can trace that further back - that there are no insurmountable differences between 'types'.  However, your argument flies in the face of what we already know about speciation.  It is essentially saying that that there is a point at which you simply can't go further back in tracing lines of descent, even though you can trace lines of descent to that point.  Yet that flies in the face of evidence we've already discovered.

See previous argument

Quote
For example, all carnivores, whether feline, canine, weasel, bear, or something else, share traits with each other, just as all species of insects share traits with each other.  And these are not traits that they generally share with animals outside of that grouping.  For example, all insects share physiological traits such as having segmented bodies (head, thorax, and abdomen), three pairs of limbs, a single pair of antennae, compound eyes, and exoskeletons.  Since insects all share these, it strongly suggests a common ancestor.  Similarly, mammals also share characteristics, such as hair, mammary glands, a single jawbone, dyphodonty (tooth replacement), the three middle ear bones, endothermy (body temperature regulation), and many others.  Since mammals all share these, it strongly suggests a common ancestor.

You could just as easily say that the differences in all those animals suggests they did not have a common ancestor. Also to my previous point, similarity does not imply relationship.

Quote
Not only that, but when you compare the DNA between two insects (or two mammals), it is much closer than you would get from comparing an insect and a mammal (which are pretty far apart as classes go), further strengthening the common ancestor argument.

So, how does your argument explain these similarities?

Is this another ipse dixit? I already showed you a case of DNA dissimilarities, did you need a certain number of them?

You may be right that it is difficult to tell motives and attitude online, but I assure you I'm not attempting to be mean to you in any way. I encourage you to do more research if you don't know what I'm referring to, and I will do the same for you, with a mutual understanding that it doesn't mean the other is somehow inferior.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 06:26:19 PM by ChristianConspirator »

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #443 on: September 11, 2013, 06:22:25 PM »
I'm getting increasingly bored from the amount of people bashing my faith, and I will not longer respond to anyone other than jaimehlers.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2120
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #444 on: September 11, 2013, 06:40:27 PM »
I'm getting increasingly bored from the amount of people bashing my faith, and I will not longer respond to anyone other than jaimehlers.

I didn't mean to strike a nerve with my last post. I do hold the opinion that Young Earth Creationism is ridiculous though. Most likely in the same way some YECs have the opinion that belief in a flat earth is ridiculous. Don't let it get to you.

I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 06:42:59 PM by Zankuu »
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Darwins +32/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #445 on: September 11, 2013, 06:45:05 PM »
Pigeon shitting on a chessboard anybody?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 06:47:50 PM by mrbiscoop »
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #446 on: September 11, 2013, 07:04:16 PM »
Except for this one individual Astreja, since it's a good question, and it doesn't involve insult.

Quote
Well, My understanding is that current methods are extraordinarily good.  U of California (Berkeley) can now do actual photographs of molecules in a chemical reaction, so quantifying C-14 should be comparatively easy now.

Indeed it is. The age of diamonds, at least on earths surface based on uniformitarian assumption, is higher than the roughly 100,000 years that should be the upper limit detectable through IRMS. There should not be any detectable amounts in them given their supposed age, but it is there.

Quote
I see a more serious problem here if one takes a YEC approach to diamonds, 'tho.  How are they getting formed, if not by pressure on carbon deposits over millions of years?  Either what we know about diamond formation is wrong, or some enormous force crushed that carbon into shape in a much shorter period of time.  A cataclysmic event would have done a lot more disruption to the earth than just squishing carbon atoms together to make hard shiny things, and so far I haven't seen that nice Kryptonian boy Kal-El wandering about, randomly squishing barbecue briquettes in his hands.

Well, taking a YEC approach, God could easily create the earth with diamonds in it, or they may have been produced by the creation process itself (note that the bible does not say explicitly how God created everything). Here is an article more about diamonds from a YEC view http://creation.com/diamonds-evidence-of-explosive-geological-processes

Edit: Scratch that idea that I had, I just realised what I said would be a fallacy of sorts. I had thought that might be true but it probably isn't. I hadn't given it much thought, but the article seems to have thought it through more than me.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 07:25:16 PM by ChristianConspirator »

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #447 on: September 11, 2013, 07:08:16 PM »
Quote
I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?

