The Latest in Creation Science

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: BlackManINC

No thanks. When you get some testable evidence proving that God exists and created something/anything, put it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll read it.

And when you can provide a mechanism for the evolution of common descent, come back and show it to me, otherwise don't bother clogging up my thread with vapid posts.

a reply to: Frank12345

OK. Our embryos look similar to a cat's.... I don't know what you're getting at. Are you saying we evolved from an ancient saber tooth tiger?

a reply to: BlackManINC

You mean like mutations?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BlackManINC

You mean like mutations?

No form of mutation has ever been shown to produce new genetic information, all we've ever seen is new traits being produced typically by duplication, polyploidy, insertions which is an increase in the amount of already existing DNA a bacteria can hold, but not an increase in genetic information that would actually create something new.

a reply to: BlackManINC

because the only real tests I could find of any kind actually showed that the ark in theory was perfectly designed to float in severe conditions.

How?

That big wooden ship would have been torn apart by the ocean:

a reply to: BlackManINC

What does this mean? Genetic mutations by definition are creating something new. Do you know what an insertion is? Because judging by the context in which you mentioned it, you clearly do not understand what an "insertion" is. Before I continue my point, without copying and pasting something, could you explain to me what you think an insertion is?

a reply to: BlackManINC

Only problem, not science

a reply to: BlackManINC

Neighbor it has been repeatedly shown to you the evidence (and its not just a little) for evolution. You choose to ignore it, and as such that is your right, but it does not mean you are correct.

The so called "science" you present is not science, its pseudoscience, quiet simply because it has not been peer reviewed, and it can not be tested, due to it requiring a deity to work. May I remind you I am not an atheist, so I am not doubting the existence of deities, but I am doubting the ability to quantify them.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Man that form of reasoning causes me pain just to read.

(a) Every mutation causes new genetic information, you just listed a bunch of them, if the mutation causes a change in a protein (what DNA generally does, though not totally), and its different from the original source, it thus must be new. That is how logic works neighbor.

(b) Every new generation in a species which reproduces sexually, is producing new information. Otherwise we'd all be clones of one another. Again logic.

I honestly do not think you know what you are talking about here, and are instead cutting and pasting from creationist websites. I may be wrong, so I am going to sit on the fence over that. If I am wrong, you really do need to bone up on how genetics works.

a reply to: BlackManINC

One generation you get a duplication. A few generations later you get a missense or nonsense mutation on the same gene. So now not only are are there more genes there are a greater number of novel genes. If this isn't "producing" new genetic information" then I don't know what is.

I won't address everything in the video. Some has already been addressed, and no doubt others will be addressed by other posters. Some things I took note of:

11:18 Evolution and Atheism has lead to the most destructive wars.
Hitchslap in 3, 2, 1: Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens: Brothers debate God and War (2008). (1:40:40-1:48:45)

45:47 Ceremonial Burial Stones from Peruvian Tombs
A.K.A. the Ica Stones. The stones cannot be dated because their source has never been revealed. Regardless, they are a known hoax. There is no contention over this fact except by those who try to use them as evidence of men interacting with dinosaurs. The stones were collected by a Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquea. However, the poor doctor was fooled. The stones were created by Ica villagers for the purpose of selling them to gullible tourists. A man named Basilio Uchuya and his wife Irma, admitted that they carved the stones and sold them to Dr. Cabrera.

46:00 Dinosaur Figurines from Mexico
Another obvious set of forgeries...

1. The figurines show every evidence of being recent folk art, fraudulently buried in an archeological excavation. De Peso (1953) made the following observations:

- The surfaces of the figurines were new. They were not marred by a patina or coating of soluble salts characteristic of genuinely old artifacts from the same area. The owner said none of the figures had been washed in acid. Edges of depressions were sharp and new. No dirt was packed into crevices.

- Genuine archeological relics of fragile items are almost always found in fragments. Finding more than 30,000 such items in pristine condition is unheard of. The excavators of the artifacts were "neither careful nor experienced" in their field technique, yet no marks of their shovels, mattocks, or picks were noted in any of the 32,000 specimens. Some figurines were broken, but the breaks were unworn and apparently deliberate to suggest age. No parts were missing.

- "The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task" (Di Peso 1953, 388).

- Fresh manure was found in the tunnel fill.

- Fingerprints were found in freshly packed earth that filled an excavated bowl.

4. If authentic, the figurines imply even more archeological anomalies:

- If the figurines really were based on actual dinosaurs, why have no dinosaur fossils been found in the Acambaro region?

- Why did no other Mexican cultures record any dinosaurs?

- What caused the dinosaurs to disappear in the last 1,100 years?

LINK

47:11 Ta Prohm temple in Siem Reap, Cambodia
Sorry, it's highly unlikely the carving in question is a stegosaurus. The link below is a lengthy analysis. I encourage anyone interested in this carving to read it.

