Creationists, Did You Know ...

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Did you even read my post? If you didn't understand it, just say so. Although I'm having difficulty of how to explain it any more simply than how I explained it the first time around.

You say the asian unicorn is proof that the unicorn argument is invalid. The "asian unicorn", by its nearly-extinct nature, lends merit to the unicorn argument. They are using the word "unicorn" in honor of the unicorn argument, rather than to its detriment.

Am I clearer now? I hope I am. All I did was rephrase what I said before. Like I said, I can't make it any simpler for you.

edit on 15-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

OK, I will take what you are saying.

Thank you for clarifying. I wrote my first posts before taking a nap and read yours just after I woke up, so my brain must have not been clear at that moment, please forgive me for that misunderstanding.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Not a problem. Let's keep the discussion rolling.

WarminIndy
Chinese Horses at Lascaux

How did the Neanderthal know about a horse that is found in another part of the world than where they lived? Either the Neanderthal were from China, the Chinese horses migrated to China, or the Cave Paintings are a Neanderthal myth. But even the understanding of Neanderthal has changed, most Europeans have some percentage of Neanderthal. I have 2.9%, but we were once told it would be impossible, and that came from scientists pushing it.

Now if they have to retract on Neanderthal and Chinese Horses, then maybe it's possible people have been placing mistaken identity and mislassification when it comes to the Bible as well?

Wait a second, are you suggesting that because horse drawing looks like drawing of horse found in china, those 2 are exactly the same animals?

For your info, horses were source of meet in Europe 50K years ago. There is evidence of hunters chasing them down the cliff in large numbers.

Is it possible that someone in china made similar picture of horse by using the same source of color... yes. Is it possible that they can be even connected - sure...

And there is no mistake about bible, it is classified as fictional, that is where belongs with all stories...

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Not a problem. Let's keep the discussion rolling.

OK.

The OP suggested that Creation is not possible based on the number of species extinct now. But let's think about the number of animals still existing in the time the Bible was written.

I am not a young earth-age believer. But that's something young and new battle between themselves. The original word used for day in the Hebrew actually meant an eon, not 24 hours. As the Bible is not specific in years, then I don't assume. It may very well be 6 billions years old, we just do not know. And Old English, which is what the Bible was written in for the KJV and Wycliffe being 300 years earlier, the words are very strange idioms...one might say "In that hour". In their understanding then, hour was not sixty minutes but pointed to a span of time in which some event would happen.

You have heard people say "In my day" meaning at a time when they were young, it didn't refer to 24 hours, but a span of time.

So this not understanding of the Hebrew word or applying idiomatic understanding, people began to think it was simply the shortened singular days. I would never say dinosaur bones were planted there by God as a means to test our faith. That comes from people who do not want to understand the idiom or even the Hebrew word.

As those animals became extinct is not Evolution or Creation, just that those animals became extinct, until one of them are found again.

reply to post by SuperFrog


People (even archaeologists) wanna believe what they wanna believe. Recently, even mistaking Tapir drawings for Elephant drawings that (supposedly) roamed olmec mayan ancient america.

SuperFrog

WarminIndy
Chinese Horses at Lascaux

How did the Neanderthal know about a horse that is found in another part of the world than where they lived? Either the Neanderthal were from China, the Chinese horses migrated to China, or the Cave Paintings are a Neanderthal myth. But even the understanding of Neanderthal has changed, most Europeans have some percentage of Neanderthal. I have 2.9%, but we were once told it would be impossible, and that came from scientists pushing it.

Now if they have to retract on Neanderthal and Chinese Horses, then maybe it's possible people have been placing mistaken identity and mislassification when it comes to the Bible as well?

Wait a second, are you suggesting that because horse drawing looks like drawing of horse found in china, those 2 are exactly the same animals?

For your info, horses were source of meet in Europe 50K years ago. There is evidence of hunters chasing them down the cliff in large numbers.

Is it possible that someone in china made similar picture of horse by using the same source of color... yes. Is it possible that they can be even connected - sure...

And there is no mistake about bible, it is classified as fictional, that is where belongs with all stories...

Well, these scientists are saying they are Chinese Horses

They found that all color schemes for horses seen in Paleolithic cave paintings, including the distinctive 'leopard' spotting found in the cave painting, "The Dappled Horses of Pech-Merle" dating back more than 25,000 years in France, actually existed in ancient pre-domestic horse populations, supporting the theory that the cave artists were reflecting what they actually saw. Four Pleistocene and two Copper Age bone samples showed genetic evidence of the leopard spotting, and bone samples from 18 other horses showed evidence of bay and black, bay being the most common color for horses depicted in the cave paintings. Of particular interest was the leopard spotting variety, resembling some horses today that exhibit this coat pattern and thought by some scientists to be a phenotype that did not exist during the late Pleistocene times when the cave paintings were created.

A phenotype is what something looks like on the outside.

