Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

No, YWC it is has not been shown to be unreliable at all. Again, thousands of scientists and hundreds of laboratories across the entire planet (in nearly every country) use these methods with great success, and have for decades. The only ones who don't believe they work are YECs, and they aren't scientists, and no one actually cares what they think on the matter. For you to believe that the world's scientists would use these methods on a daily basis despite them allegedly being unreliable tells me that you think that scientists are stupid whereas you people with no scientific training and experience whatsoever are not. And I find that to be incredulous, to say the least. Particularly since you refuse to get off your ass and get into the field to see what the facts actually are.

Listen, let's get something straight. The dating methods have been tested by objects known age. Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. It is an assumption they are accurate that is all it is. No one was there to know so you're assuming they are accurate. Ignoring evidence that contradicts the methods used.

Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested.

Sounds like a fairy tale.

That is exactly what many so called scientific theories are.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, when I see your poor understanding of physics, I am one to speak.

So is the earth considered orderly or chaotic and experiencing an increase in disorder ?

If you understood physics, you should understand that you can have areas of decreasing entropy, even though the entropy of the Universe is increasing.

But you don't, obviously.

Not a physics major and never claimed to be. Give me an example and let's see how rational your thinking is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, YWC it is has not been shown to be unreliable at all. Again, thousands of scientists and hundreds of laboratories across the entire planet (in nearly every country) use these methods with great success, and have for decades. The only ones who don't believe they work are YECs, and they aren't scientists, and no one actually cares what they think on the matter. For you to believe that the world's scientists would use these methods on a daily basis despite them allegedly being unreliable tells me that you think that scientists are stupid whereas you people with no scientific training and experience whatsoever are not. And I find that to be incredulous, to say the least. Particularly since you refuse to get off your ass and get into the field to see what the facts actually are.

Listen, let's get something straight. The dating methods have been tested by objects known age. Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. It is an assumption they are accurate that is all it is. No one was there to know so you're assuming they are accurate. Ignoring evidence that contradicts the methods used.

Let's be clear and completely frank about this. The eleven different radiometric and radiation dating methods have been used by thousands of scientists in hundreds of labs all over the world for over 50 years with great success, and high precision. There is nothing unambiguous about the science, which is based on the exact same physics as the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. You'd have to be a complete idiot to argue against the precision of these methods. Your "no one was there" argument is the dumbest one you people ever make. You really need a new line, because, damn!

Field trip? Yes or no?

Your supposed accuracy is based on assumption.don't you get it ? They are assuming the dating methods are accurate and have no way of proving their accuracy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The number of genes in a Y chromosome does not an ape make. In other words, it matters not how many genes are in a Y chromosome. That is not what determines whether a species is or is not an ape. And why are you repeating the same answered question over and over again? Do you know what Einstein said about people who do that?

You do not understand the importance of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome helps determine ancestry. You say it doesn't make an ape in a way it does, mostly the Y chromosome determines ancestry. You still need to show how a completely new gene can be added to the Y chromosome.

"Why is the Y chromosome important?

Because the Y chromosome cannot easily swap information with the X chromosome, the Y chromosome in a man's sperm will be an almost exact copy of the Y chromosome in his body's cells. Therefore, any sons the man fathers will also carry this same Y chromosome.

Polymorphisms in a man's Y chromosome are also passed directly on to his sons, and then on to their sons and so on. These polymorphisms mark a man's Y chromosome and distinguish it from those of other men. As scientists know approximately how often certain kinds of mutations occur they can look for these and determine how closely related any two men are. The more Y chromosome polymorphisms two men share, the more recently they had a common ancestor. Y chromosomes in men living today thus retain a record of the chromosome's passage through time. They can reveal paternal ancestry and show relationships between different groups of men.

Genetics and Identity

But there is more on this myth of 2% difference in Dna similarity between chimps and humans that is a lie.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion

Dr. Jay? Really? OMG! Did you know that, by his own admission, he is an Arminianist?

Arminianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I read his PhD dissertation, and I must say that I am completely unimpressed. What's more, the man hasn't published any original peer reviewed work since, but has instead written creationist homeschool text books because that is apparently the only work he can get.