I believe it has been shown conclusively, both through historical data and genomics that this is the case. Plus, they can interbreed to make fertile offspring which is a dead giveaway they are from the same ancestors. Huskies I think?

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6888
  • Darwins +927/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #448 on: September 11, 2013, 07:27:52 PM »
Oh another person who is arguing against science using a computer..... &)

CC, you use the science that is based on evolution every day. If you have never gotten smallpox or polio, if you have eaten corn, if you believe that police CSI units can find suspects, if you wash your hands after using the toilet, then you are unwittingly using applications of the theory of evolution.

How do scientists know that evolution is true? Because when you apply it to real life situations, it works. Science that does not work gets disproven (by other scientists, not religious authorities) and thrown out. That's why police generally use DNA to locate suspects instead of psychics, and researchers develop flu vaccines for new strains of the disease each year instead of relying on faith to prevent the disease. That's why you don't drink the water from your toilet, even though you can't see the germs. You know they are there, because science.

And the very same science that supports evolution also developed your fridge, car, cell phone, microwave and computer. You can only be consistent in your beliefs if you live the way people did in the year 1800. You know, before the theory of evolution.  Drinking contaminated water, living without electricity, being ignorant of much of the world, believing in witchcraft, approving of slavery, and dying before age 60-- all biblical, baby.  Throw out evolution and you throw out all modern science and technology.

Luckily, unlike religion, science works for everyone, whether they believe in it or not. :D

Very cute. Please inform yourself on the difference between historical and operational science, then respond accordingly.

IF, possibly, you are referring to survival of the fittest and speciation, those are in fact concepts that creationists agree with. So please, in advance, don't use them as a straw man.

I am not sure what you are talking about, since "historical science" and "survival of the fittest" are not testable concepts, AFAIK.

And you have not addressed by basic point, which is that evolutionary theory works when it is applied to various real life situations. That is very obvious--wrong theories don't work in application, because they are wrong! This, more than anything in a research lab, supports the validity of the theory.

When Darwin and his colleagues developed the ideas that form the basis of the theory, there was no field called genetics, there was no such thing as DNA evidence, there were no vaccines for diseases. All of these discoveries were made based on the theory of evolution. None of that stuff would exist if not for the theory of evolution. Unless the discoveries that led to all of these things are just well-timed coincidences? If the theory was wrong none of the science based on it would work.

Scientists mapped the human genome and predicted where humans and chimpanzees diverged in terms of DNA-- and later evidence showed them to be correct. How are we able to get vaccines and to work if the underlying biology is not sound? Why is it that police can use DNA to locate suspects if the underlying biology is not sound?

I am truly curious. Do you think that these scientists are lying or making up data that is not true? This would be a world wide conspiracy of untold proportions--the majority of scientists in hundreds of fields would have to be involved. The researchers, universities, governments, police, and public health departments in every country from China to Brazil to South Africa to Canada to Israel to France to Ethiopia would also have to be in on the scheme.

In reality, scientists fight and compete to get their ideas out there-- they do not all agree and collude with stuff they all know is wrong. Why would people who don't agree on much of anything else all do this? Even if that was somehow the case, how would they get all the fake vaccines to prevent disease in people everywhere? How would the police departments find criminals if DNA evidence is not real? I really want to know how a YEC deals with these facts.

ps CC, Do you believe that Noah and the flood story actually happened as described in the OT?

pps If, as you said, god could easily create the earth with diamonds already in it (I presume with magical forces) why even bother trying to explain such things with science?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #449 on: September 11, 2013, 07:54:37 PM »
Quote
I am not sure what you are talking about, since "historical science" and "survival of the fittest" are not testable concepts, AFAIK

You disagree with natural selection?

Quote
And you have not addressed by basic point, which is that evolutionary theory works when it is applied to various real life situations. That is very obvious--wrong theories don't work in application, because they are wrong! This, more than anything in a research lab, supports the validity of the theory.

which parts?

Quote
When Darwin and his colleagues developed the ideas that form the basis of the theory, there was no field called genetics, there was no such thing as DNA evidence, there were no vaccines for diseases. All of these discoveries were made based on the theory of evolution. None of that stuff would exist if not for the theory of evolution. Unless the discoveries that led to all of these things are just well-timed coincidences? If the theory was wrong none of the science based on it would work.

