The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[genuineoriginal]

What type of similarities and disparities are you talking about?

Ask the authors of this article what chromosome differences they found:
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content

There conclusions are flawed because they attempted to reconcile their findings with the theory of evolution, but the work they did comparing the chimp and human chromosomes was done well.

 

[Jose Fly]

So it looks like you are just ignoring most of what I post to you. It also looks like you're just making most of this up as you go along, so if that's the case, I'll just thank you for your time.

 

[Jonahdog]

Ask the authors of this article what chromosome differences they found:
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content

There conclusions are flawed because they attempted to reconcile their findings with the theory of evolution, but the work they did comparing the chimp and human chromosomes was done well.

Sounds like a good creationist science project. Why don't you contact them and perhaps you can get them to withdraw the paper. Report back.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So it looks like you are just ignoring most of what I post to you. It also looks like you're just making most of this up as you go along, so if that's the case, I'll just thank you for your time.

You seem to be unwilling to make any effort to understand my points and are trying to disguise it by asking pointless questions that you could answer yourself if you gave it just a little bit of thought.

So, why should I answer each and every one of your pointless questions in detail?

For example, you asked if different number of chromosomes means different kinds merely to ask the thoughtless question about whether that meant that the same number of chromosomes means the same kind.
However, I already answered that by explaining about the similarity and disparity in chromosomes that also needed to be taken into account.
You didn't like that because it shot down your strawman before you were able to ask it, so you asked what I meant by chromosome similarity and disparity.
I provided a link to a scientific paper by evolutionists in Nature magazine where they went into detail about the differences they found between a chimpanzee and human Y chromosome.

That is not ignoring most of what you post, but it is not playing along with the games you are playing, either.

The genome projects are all about cataloging DNA and identifying the similarities and differences in DNA between different species.
The more the DNA is studied, the greater the disparity that is found in the DNA between species, which ends up causing the authors to come up with more and more elaborate explanations about when the DNA diverged, but never about how it is supposed to have diverged to that extent without ending up with nothing but evolutionary dead ends.

 

[Jose Fly]

You seem to be unwilling to make any effort to understand my points and are trying to disguise it by asking pointless questions that you could answer yourself if you gave it just a little bit of thought.

You can't be serious.

For example, you asked if different number of chromosomes means different kinds merely to ask the thoughtless question about whether that meant that the same number of chromosomes means the same kind.

That you see that as "pointless" says a lot about you.

However, I already answered that by explaining about the similarity and disparity in chromosomes that also needed to be taken into account.
You didn't like that because it shot down your strawman before you were able to ask it, so you asked what I meant by chromosome similarity and disparity.
I provided a link to a scientific paper by evolutionists in Nature magazine where they went into detail about the differences they found between a chimpanzee and human Y chromosome.

No, I asked the question as part of an effort to understand what you were saying. You obviously couldn't answer because you were making all this up as you went along, so you just linked to a comparative paper and said "Here....except for all that evolution stuff", which was bizarre since the evolution part was the entire point of the paper!

That is not ignoring most of what you post, but it is not playing along with the games you are playing, either.

You've been making this up as you go along, you have no idea what you're talking about, and that's why you can't answer even the most basic follow-up questions.

The genome projects are all about cataloging DNA and identifying the similarities and differences in DNA between different species.
The more the DNA is studied, the greater the disparity that is found in the DNA between species, which ends up causing the authors to come up with more and more elaborate explanations about when the DNA diverged, but never about how it is supposed to have diverged to that extent without ending up with nothing but evolutionary dead ends.

I'd bet you've not read all the way through any such papers, let alone understood them.

 

[6days]

Ask the authors of this article what chromosome differences they found:
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content

There conclusions are flawed because they attempted to reconcile their findings with the theory of evolution, but the work they did comparing the chimp and human chromosomes was done well.

Yes... The whole argument becomes a bit silly after a while. Evolutionists think similarity is evidence of common ancestry, so they try sell their belief system by fudging the numbers. (IE the 99% similarity claim)

 

[Stripe]

Is that why you did it?