Here is what one parent has said about his textbooks:

Homeschooling and evolution « Why Evolution Is True

Homeschooling and evolution


One of the best things about having written WEIT is that I hear from various people with whom I’d normally not have any contact. I’m not referring to creationists, but to thoughtful people who write with their concerns about evolution. One of them emailed me about her difficulties teaching evolution to a homeschooled child:

Dear Dr. Coyne,

I am writing in light of your recent book, “Why Evolution is True” which my daughter and I are preparing to read. I have homeschooled my very science oriented daughter, who is now xxxx, since she was very young because the schools could not deal with or understand her dual exceptionality of profound giftedness and dyslexia. The greatest challenges we have faced in homeschooling is that all of the truly parent friendly materials for teaching science for homeschoolers take a Creationist stance. I thought you should be made aware of a growing problem in homeschooling, if you are not already.

There is a serious problem in homeschooling right now in that most homeschooling families find themselves using the Apologia series (which includes Dr. Jay's books) for teaching science because it is so parent friendly. However, this series was written with one purpose in mind and that was to debunk evolution in favor of Intelligent Design. While our family is religious, we are not Creationists and I have serious problems with the Apologia series. I find it dangerous because so many homeschoolers are using it. The author and owner of the company, Jay Wile, is so convincing he is turning many homeschooling families away from the real science of evolutionary biology to the pseudo science of Creationism even if they started out as evolutionists. These parents are turning to Apologia in good faith because there is nothing else out there that is parent friendly. We even used it ourselves at one point, but supplemented it with evolution videos and materials, but I refuse to contribute money to the company. Sadly, I have seen people that I know are intelligent and well educated fall victim to Dr. Wile’s very convincing arguments. I almost did myself, but was saved by more extensive research and my daughter’s level head.

I have written to various publishers of good scientific textbooks, urging them to come up with a homeschooling package that would be as parent friendly as the Apologia series. No one to whom I have spoken seems to think there is a viable market. This saddens me because Apologia continues to grow in popularity just as homeschooling continues to grow in popularity.

We have found various solutions because my daughter has had the opportunity to audit college classes and to work with mentors in science. However, most homeschooling families do not have that option.


I intend to promote your book within our local homeschooling circle, once we have finished reading it. However, I was wondering if you had any other ideas about how my daughter and I can fight what we see as a major problem within the homeschooling community. This seems to me to be a cause that might interest you.

I have looked over the Apologia website, and I am absolutely appalled. First of all, the organization’s formal name is “Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.”, with the motto “Live, Learn, and Defend the Faith.” Of course that sets off alarm bells. The alarms get louder when you look at what they offer.

First, check out the store, with its suggested science curriculum. Here are the “supplementary readings” for “science oriented students”. Note that they are all about either evolution or Christianity:


These OPTIONAL supplemental readings for science-oriented students do not replace the main courses listed. They merely give your student additional science material to learn if your student is interested. Here are some suggestions:
Supplement I
◾ Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Dr. Duane T. Gish, Master Books paperback ISBN 0890511128
◾ Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity, Dr. Jay L. Wile, Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., Paperback ISBN 0965629406

Supplement II
◾ What is Creation Science, Dr. Henry M. Morris and Dr. Gary E. Parker, Master Books, Paperback ISBN 0890510814

Supplement III
◾ Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Michael Denton, Adler & Adler, Paperback ISBN 091756152X
◾ Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe, Touchstone Books, Hardcover ISBN 0684827549, Paperback ISBN 0684834936

• Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? Dixy Lee Ray, Regnery Gateway, Hardcover ISBN 0895265125, Paperback ISBN 0060975

The table of contents of the “Evolution Module” tells you that the kids are not in for good instruction in evolutionary biology:


MODULE #9: Evolution: Part Scientific Theory, Part Unconfirmed Hypothesis …. 261
Introduction …………………………………….261
Charles Darwin……………………………………262
Darwin’s Theory ………………………….264
Microevolution and Macroevolution……………………………..267
Inconclusive Evidence: The Geological Column……………………………………270
The Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution……..273
The Cambrian Explosion………………………………….280
Structural Homology: Formerly Evidence for Macroevolution, Now Evidence against It..282
Molecular Biology: The Nail in Macroevolution’s Coffin……..285
Macroevolution Today …………………………………….289
Why Do So Many Scientists Believe in Macroevolution?……..293