Creationist Gregor Mendel is the father of genetics. Christian Edward Jenner is the father of vaccination.

Quote
Scientists mapped the human genome and predicted where humans and chimpanzees diverged in terms of DNA-- and later evidence showed them to be correct. How are we able to get vaccines and to work if the underlying biology is not sound? Why is it that police can use DNA to locate suspects if the underlying biology is not sound?

"Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences" http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000085

Show me an example of police using evolution to solve crimes

Quote
I am truly curious. Do you think that these scientists are lying or making up data that is not true? This would be a world wide conspiracy of untold proportions--the majority of scientists in hundreds of fields would have to be involved. The researchers, universities, governments, police, and public health departments in every country from China to Brazil to South Africa to Canada to Israel to France to Ethiopia would also have to be in on the scheme.

In reality, scientists fight and compete to get their ideas out there-- they do not all agree and collude with stuff they all know is wrong. Why would people who don't agree on much of anything else all do this? Even if that was somehow the case, how would they get all the fake vaccines to prevent disease in people everywhere? How would the police departments find criminals if DNA evidence is not real? I really want to know how a YEC deals with these facts.

Is this a conspiracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

Edit: See also www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Quote
ps CC, Do you believe that Noah and the flood story actually happened as described in the OT?

Yes

Quote
pps If, as you said, god could easily create the earth with diamonds already in it (I presume with magical forces) why even bother trying to explain such things with science?

See my edit, dated before your response
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 07:59:42 PM by ChristianConspirator »

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #450 on: September 11, 2013, 08:35:24 PM »
I'm getting increasingly bored from the amount of people bashing my faith, and I will not longer respond to anyone other than jaimehlers.

Awe...poor little Creationist got his poor little feelings hurt and now won't reply to everyone.

Poor persecuted baby. Maybe you need to go back to the kiddie table and talk to those your own age, that way you can be as high and mighty as you please.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Darwins +32/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #451 on: September 11, 2013, 08:43:14 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest " are not the same thing. More YEC bullshit.
Discussing YEC is a non-starter for me. Its tenets are so over the top absurd and insane that for me to argue its legitimacy is akin to arguing Mother Goose.
You can consider this as bashing your "faith", which the possession of by the way is not a virtue.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 08:53:58 PM by mrbiscoop »
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #452 on: September 11, 2013, 08:46:28 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest " are not the same thing. More YEC bullshit.



Now he's not going to reply to you, you big meanie!!!

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #453 on: September 11, 2013, 08:54:30 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest " are not the same thing. More YEC bullshit.
Discussing YEC is a non-starter for me. Its tenets are so over the top absurd and insane that for me to argue its legitimacy is akin to arguing Mother Goose.
You can consider this as more bashing of your "faith". Oh yeah by the way having faith is not a virtue.

I notice you like to cherry pick and heckle. Why don't you do jaimehlers a favor and explain how different genetic codes can be overcome in the process of evolution?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Darwins +32/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #454 on: September 11, 2013, 09:01:17 PM »
 What do you mean by "overcome"?
 What am I cherry picking? You equated natural selection and survival of the fittest. I provided a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest which explains the difference.
 Your statements show a profound ignorance of how evolution works.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #455 on: September 11, 2013, 09:05:04 PM »
Quote
What do you mean by "overcome"?

Evolve from one to the other

Quote
What am I cherry picking?

Tiny little parts of my entire argument that don't make any difference to the argument as a whole

Quote
You equated natural selection and survival of the fittest. I provided a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest which explains the difference. Your statements show a profound ignorance of how evolution works.

Prove my ignorance then, I gave you a shot.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #456 on: September 11, 2013, 09:08:41 PM »
Thank you for the negative Darwins because of your inability to answer my question. As it turns out, I'm a creationist and I like them
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 09:10:33 PM by ChristianConspirator »

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #457 on: September 11, 2013, 09:14:45 PM »
Thank you for the negative Darwins because of your inability to answer my question. As it turns out, I'm a creationist and I like them

If this is toward me: what questions have I not answered?

