Institute for Creation Research - No really, it's a thing.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I have questions.

Has any mutations helped humans evolve in the last 6000 plus years ?

Has any mutations been passed down to the next generation ?

Warning: bad answers could generate a new thread on this very topic

One I heard about was the ability to digest milk, but I bet it was already there.

The physical evidence shows that there is never any new information added to DNA.
The physical evidence shows that DNA is made of protein, and protein must have DNA in order to make it.
The physical evidence shows that the human DNA is made of 6 billion dipolar bases, and if you think you can evolve that in 4.5 billion years, you have a vivid imagination, since there is no evidence anywhere that new information is added to DNA and mutations would have to be successful every year or more often, which has never been seen to happen.
Hence, belief in evolution is soft science, not provable, and requires an enormous amount of faith in the absolutely impossible.
a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Quadrivium
9a reply to: Barcs

You do not even address the evidence for evolution, you just deny it. That is precisely what I was talking about above and you've done this numerous times in our encounters. 

Now that is funny. When you give the same worn out assumptions and I show that they are not really evidence, that's not me "denying" that's you being delusional.
The fossil record is a prime example. I have showed countless times that it is assumed there are transitional fossils or LCA's. Everyone thinks it's been proven but no one can come up with the actual evidence. When I say "evidence" I don't mean assumptions or speculation.

Nice. I'm with you. Good way to put it. Here's some more for you: all fossils contain carbon 14. That means they are young. answersingenesis.org...

a reply to: Jim Scott

please explain the geology of the cheshire plains salt beds - using " flood geology " ,

originally posted by: Jim Scott
The physical evidence shows that there is never any new information added to DNA.

No, the evidence shows the exact opposite of that statement

The physical evidence shows that DNA is made of protein, and protein must have DNA in order to make it.

Not quite. DNA does make proteins but RNA has been shown to do so as well. RNA can store genetic information and act like an enyzme. Simple RNA-based life-forms could have spread and evolved for millions of years.

The physical evidence shows that the human DNA is made of 6 billion dipolar bases, and if you think you can evolve that in 4.5 billion years, you have a vivid imagination, since there is no evidence anywhere that new information is added to DNA and mutations would have to be successful every year or more often, which has never been seen to happen.

Not quite accurate at all. The simpler the life in question, the more rapidly DNA replication occurs. Every time DNA replicates, there are alterations to that DNA. Replication and mutation was the cause du jour of early life on earth.

Hence, belief in evolution is soft science, not provable, and requires an enormous amount of faith in the absolutely impossible.

Not one of those assumptions are true. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is quite probably THE most well studied, well sourced and proven theory in the history of science. There is absolutely no question that the mechanism as 100% real.

originally posted by: Jim Scott
The physical evidence shows that there is never any new information added to DNA.

Can you post this evidence for me? Last I checked "insertion" is one of the basic types of mutation. Please post the science that shows this, not a creationist website, thanks.

The physical evidence shows that DNA is made of protein, and protein must have DNA in order to make it.

Please explain this concept deeper. What are the implications?

The physical evidence shows that the human DNA is made of 6 billion dipolar bases, and if you think you can evolve that in 4.5 billion years, you have a vivid imagination,

Completely false. Math is not vivid imagination. That is creationism and science denial. I've broken down the numbers before based on the rate of mutation and there is enough time based on the current rates to rewrite the entire genome several times over. Oops. Just made that one up, did ya? Maybe you should rely on science sites to get your science instead of religious ones?

since there is no evidence anywhere that new information is added to DNA and mutations would have to be successful every year or more often, which has never been seen to happen.

Again, please back this up with scientific data and evidence.

Hence, belief in evolution is soft science, not provable, and requires an enormous amount of faith in the absolutely impossible.

While creationism is hard science right? Your standards are pathetically weak. You'll believe creationism blindly without even a single ounce of scrutiny, yet hold evolution to impossible (and flat out wrong) standards.

I'll post it again.

1. Genetic mutation

2. Natural selection

Which one would you like to debunk today? I don't deal with strawman definitions of science derived from creationist websites like ICR, that have been notorious for spreading lies and misinformation.