This article speaks about the impact of a single asteroid.
The flood was the result of multiple impacts.

_____
Effects of an Asteroid Impact on Earth
Tsunami

The oceans cover about 75% of the Earth's surface, so it is likely the asteroid will hit an ocean. The amount of water in the ocean is nowhere near large enough to "cushion" the asteroid. The asteroid will push the water aside and hit the ocean floor to create a large crater. The water pushed aside will form a huge tidal wave, a tsunami. The tidal wave height in meters =10.9 × (distance from impact in kilometers)-0.717 × (energy of impact in megatons TNT)0.495. What this means is that a 10-km asteroid hitting any deep point in the Pacific (the largest ocean) produces a megatsunami along the entire Pacific Rim.
Some values for the height of the tsunami at different distances from the impact site are given in the following table. The heights are given for the two typical asteroids, a 10-kilometer and a 1-kilometer asteroid.

Distance (in km)	10 km asteroid	1 km asteroid
300	1.3 km	42 m
1000	540 m	18 m
3000	250 m	8 m
10000	100 m	3 m

The steam blasts from the water at the crater site rushing back over the hot crater floor will also produce tsunamis following the initial impact tsunami and crustal shifting as a result of the initial impact would produce other tsunamis---a complex train of tsunamis would be created from the initial impact (something not usually shown in disaster movies).​

Notice that there is a complex train of tsunamis that are created from each impact.
Each tsunami in the train would hit the land from different directions and with different force, making most of your questions irrelevant.

You are also assuming that none of the animals are buried on land and all of them are dragged out to sea and buried.

Do you think every fossil was put in place by the flood and its aftermath, or was something else involved? If yes, how does an asteroid strike dig up enough dirt to blanket the globe to more than a kilometer deep in sediment?

Is this what you consider rational discussion? A series of ad hominem comments followed by deliberately evasive response and completely ignoring the universally accepted definition of "theory" and "scientific process" used be all legitimate scientists around the world.

Ah, the old I-spout-a-lot-of-nonsense-and-then-wail-like-a-four-year-old-when-called-on-it tactic. A classic Darwinist ploy.

 

[6days]

On the other hand, there are scientists that are not trying to understand where the evidence leads, they are trying to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion. Those that are trying to fit evidence to their point of view are extremely reluctant to expose their work to peer review.

I agree...but, it isn't just some scientists who have a bias. Nobody is a blank slate.

Re. peer review... Journals have peer reviewers who generally agree with their world view. In other words, 'Nature' would never get geneticist John Sanford to peer review an article that promotes common ancestry. Likewise the Journal of Creation is not going to get geneticist Kondrashov to peer review an article showing all all humanity descended from Noah's family

My reply to this is that a journal will publish works that support a global flood if it rises to the level of scholarly standards it requires for all submissions.

In a dream world. Cabinet, they WON'T publish an article like that...Likewise Journal of Creation would not publish an article saying that the Grand Canyon is the result of millions of years. . Journals cater to a certain clientele, and they don't want to lose subscribers. If you research this topic, you can find responses from journals rejecting articles based on who submitted it, and not the quality of the article. And then there is this story ... http://creation.com/the-smithsonian-sternberg-controversy

Of course. Even evolutionists agree that natural selection / adaptation results from a loss of genetic info.
Yes...an excellent example of the Biblical model. A poodle is a mutant... a loss of genetic info. A breeder can always eliminate unwanted traits / pre-existing genetic info as has been done with poodles. (But poodles and wolves are the same kind of animal, aren't they?)

A breeder both eliminates and adds desirable traits.

Nope..... A breeder can't add genetic info. The breeder eliminates unwanted qualities, and selects pre-existing traits

[
It would be interesting to see if you can define genetic information and what is lost to carve a poodle out of a wolf.

Ok..... Lets go with 'genetic variation' then. (Or google genetic information). Breeding / selection causes a loss of genetic variation...Or, in the example here it might preserve; but it never creates. Selection and adaptation are the result a loss of pre-existing genetic info. (IE. Highly adapted populations are often fragile due to the loss of variation)

"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b]*most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

Re wolf to dog... Again google. You can easily find articles from secular sources that tell you, domestic dogs are descendants of a wolf. (Same KIND of animal)

 

[Sonnet]

When you you call evolution a theory you are stating that evolution is real.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

You have an example of empirical macro-evolution?