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #458 on: September 11, 2013, 09:21:40 PM »
Quote
Quote
Thank you for the negative Darwins because of your inability to answer my question. As it turns out, I'm a creationist and I like them

If this is toward me: what questions have I not answered?

-Nam

Actually mrbiscoop, I should say ALSO left me one, on the last comment. I don't remember what yours was for, was it yesterday? You already told me you aren't big on science so I wouldn't expect you to answer the question I gave him. Feel free to ask me any science questions about YEC tho, if you'd like.

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Darwins +32/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #459 on: September 11, 2013, 09:22:21 PM »
  Your definition of cherry picking is correct but you failed to show how and what I was cherry-picking.
  Wikipedia is a good  start if you want to learn the basics of evolution. There are also plenty of very good books and websites on the subject. As I have been reminded by other posters here the internet is your friend.
  Equating "overcome" with evolving from one to the other is a bizarre way to refer to the process of speciation. Once again I would suggest learning more about evolution up and above what your pastor has to say about it.
    Good Luck.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2120
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #460 on: September 11, 2013, 09:24:50 PM »
Quote
I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?

I believe it has been shown conclusively, both through historical data and genomics that this is the case.

What is the YEC timeline for the domestication of the dog?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5094
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #461 on: September 11, 2013, 09:33:21 PM »
You're going extremely far off-topic. It is irrelevant how speculative it is, because c-14 assumptions are still speculative, and therefore not in the realm of science.
Except that they are not speculative.  For example, the rate of c14 decay (and other kinds of radioactive decay) is no more speculative than the rate of gravitational attraction, so for you to suggest that it is speculative because we don't have all the information about it is akin to suggesting that the universal theory of gravity is speculative because we don't have all the information on it..  It goes the same way for your other assertions - you have no evidence to back them up either.  So holding them up as reasons for why carbon dating isn't reliable is no more believable than asserting that gravity might have worked differently in the past, or might work differently somewhere else in the universe, without providing evidence to show that it was actually the case.

Now, it is true that they are assumptions, after a fashion.  But they are assumptions based on the fact that we've never seen them fluctuate, and we don't have any scientific evidence (observational, experimental, or historical) that shows that they ever have in the past either.  So it isn't reasonable to conclude that despite this, they might have fluctuated anyway, and thus we can't rely on carbon dating.  If someone comes up with solid evidence to show that they have fluctuated in the past, it'll be different, but until then, trying to dismiss carbon dating (and other branches of science that contradict the Biblical narrative) based on "well, things might have been different" isn't going to fly.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Tree rings are not always reliable http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf
I realise that may not be an easy read, but note the part about "missing and intra-annual rings"
Bristlecone pine rings are much more reliable.  First off, they almost never produce extra rings, and while they do have missing rings, the ring patterns of different trees can be measured and correlated with each other due to the rainfall patterns of the Southwest.  In any case, missing rings would result in younger ages for tree ring counts.  There's also the fact that scientists have worked out the tree ring sequences for other species of trees, such as the sequoiah (to at least 1250 BCE) and the limber pine (to at least 25 BCE), on top of having worked out the bristlecone pine to at least 6200 BCE.  And those have been correlated with the bristlecone pine - it's not just one species of tree and one sequence of tree rings that we're talking about here.

But here's the far more serious problem you have to consider.  If there was a worldwide flood around 5,000 years ago as the Bible claims, that means all the bristlecone pines would have been younger than that.  Meaning that 8,200 years of tree rings would have had to form in those 5,000 years, requiring 60% of all of those rings to be extra rings.  In a species that almost never has extra rings to begin with.  See the problem?