Nice. I'm with you. Good way to put it. Here's some more for you: all fossils contain carbon 14. That means they are young.

BZZZZZZZZ WRONG. Thanks for playing. Maybe you should read a bit about radiometric dating. Carbon 14 is not used on dinosaur fossils because the margin of error increases the further back you go and because C14 can only date organic material, not rock. Since all fossils are made from rock, it makes sense to use alternative methods for older fossils. It's not because c14 indicates all fossils are young. I admit that is a new claim as far as I've seen, but it's dead wrong and the critics of fossil dating don't even understand how it works, hence your post about carbon 14, as if that is used universally on all fossils. That's simply not true and that's why we have several other methods of dating, which all happen to confirm one another. But yeah, let's just assume they are all automatically wrong because a religious website says so.

originally posted by: Jim Scott

originally posted by: Quadrivium
9a reply to: Barcs

You do not even address the evidence for evolution, you just deny it. That is precisely what I was talking about above and you've done this numerous times in our encounters. 

Now that is funny. When you give the same worn out assumptions and I show that they are not really evidence, that's not me "denying" that's you being delusional.
The fossil record is a prime example. I have showed countless times that it is assumed there are transitional fossils or LCA's. Everyone thinks it's been proven but no one can come up with the actual evidence. When I say "evidence" I don't mean assumptions or speculation.

Nice. I'm with you. Good way to put it. Here's some more for you: all fossils contain carbon 14. That means they are young. answersingenesis.org...

except for the fact that your "citation" and I use the term very loosely, hasn't got a single scientific peer reviewed source. Every single source that makes the claim for 14c being present in fossils is from a creationist website. Not a single scientific source among them. Actually, let me rephrase that... not a single honest scientific source among them. Let's look at some of the asources making this claim-
there are 7 citations pertaining to 'A.A. Snelling. This is Dr. Andrew Snelling, an Australian geologist with legitimate scientific credentials. In public, AA Snelling is an avid Young Earth Creationist proponent publishing many articles such as those cited in your source and is AIG's Geologist spokesperson.
In private, he works for various mining interests, particularly Uranium and that work is often published in refereed, peer reviewed publications which completely contradict his YEC life. for example-

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

He is saying that these deposits are 1.8 billion years old. Doesn't seem like the honest work of a true believer does it? I can continue to cite many examples from Snelling if you like but the 1.8bn date is nowhere near the realm of his young earth position is it?

Here's another one with 2 citations in your source- J.R. Baumgartner who has been called out for his use of science and demonstrates that he isn't as honest as he claims as well as all of his claims are based solely on confirmation bias and not the any actual science. He doesn't actually publish in scientific journals so there is no way to take his models seriously without being able to see the data instead of the talking points.Oh, and he's an electrical engineer masquerading as a geologist too. Here's an interesting chat with Geologist John Meer-

1. John, I've always been critical of you for signing on to papers that discuss old earth mantle evolution or old moon. In my view these are completely antithetical to your beliefs and I think you are either a hypocrite or you are being deceiving. I know I would not co-author a paper that was so at odds with my own scientific views.

Baum: That has bothered me a bit. In some cases I've asked to be taken off, but my co-authors insist that the work could not have been completed without my input. So, I simply said to myself that 'the physics used in the paper were fine' and I agree with the physics in the papers.

2. But John, the physics in those papers are based on an old earth that you don't believe.

Baum: Perhaps I should have been more careful.

3. It also bothers me that creationists like John woodmorappe (aka jan Peczkis) writes young earth articles under one name and old earth evolutionary articles under another.

Baum: That bothers me too.

5. Assuming that the geologic column was laid down in 6000 years, what deposits mark the onset of the flood, the peak flood and the post flood?

Baum: I think that we all agree that the flood started at the 'great unconforrmity'? Somewhere around the Cambrian explosion of life.

6. John, it can't be an explosion of life for you. It's a death event right?

Baum: Right.

7. What about peak and post flood?

Baum: Peak flood would be Paleozoic and post flood is very hard to pin down.

8. I know that, but your group (young earth creationists) have had more than 150 years to figure this stuff out, what's the problem? There are people like Dave Tyler who argues that your onset is his post-flood recolonization.