 

[chair]

When Genesis was written, the word for tsunami is the same word we have translated as flood....

You have no basis for making this claim. You are twisting the Biblical account to fit with your ideas- an odd approach if you claim to take the Bible literally.

It is a great description for multiple tsunamis washing over all the land, over and over.

There will be some animals that will get washed out to sea, but that would be a smaller number than the ones buried on land....

This is even worse. The Bible describes the entire earth being covered with water, and for a fairly long time. Nothing got "washed out to sea"- there wasn't any "sea". And nothing was "buried on land".

 

[Sonnet]

Does anyone have an theories as to how and why the animals purportedly migrated to Noah in the Biblical story?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Does anyone have an theories as to how and why the animals purportedly migrated to Noah in the Biblical story?

Dear Sonnet,

Yes, I know how. God put it into their mind, brains to do it. God brought the animals to Adam, all of the animals that God wanted on the Ark. Moses would have had quite a time trying to go and search out the animals, trying to figure out which were clean and which were unclean. God can do wonderful things, easily!!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[Sonnet]

Dear Sonnet,

Yes, I know how. God put it into their mind, brains to do it. God brought the animals to Adam, all of the animals that God wanted on the Ark. Moses would have had quite a time trying to go and search out the animals, trying to figure out which were clean and which were unclean. God can do wonderful things, easily!!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

Or they may have migrated naturalistically - perhaps because of shifting magnetic fields and because of a sensitization, in some way, to that which was about to occur.

 

[Jose Fly]

Re. peer review... Journals have peer reviewers who generally agree with their world view. In other words, 'Nature' would never get geneticist John Sanford to peer review an article that promotes common ancestry.

How do you know? Has Sanford attempted to do that?

If you research this topic, you can find responses from journals rejecting articles based on who submitted it, and not the quality of the article. And then there is this story ... http://creation.com/the-smithsonian-sternberg-controversy

That had nothing to do with "who submitted it". Rather, it was because Sternberg broke protocol and snuck a creationist paper in without standard review.

Nope..... A breeder can't add genetic info...Selection and adaptation are the result a loss of pre-existing genetic info.

Kinda odd for you to say, since you and Stripe both admitted that you have no idea how to measure "genetic information".

(IE. Highly adapted populations are often fragile due to the loss of variation)

And we see your dishonest little double standard again, where if a population evolves to become more specific that's a loss because it's a loss of variation, but if it becomes more of a generalist that's also a loss because it's a loss of specificity.

You'd think a Christian would be above this sort of dishonesty.

Re wolf to dog... Again google. You can easily find articles from secular sources that tell you, domestic dogs are descendants of a wolf. (Same KIND of animal)

How did you establish that "dog" is a "kind"?

 

[iouae]

Oh that it were so easy as to say that because chimp DNA differs from human DNA by 1-2% this means we are 98% alike. Thats how scientists thought in the 50's (not that I was there . Oh the heady days when science believed in a mechanistic universe, with few sub-atomic particles, and when a "Theory of everything" was just around the corner. Since the 50's, everything just got more complicated, to the point that we are only now discovering Dark Matter and Dark energy, gravity waves and Higgs bosons. And no doubt we will discover that a tiny change in DNA can be all the difference between man and chimp, and they are not at all alike, just as gorillas are not chimps, or bonobos prefer to resolve conflict by making love not war, unlike regular chimps. Big differences.

 

[iouae]

How did you establish that "dog" is a "kind"?

By the classical circular argument that if one animal seems to originate from another, then they must, by Biblical definition, be the same "kind".

I believe its impossible to find a Biblical definition of a "kind". Study Hebrew or Greek all you will, it will not help either.