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You have to be more specific or site sources about c-14 decay fluctuation
I did.  It was in this link (note, this is where I got the info I posted just above).  That also answers your objection about tree rings not always being reliable.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I think, being PhDs, they thought of that possibility. Perhaps you should ask them if you feel like this is the case.
If they were doing their jobs properly, they would have included it when they published their findings.  Because that's how scientific publication works - you include everything you worked with, no matter how trivial it might seem.  If they didn't include it in their publications, that means they either didn't account for it, messed up somewhere and didn't notice, or they intentionally left it out.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Only using older methods of dating. Learn about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope-ratio_mass_spectrometry
I heard about that, actually.  But I doubt that the RATE scientists used it, since it's newer than their publications.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I mentioned it as a possibility for you to consider, not that I was unaware, but I'm glad you researched it. Like I said, I generally agree with dates in the last few thousand years, using c-14. HOWEVER there is evidence of accelerated decay in other radioisotopes, but it may take a long time to debate this with you.
No offense, but I doubt that there is such evidence, since it is only creationists - with a vested interest in disproving the science of radioisotopic analysis - who have seemingly found it.  Other scientists who have investigated those things haven't found it.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Because the dogs are still dogs, regardless of how old the findings are.
You are trying to have this both ways, though.  You are trying to say that the age doesn't matter, because they are still dogs no matter what, but you are also trying to say that the age does matter - since you used the most ancient dog remains anyone has yet found.  If the age doesn't matter, why not use dog remains from a couple of thousand years ago?  The fact is that it wouldn't prove anything, since we know dogs have existed much longer than that.  So you used dog remains that were dated from long before the Biblical flood - indeed, the Biblical creation itself - because they would strengthen your assertion...except that you also want to say that the date doesn't matter, because that demolishes your assertion.  You can't have that both ways.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I don't want to be mean, but this is a bit muddled. I'd prefer you make a clear sentence or two statement about what you're saying. Really tho, I don't think my original point is very vital to this whole argument anyway.
In short, you're claiming that scientists think that other sciences have to be made to fit to evolution, without actually quoting any who do - but at the same time, you're shifting the burden of proof onto me, by demanding that I find scientists who don't think this.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"It is like claiming that meteorological science promotes atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of weather"
is a false analogy, because no religion claims that weather is not a natural phenomenon.
Rather, they don't now.  And you know why they don't?  Because scientists showed that they were natural phenomenons rather than the actions of a supernatural entity.  So it is not a false analogy.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"that medicine and germ theory promote atheism by providing a naturalistic explanation of how diseases work"
is also a false analogy, at least for Christianity, but possibly not for some witchdoctors, who presumably ignore germ theory.
This is also not a false analogy, for the same reason I gave above.  Just because most modern-day Christians do not now believe it - long after germ theory was introduced and shown to work - does not mean that Christians always thought that way.  Indeed, before germ theory was developed, a lot of Christians believed that they were caused by supernatural influences (either divine or diabolic).  Some Christians still think that today, not just witch doctors.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"In short, this claim is no different than claiming that any other science promotes atheism rather than theism because it provides a naturalistic explanation for why something happens, rather than a divine one"
Unless, of course, it is 1 Tim 6:20 "...science falsely so called" which I'm trying to show, and which this article and you are ipse dixit-ing that it is not.
You're the one who linked the article to begin with.  Don't start accusing me and it of things like ipse dixit when you didn't read it fully in the first place, especially now that I have shown that it detracts from your argument rather than supporting it.