Another Chinese Horse

The Third Chinese Horse does exhibit some remarkable contours as far as coloration and muscle exposure. There are thick yellow and black stripes, which reach from the back to the withers. There is also a dark coloration from the loins to the stifle and some spotting on the thighs, rump, and gaskin. This is not typical of the breed standard rumored to exist over 17,000 years ago, however DNA evidence is now suggesting otherwise. Several professors from the University of York have analyzed horse remains from several species originating in Europe and Asia. The gene that codes for the spotted horse was present over 35,000 years ago. Furthermore, the colors we see in Lascaux including the black and bay colors are clearly representative of the prehistoric species that existed during the completion of these paintings (Swift, 2011). The Third Chinese Horse is a realistic portrayal of the spotted equine during the Paleolithic period but there are some proportions on the spotted equine that are represented abstractly, or rather inaccurately, including the barrel. The barrel of a spotted horse tapers off near the elbow of the horse, and in the Lascaux cave depiction the barrel is tapered near the stifle. Every spotted horse is different of course, but anatomically this is how spotted horses appear today, and most likely appeared during the Paleolithic.

So the Chinese Horse in Lascaux was real and it shows in the DNA evidence. The phenotype is what caused it to be named that, because the phenotype was the same, and now the DNA proves it.

Plant geneticist: ‘Darwinian evolution is impossible’
Don Batten chats with plant geneticist John Sanford

Plant geneticist Dr John Sanford began working as a research scientist at Cornell University in 1980. He co-invented the ‘gene gun’ approach to genetic engineering of plants. This technology has had a major impact on agriculture around the world.
creation.com...

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Biased blogs for the win?

1. It is based on a simplistic computer model with no empirical evidence to support it. In science, you get the evidence then you make the model. He made the model without any evidence, he made it instead assuming all mutations are bad and of course it shows that evolution is not possible.

2. Sanford's definition of fitness is flawed. He seems to think that "full fitness" equals 1. He's assuming that there is a such thing as ideal fitness and that's completely wrong. Some genotypes are favorable in some environments, others are favorable in other environments. For example, dark skin is favorable in areas near the equator (prevents melanoma/skin cancers) but unfavorable away from the equator (leads to other cancers and rickets). Light skin is the opposite, near the equator whites will get melonoma, but away from the equator they'll have lower incidences of other cancers and rickets. The same is true for every single attribute in every organism. Besides null mutations (those destroying the reproductive system or killing the animal), there are no mutations that cannot be beneficial in some circumstances.

There are other problems. He doesn't factor in environmental influence in his model because he considers it noise. What? Does he know what natural selection is? He also does not factor in things like hybridization and genetic drift--all of which are instrumental in speciation.

He claims his model, called Mendel's Accountant is the most complex and comprehensive computer simulation for genetic evolution ever created. Fine, but it's still too simplistic in comparison to the real world. He makes assumptions like the beneficial mutation rate and the selection rate--both of which are arbitrarily drawn up by him.

I did get to ask a question though I'm quite sure the audience did not know the significance of it. Dr. Sanford claims outside of complete neutral mutations, 99.9999999999% of all mutations are somewhere between -1 (lethal) and 0 (neutral). True beneficial mutations are so rare you can basically ignore them. I said,"You don't know all the factors interacting with this mutation, so to say something is slightly negative is an assumption. I guess what I'm getting at, is do you have an example of a slightly deleterious mutation?"

He replied "There have been many experiments done where we expose--for example plants to radiation and most of them die and you get all sorts of weird stuff. But these things usually die or can't reproduce. You don't want mutations in your genome because it's bad--give me a show of hands how many people want mutations in their genomes?"

See how simplistic his argument is? How simple minded you have to be to accept anything he says? Of course no one wants mutations in their genomes, but we're not talking about mutations in living animals, we're talking about mutations in germ lines. You can't get evolution from mutations in a living organism.

I wanted to then say, "but those aren't acted upon by natural selection and they aren't examples of slightly deleterious mutations" but I was cut off by a person telling Dr. Sanford it was over. It's really a shame, because his entire model breaks down when you realize there is no example of a mutation that is passed on, but slightly deleterious.

Overall it was underwhelming. He started with saying he'd come to the revelation through evidence that evolution was wrong and the Bible was right, but all he presented was a computer program. Don't get too excited about having this lunatic on your side, creationists. His argument won't convince anyone but the most feeble minded.

forums.randi.org...

Looks like ATS isn't the only place to take a stab at this one. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to discover an ATS lookalike.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


So what are your qualification?
Just curious?

I don't have any actually, I just know there are atheist that have become believers.

A theory here, a theory there, here a theory, there a theory, everywhere a theory. eieio

Doesn't that make you wonder just a little bit?

SuperFrog

Awen24
tructive AND progressive
Evolution can not explain where life came from / Yes it can.

Without going into details, let me focus just on this little wrong statement.

Evolution DOES NOT explain origins of life. Biogenesis does.

Thanks for pointing that out - and yes, you're correct.
Of course, I don't agree that abiogenesis is a valid explanation for the origins of life, but that's an entirely different kettle of simple organisms