I have said it before, and will indulge in quoting myself. When God said "let each bring forth after their kind" this was not a LAW but a statement of PRINCIPLE. We see everything does produce something resembling itself. This is ALL God was trying to say. He was not setting boundaries on how much species can or cannot vary. Creationists and evolutionists can argue over "kind" ad infinitum, I am not holding my breath there will be any meeting of minds until they see that this is just a general principle, not a law.

A principle is something like "it is better to give than to receive". This is NOT a law. I far prefer to receive sometimes, and at these times it is NOT better to give, only in the long term is it better to give than to receive.

 

[6days]

That had nothing to do with "who submitted it". Rather, it was because Sternberg broke protocol and snuck a creationist paper in without standard review.

So said the crying evolutionists. Truth was Stetnberg was the editor and did follow protocol.

Kinda odd for you to say, since you and Stripe both admitted that you have no idea how to measure "genetic information".

Unable to honestly refute what was said, you create straw mans.

(IE. Highly adapted populations are often fragile due to the loss of variation)

And we see your dishonest little double standard again, where if a population evolves to become more specific that's a loss because it's a loss of variation, but if it becomes more of a generalist that's also a loss because it's a loss of specificity.

Unable to honestly refute what was said, you create straw mans.

Re wolf to dog... Again google. You can easily find articles from secular sources that tell you, domestic dogs are descendants of a wolf. (Same KIND of animal)

How did you establish that "dog" is a "kind"?

I might have used the 3 definitions that I recall JoseFly posting previously. (You listed 3 slightly different wordings of the definition previously from 3 different TOL members). Or..."Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind--livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals." And that is what happened."

 

[Jose Fly]

Truth was Stetnberg was the editor and did follow protocol.

No he didn't. The people who run the journal were very clear about this...

"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process."​

Unable to honestly refute what was said, you create straw mans.

What in the world are you talking about? Are you denying that you admitted you didn't know how to measure "genetic information", or are you saying that you have since come up with a way to measure it?

Unable to honestly refute what was said, you create straw mans.

What exactly are you denying? That you've argued evolution in a generalist direction is a negative because it's a loss of specificity, or that you've argued evolution towards specificity is a negative because it's a loss of variation?

I might have used the 3 definitions that I recall JoseFly posting previously. (You listed 3 slightly different wordings of the definition previously from 3 different TOL members). Or..."Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind--livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals." And that is what happened."

How did any of that lead you to conclude that "dog" is a "kind"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Question for you 6days....why do you remove the post number tag when you reply? Everyone else I interact with here leaves it in, so their reply has a little arrow in it so if you wanted, you could follow the discussion thread.

Are you deliberately removing that from your replies? If so, why?

 

[6days]

Truth was Sternberg was the editor and did follow protocol.

No he didn't. The people who run the journalwere very clear about this...
"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process."

Waaa waaa....the evolutionists cried...and, the Smithsonian caved.

There are two sides to the story, and as usual Jose, you story isn't consistent with the evidence. The managing editor had full discretion on articles that were published. The article was peer reviewed by 3 biologists.

Here is part of Sternbergs account of the harassment.
Part of his account says "Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated. Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth."
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php

Unable to honestly refute what was said, you create straw mans.

What in the world are you talking about? Are you denying that you admitted you didn't know how to measure "genetic information"

What I'm saying is that when you are unable to refute what was really said, you create a strawman. IOW...quote me - don't fabricate me.

...you've argued evolution in a generalist direction is a negative because it's a loss of specificity, or that you've argued evolution towards specificity is a negative because it's a loss of variation?

...when you are unable to refute what was really said, you create a strawman. IOW...quote me - dont fabricate me.

I might have used the 3 definitions that I recall JoseFly posting previously. (You listed 3 slightly different wordings of the definition previously from 3 different TOL members). Or..."Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind--livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals." And that is what happened."

How did any of that lead you to conclude that "dog" is a "kind"?

Jose..... do you recall at one time you seemed to have a mantra that nobody would define the word 'kind'. We kept telling you it had been defined. Then.... one day, magically almost, you posted 3 slightly different definitions that had previously been offered.

So.... the question is why do you continue asking questions that have been answered. I think Stripe has also mentioned that a few times.