By the way, you are wrong.  I do not expect you to simply accept any of my assertions as valid simply because I say they are.  I expect you to think about them and to answer them intelligently, rather than using your own dogma as an excuse to disregard them.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
1. Irrelevant irrelevance, I wasn't suggesting it was true or untrue.
Except you just said that you were trying to show that it was "science falsely so-called", effectively, that it was false science.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
2. Also irrelevant, we already discussed theistic evolution
This isn't about theistic evolution, it's about your statement that atheism demands evolution.  Except that it doesn't, any more than atheism demands any other science.  That makes the appeal to consequences relevant, because you are trying to claim that since atheism demands evolution, evolution is required for atheism.  I.e., one must be an 'evolutionist' to be an atheist.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
3. The whole point of this argument is to show how evolution is not a necessary outcome of the scientific method.
Nothing in science is a "necessary outcome of the scientific method".  The scientific method is just a process for checking ideas against reality.  So trying to claim that it is not necessary is immaterial.  What matters is whether it's falsified by the scientific method, and evolution has not been.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
4. That could be easily argued with Darwin's book, not that this "fallacy" is relevant to the quote at all
I assume you mean the same Charles Darwin who specifically stated that he was not an atheist two decades after publishing "On the Origin of Species"?  Given that he is the man who discovered evolutionary theory to begin with, trying to claim that you can use his own book to argue that evolution is linked to atheism is absurd.  Thus the objection is also relevant.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
5. Something that could be even more easily argued
Sure, but not very effectively.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I did that already. C-14 is bogus, the dog fossils are not. Also, dogs descended from wolves.
Until you find evidence showing that it is 'bogus', this is nothing more than your opinion (shared by a lot of YECists, not that it matters), and not a particularly well-informed one at that.  Thus dismissing it only demonstrates cognitive dissonance on your part.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I told you twice to actually read it. If you are not going to, don't pretend to know what I'm talking about. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
I did read it, though it's not my field of study and thus is not easy to understand.  So I had a friend who is a biologist and who works with this stuff in his job read it too.  He's the one who made the "genes for eyes suddenly coding for giant fingers" comparison.  Thus, I question whether you actually know what you're talking about here.  But here's an easy way to prove that you do - tell me where in that document it shows that different DNA codes can't be overcome via evolution.  Specifically, which line.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It has to do with evolution because the supposed ancestors of certain animals have different amounts of polyploidy and chromosomes, whereas the variations within a kind (which is slight changes within a chromosome) generally do not, the exceptions generally being sterile or stillborn.
And you know they had different numbers of chromosomes because...  I'm quite serious here.  As far as I can tell, this is a totally baseless assertion.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
See previous argument
Until you show that said argument is actually based on something, there isn't much to see.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You could just as easily say that the differences in all those animals suggests they did not have a common ancestor. Also to my previous point, similarity does not imply relationship.
What you're saying here is virtually the same as saying, "well, just because wolves and dogs have certain similarities, it doesn't mean that they come from a common ancestor".  Except that this is incorrect, as you know.  Your argument here is just as bad - basically that it doesn't matter that they are consistently similar in ways that bridge the divide between genus and family, not just species, because they're different 'kinds' (or as you say, 'types') and couldn't possibly have come from a shared ancestor.  If someone who did not accept speciation came up to you and asserted that there's no way that the various species could ever have been anything but different species, you would probably call him on it - but you are doing essentially the same thing by asserting that it arbitrarily stops once you get past the species level (i.e., species all share common ancestors, but genuses do not, or families do not).

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Is this another ipse dixit? I already showed you a case of DNA dissimilarities, did you need a certain number of them?
The apparent genetic similarity (despite their evident physical differences) between horses and bats is an exception to the rule (and not the only one, either).  Simply pointing to something like this doesn't actually prove anything, especially when physical similarities are paired with DNA similarities much more often than not.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You may be right that it is difficult to tell motives and attitude online, but I assure you I'm not attempting to be mean to you in any way. I encourage you to do more research if you don't know what I'm referring to, and I will do the same for you, with a mutual understanding that it doesn't mean the other is somehow inferior.
I wasn't talking about myself here.  You seem to not realize how you're coming across to other people - responses which you intend as humorous are coming off as flippant, dismissive, or arrogant, for example, so I was trying to point it out for your benefit.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 09:44:08 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #462 on: September 11, 2013, 09:35:21 PM »
Quote
I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?

I believe it has been shown conclusively, both through historical data and genomics that this is the case.

What is the YEC timeline for the domestication of the dog?

Well, the flood was probably somewhere around 2500-2300 BC (there's a little ambiguity, I think 2348 is round about right), and anytime after that, dogs could have been domesticated in a short amount of time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Although most of the breeds around today, I'm told, didn't show up until the last few hundred years

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #463 on: September 11, 2013, 09:51:53 PM »
Quote
Quote
Thank you for the negative Darwins because of your inability to answer my question. As it turns out, I'm a creationist and I like them

If this is toward me: what questions have I not answered?

-Nam

Actually mrbiscoop, I should say ALSO left me one, on the last comment. I don't remember what yours was for, was it yesterday? You already told me you aren't big on science so I wouldn't expect you to answer the question I gave him. Feel free to ask me any science questions about YEC tho, if you'd like.

If you can't point it out then either you don't know, or I have answered all questions posed to me by you. Don't turn it around and state, "You can ask me a question.". Now, if someone else smited you, then you should be more direct and not generalise since others may have smited you.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.