ICR writer Brian Thompson calls the statue an "anatomically correct" stegosaur. However, this is far from the case, and ignores several glaring differences between the carving and a real stegosaur. As further discussed below, these include the lack of tail spikes, the size and shape of the head, the apparent presence of horns (or external ears?), and the proportions of the body and legs, Indeed, the only features that could be argued to be significantly stegosaur-like are the lobes along the back, but even these have anatomic problems, and a more likely explanation. On actual stegosaur skeletons, the plates are typically more numerous, in double rows, more pointed and triangular, and larger toward the middle of the back than the head or tail. One might argue that the plates could have been stylized or simplified by the artist, but this does not go far, since a larger problem exists. That is, similar lobes (evidently representing decorative, floral flourishes) occur on many other animal carvings at the temple, including a bird and an apparent water buffalo, where they are virtually identical to the "plates" on the carving in question, but are clearly not back plates.

Another significant problem for the stegosaur adherents is the lack of tail spikes on the carving. These menacing weapons, often called "thagomizers" after a Gary Larson cartoon, are among the most unique and stunning features of stegosaurs, and not something an artist would easily overlook. The carving also shows front and hind legs of similar size, even though stegosaurs had rear legs far larger than the front legs. Moreover, two large projections are seen at the back of the head on the carved creature. No such features would be expected on a stegosaur. However, they could readily represent ears on a rhino (Figs. 7 & 8), or the folds or furrows of a chameleon neck frill (Fig 4a), or as noted earlier, the spikes on the head of a horned lizard (Fig. 4b). It seems unlikely that a carver familiar with living stegosaurs would neglect striking features such as long tail spikes, but add prominent features on the head that did not exist. If one argues that the image might be so stylized that this is possible, then no anatomic features of the creature can be trusted to be very realistic or meaningful. Indeed, as one blogger (Rogue, 2009) observed, if the carving is really supposed to be a Stegosaurus, it gets things remarkably wrong at both ends.

More on the Cambodian temple carving.

50:40 Unfossilized T-Rex Bones and Soft Tissue
Yeah...
Dino-blood and the Young Earth

1:21:01 Hanzi of Genesis

Creation Ministries International's website contains a section wherein they cite several examples of Chinese hanzi characters which, they say, indicates that the Chinese were aware of the events of Genesis long before their exposure to Christianity. After all, the development of Chinese characters pre-dates the writing of the Book of Genesis (but obviously only just, otherwise you might have had Chinese running around before the actual creation). Thus, the Chinese characters seem to provide an 'independent' record of the events in Genesis, conveniently forgetting that as with any language, it can evolve over time and can incorporate new characters and "words' as and when they become necessary.

So they quote 7 examples and claim there are 100s more, but you have to buy the book to see the rest. Also, bear in mind that there's something like 50,000 hanzi characters - old and new and obsolete included - so the chances are that - when you're pattern matching, you will find something that looks just like you want it to. We are, after all, pattern matching machines.[1] But then there's more! The book, titled God’s Promise to the Chinese, which would have the perception of targeting perhaps some Chinese audiences, is only written in English. No Chinese translation has been found as of August 2009.

Looking at the 7 characters in question and analyzing them CMI's way, it becomes apparent that CMI have made the beginner's mistake of seeing a semantic-phonetic compound as an element-indicative compound. The the vast majority of Chinese characters are compounds that include a phonetic element, as well as a semantic element.

In addition, the examples they list are taken from modern simplified Chinese hanzi, which are vastly different from the bone script and bronze inscriptions, which date from an era closer to that of the supposed Genesis and which would be even more likely to contain elements indicating a knowledge of the events of Genesis.

Hanzi of Genesis

Random resources:
Rational Wiki
Talk Origins
Bad Archeology
Flinstones Archeology

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: BlackManINC

No thanks. When you get some testable evidence proving that God exists and created something/anything, put it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll read it.

And when you can provide a mechanism for the evolution of common descent, come back and show it to me, otherwise don't bother clogging up my thread with vapid posts.

The mechanism is evolution. You can learn all about at your nearest college or library.

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: Frank12345
OK. Our embryos look similar to a cat's.... I don't know what you're getting at.

The similarity means we and Felix have a common ancestor , therefore we've both come about via evolution, not creation.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

originally posted by: BlackManINC

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes: www.smithsonianmag.com...

It's nice that the physics work out. Too bad the engineering doesn't work out.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

hey, now.....refuse to be a victim of this world. think even deeper, the cartoons are not real.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull. However, several explorers have each claimed that they have discovered the remains of the Ark at some sites on Mt. Ararat.8 Based on their arguments and references,9 we estimated the form of the Ark’s hull as that of a barge-type ship.

So it's a load of rubbish in other words.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: BlackManINC

No thanks. When you get some testable evidence proving that God exists and created something/anything, put it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll read it.

That works two ways.

Second

a reply to: GBP/JPY

So who else is looking forward to The Creationist Cosmos, showcasing the absolute cutting edge of creation science ?-


I, for one can't wait..

originally posted by: BlackManINC
No form of mutation has ever been shown to produce new genetic information ...

shuffling parts of the DNA sequence can create new traits without adding code ... en.wikipedia.org... , cf. anagrams : the same letters shuffled can have a completely different meaning.