This could easily have been taken straight out of Jon Well’s attacks on evolution. Finally, if you look at some sample pages of their book, you see them reverting to the insane pastime of baraminology, in which creationists desperately (and fruitlessly) try to figure out which animals and plants correpond to the created “kinds” of Genesis. At least they recognize that this “field” is going nowhere:


As you will learn when we study the hypothesis of evolution in depth, there is precious little evidence for such an idea and quite a bit of evidence against it. As a result, it does not make sense to us to base a classification system on such a tenuous hypothesis. Instead, it makes more sense to base our classification system on the observable similarities among organisms. This is the essence of what Carrolus Linnaeus developed in the 1700s, and it has served biology well since that time. Since we have touched on a classification system that has been inspired by the hypothesis of evolution, we should at least mention a classification system that has been proposed by those who believe that the earth and the life on it were specially created out of nothing by God. This classification system, usually called baraminology (bear’ uh min ol’ uh jee), attempts to determine the kinds of creatures that God specifically created on earth. Indeed, the word “baraminology” comes from two Hebrew words used in Genesis: bara, which means “create,” and min, which means “kind.” Thus, baraminology is the study of created kinds.

Those who work with baraminology think that God created specific kinds of creatures and that He created them with the ability to adapt to their changing environment. As time went on, then, these created kinds did change within strict limits that we will discuss later on in the course. This led to a greater diversity of life on the planet than what existed right after creation. As a result, baraminologists think that all organisms we see on the planet today came from one of the many kinds of creatures that God created during the creation period discussed in the first chapter of Genesis. Baraminologists, then, try to define groupings called “baramins.” Any organisms that exist within a baramin came from the same originally-created organism. For example, some baraminologists place domesticated dogs, wild dogs, and wolves into the same baramin because they believe that God created a basic kind of creature called a “dog,” and the various forms of dogs and wolves that we see today are simply the result of that basic kind of creature adapting to a changing environment. Although we think that there is a lot of evidence in favor of this new classification scheme, we still do not think that it should be used in this course. It is still relatively new and not fully developed. We doubt that it will be fully developed for many, many years to come. As a result, we think that the five-kingdom system still provides the best overall means by which to classify the organisms of God’s creation, and we will limit ourselves to that system. Nevertheless, we will mention the other systems (the three-domain system and baraminology) from time to time, so it is important that you understand the basics of each.

It is ineffably sad that children, eager to learn, are having this nonsense stuffed down their throats, and that there seem to be few viable alternatives if you want to homeschool your child. I’ve given my correspondent some hints about what materials might be useful, but if any of you know of other ways to do this, or have experience homeschooling your children in genuine evolutionary biology, let me know.

Listen don't speak about something you know little about. It's a fact that the Y chromosome is important in proving ancestry.

Three Basic Types of DNA Testing:

Y-Chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) reveals a man’s father’s father’s line. Y-DNA is conveyed virtually unchanged from father to son in the Y (male) chromosome without any maternal contribution. Only men have Y-DNA, so only men may contribute cells for Y-DNA testing. Female genealogists often persuade male relatives to contribute DNA in their behalf. Y-DNA results must be compared to another person’s Y-DNA results to help establish kinship. Quite logically, the closer are two people’s Y-DNA results, the closer is their relationship. The average mutation rate of individual Y-DNA markers is once every 500 years – or every 20 generations. This makes Y-DNA useful for many European and American genealogists, since the earliest use of surnames in Europe dates to between 500 and 800 years ago. Consequently, Y-DNA is the most genealogically useful DNA test. Several large, free, online Y-DNA databases already exist and are searchable for purposes of comparing your Y-DNA results to others’. Matches that are identical or differ by one or two marker values are considered relevant for genealogical comparisons.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wircgs/genetic_genealogy.html

I will ask you again. how did humans get so many more genes in the Y chromosome if they are related to apes ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You would be wasting both of our time because I have laid out the reasons I don't and won't trust them. I have empirical evidence I would have to ignore for an assumption. Seriously,the age of the earth does not really matter even though I believe the earth is not as old as claimed. No one can prove the age of the earth or the universe, once again these views are based on presuppositions and assumptions.