Baum: Yes, I know. I don't like that model.

10. The bible is your guidebook, surely the answer can be found there and there should be no need for such disagreement?

Baum: I think paleosols have been misidentified.

12. On what basis?

Baum: I live in the southwest and I see a lot of rocks that remind me of a flood. Rocks like nowhere else in the geologic record.

13. Let's get back to paleosols. What specifically makes you think that people like Greg Retallack has misidentified paleosols?

Baum: Well I've seen a lot of rocks.

14. So have I and so has Greg. Furthermore, both of us are trained as geologists and spend a lot of time looking at the same rocks you have. Paleosols (gondwanaresearch.com...) have burrow stuctures, root structures etc that make them hard to dismiss with a handwave.

Baum: There are rocks in the Paleozoic that are unlike any at any other time.

15. Ok, paleosols you are not going to answer. What rocks in the Paleozoic are like nothing we've seen since?

Baum: Large bodies of sandstone that cover many many square miles.

16. Have you ever been to Mississippi, Louisiana and parts of Texas? The Mississippi river has left thousands of square miles of sand and silt in those states and in the gulf of Mexico. The rivers draining the Himalayas are creating absolutely huge plains of sand and silt (Gangetic plain and the Bengal fan).

Baum: Well, I've seen things that don't look like anything else.

17. John, you're a great geophysicist and Terra was a revolution in code-writing, but you're not a geologist and perhaps a few courses in geology might help.

Baum: I'm not a geologist, but I see a lot in the southwest. let's get back to the flood. Remember it's going to be very fast movement. The oceans are going to open quickly with lots of eruptions and steam.

18. John, don't you have a heat problem?

Baum: Yes, we know that.

Just some excerpts from scienceantiscience.blogspot.com...

P.Giem is an MD masquerading as a Chemist with his 14c "research"

Here is a good critique of several of your sources "citations" www.talkorigins.org...

What an incredible thread. I'm fairly new here so I'm still finding my way around and discovering what this website holds.

I feel really sorry for Jim, I think we all should; he's been mislead by fraudsters. That doesn't make him stupid – there are plenty of very intelligent people who have been misled by some impressively convincing fraudsters throughout history. He's a victim.

The question is what are the motives of the people behind these creationist institutions?
The continuance of their religion? I'm sure it can survive without Genesis. The scriptures in the Testaments are quite inspiring in parts, and if you need them to help or motivate you then I'm not going to argue with that.
Just for argument's sake? Yes, it's great to argue an alternative to any position, if only to refine and recalibrate ideas and hypotheses, but there comes a time when you have to climb down and accept evidence, logic and rational thought. The people behind these claims are not valid scientists and they are making claims counter to EVERY SINGLE real scientist.
Is it for money? How are these institutions financed? And what happens to the funds raised? I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet everything I have they don't live like Jesus.
To find the truth? I'm afraid you're being told lies by fraudsters, wrapping these lies in a pseudo-scientific research with no real evidence and no reviews by anyone outside their own institutions. Does that seem fair or honest to you?

So, what is the motive?

You have 2 kinds of followers. First, the ones who show up to the meetings for the refreshments, and the possibility of meeting people.

The other ones don't care about meeting people...they just drink the kool aid.

The former makes up the vast, overwhelming majority of Christians (or any other group), while the latter represents the minority.

Then you still have the fact that everyone will choose sides. Since the meme is set up to be either/or with religion/science (the "zero sum dichotomy" that all human groupthink is distilled down to)....you have a large portion of Creationists not actually believing in Creationism. They are just defending their Team.

My views: in all things where people are socially forced to choose between "either/or", it is a manufactured situation. Coke or Pepsi. Edward or Jacob. Capitalism/Socialism. Etc, etc, etc. "Divide and conquer" are frequently talked about on ATS. But the reality is: its all set up to divide and create arguments.

If there were 4 parties present in the US, the vitriol would end up being watered down significantly. With viewpoints spread across the spectrum of 4 viable platforms, there is much more opportunity for people to find overlaps, middle ground, and agreement. Zero sum and either/or forces polarity and divisiveness. I believe the "either/or" is a tell for a manufactured scenario meant to create divisive conflict.