Yeah... your lack on knowledge doesn't equate to others lacking knowledge.

If you want to call it that, have at it.

 

[orogenicman]

Listen, let's get something straight. The dating methods have been tested by objects known age. Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. It is an assumption they are accurate that is all it is. No one was there to know so you're assuming they are accurate. Ignoring evidence that contradicts the methods used.

Let's be clear and completely frank about this. The eleven different radiometric and radiation dating methods have been used by thousands of scientists in hundreds of labs all over the world for over 50 years with great success, and high precision. There is nothing unambiguous about the science, which is based on the exact same physics as the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. You'd have to be a complete idiot to argue against the precision of these methods. Your "no one was there" argument is the dumbest one you people ever make. You really need a new line, because, damn!

Field trip? Yes or no?

Your supposed accuracy is based on assumption.don't you get it ? They are assuming the dating methods are accurate and have no way of proving their accuracy.

According to your logic, the atomic bomb was based on assumptions, and not scientific observations. Sonny, you should tell that to the Japanese.

 

[orogenicman]

You do not understand the importance of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome helps determine ancestry. You say it doesn't make an ape in a way it does, mostly the Y chromosome determines ancestry. You still need to show how a completely new gene can be added to the Y chromosome.

"Why is the Y chromosome important?

Because the Y chromosome cannot easily swap information with the X chromosome, the Y chromosome in a man's sperm will be an almost exact copy of the Y chromosome in his body's cells. Therefore, any sons the man fathers will also carry this same Y chromosome.

Polymorphisms in a man's Y chromosome are also passed directly on to his sons, and then on to their sons and so on. These polymorphisms mark a man's Y chromosome and distinguish it from those of other men. As scientists know approximately how often certain kinds of mutations occur they can look for these and determine how closely related any two men are. The more Y chromosome polymorphisms two men share, the more recently they had a common ancestor. Y chromosomes in men living today thus retain a record of the chromosome's passage through time. They can reveal paternal ancestry and show relationships between different groups of men.

Genetics and Identity

But there is more on this myth of 2% difference in Dna similarity between chimps and humans that is a lie.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion

Dr. Jay? Really? OMG! Did you know that, by his own admission, he is an Arminianist?

Arminianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I read his PhD dissertation, and I must say that I am completely unimpressed. What's more, the man hasn't published any original peer reviewed work since, but has instead written creationist homeschool text books because that is apparently the only work he can get.

Here is what one parent has said about his textbooks:

Homeschooling and evolution « Why Evolution Is True

Homeschooling and evolution


One of the best things about having written WEIT is that I hear from various people with whom I’d normally not have any contact. I’m not referring to creationists, but to thoughtful people who write with their concerns about evolution. One of them emailed me about her difficulties teaching evolution to a homeschooled child:

Dear Dr. Coyne,

I am writing in light of your recent book, “Why Evolution is True” which my daughter and I are preparing to read. I have homeschooled my very science oriented daughter, who is now xxxx, since she was very young because the schools could not deal with or understand her dual exceptionality of profound giftedness and dyslexia. The greatest challenges we have faced in homeschooling is that all of the truly parent friendly materials for teaching science for homeschoolers take a Creationist stance. I thought you should be made aware of a growing problem in homeschooling, if you are not already.

There is a serious problem in homeschooling right now in that most homeschooling families find themselves using the Apologia series (which includes Dr. Jay's books) for teaching science because it is so parent friendly. However, this series was written with one purpose in mind and that was to debunk evolution in favor of Intelligent Design. While our family is religious, we are not Creationists and I have serious problems with the Apologia series. I find it dangerous because so many homeschoolers are using it. The author and owner of the company, Jay Wile, is so convincing he is turning many homeschooling families away from the real science of evolutionary biology to the pseudo science of Creationism even if they started out as evolutionists. These parents are turning to Apologia in good faith because there is nothing else out there that is parent friendly. We even used it ourselves at one point, but supplemented it with evolution videos and materials, but I refuse to contribute money to the company. Sadly, I have seen people that I know are intelligent and well educated fall victim to Dr. Wile’s very convincing arguments. I almost did myself, but was saved by more extensive research and my daughter’s level head.

I have written to various publishers of good scientific textbooks, urging them to come up with a homeschooling package that would be as parent friendly as the Apologia series. No one to whom I have spoken seems to think there is a viable market. This saddens me because Apologia continues to grow in popularity just as homeschooling continues to grow in popularity.

We have found various solutions because my daughter has had the opportunity to audit college classes and to work with mentors in science. However, most homeschooling families do not have that option.


I intend to promote your book within our local homeschooling circle, once we have finished reading it. However, I was wondering if you had any other ideas about how my daughter and I can fight what we see as a major problem within the homeschooling community. This seems to me to be a cause that might interest you.

I have looked over the Apologia website, and I am absolutely appalled. First of all, the organization’s formal name is “Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.”, with the motto “Live, Learn, and Defend the Faith.” Of course that sets off alarm bells. The alarms get louder when you look at what they offer.

First, check out the store, with its suggested science curriculum. Here are the “supplementary readings” for “science oriented students”. Note that they are all about either evolution or Christianity:


These OPTIONAL supplemental readings for science-oriented students do not replace the main courses listed. They merely give your student additional science material to learn if your student is interested. Here are some suggestions:
Supplement I
◾ Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Dr. Duane T. Gish, Master Books paperback ISBN 0890511128
◾ Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity, Dr. Jay L. Wile, Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., Paperback ISBN 0965629406

Supplement II
◾ What is Creation Science, Dr. Henry M. Morris and Dr. Gary E. Parker, Master Books, Paperback ISBN 0890510814

Supplement III
◾ Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Michael Denton, Adler & Adler, Paperback ISBN 091756152X
◾ Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe, Touchstone Books, Hardcover ISBN 0684827549, Paperback ISBN 0684834936

• Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? Dixy Lee Ray, Regnery Gateway, Hardcover ISBN 0895265125, Paperback ISBN 0060975

The table of contents of the “Evolution Module” tells you that the kids are not in for good instruction in evolutionary biology:


MODULE #9: Evolution: Part Scientific Theory, Part Unconfirmed Hypothesis …. 261
Introduction …………………………………….261
Charles Darwin……………………………………262
Darwin’s Theory ………………………….264
Microevolution and Macroevolution……………………………..267
Inconclusive Evidence: The Geological Column……………………………………270
The Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution……..273
The Cambrian Explosion………………………………….280
Structural Homology: Formerly Evidence for Macroevolution, Now Evidence against It..282
Molecular Biology: The Nail in Macroevolution’s Coffin……..285
Macroevolution Today …………………………………….289
Why Do So Many Scientists Believe in Macroevolution?……..293

This could easily have been taken straight out of Jon Well’s attacks on evolution. Finally, if you look at some sample pages of their book, you see them reverting to the insane pastime of baraminology, in which creationists desperately (and fruitlessly) try to figure out which animals and plants correpond to the created “kinds” of Genesis. At least they recognize that this “field” is going nowhere:


As you will learn when we study the hypothesis of evolution in depth, there is precious little evidence for such an idea and quite a bit of evidence against it. As a result, it does not make sense to us to base a classification system on such a tenuous hypothesis. Instead, it makes more sense to base our classification system on the observable similarities among organisms. This is the essence of what Carrolus Linnaeus developed in the 1700s, and it has served biology well since that time. Since we have touched on a classification system that has been inspired by the hypothesis of evolution, we should at least mention a classification system that has been proposed by those who believe that the earth and the life on it were specially created out of nothing by God. This classification system, usually called baraminology (bear’ uh min ol’ uh jee), attempts to determine the kinds of creatures that God specifically created on earth. Indeed, the word “baraminology” comes from two Hebrew words used in Genesis: bara, which means “create,” and min, which means “kind.” Thus, baraminology is the study of created kinds.

Those who work with baraminology think that God created specific kinds of creatures and that He created them with the ability to adapt to their changing environment. As time went on, then, these created kinds did change within strict limits that we will discuss later on in the course. This led to a greater diversity of life on the planet than what existed right after creation. As a result, baraminologists think that all organisms we see on the planet today came from one of the many kinds of creatures that God created during the creation period discussed in the first chapter of Genesis. Baraminologists, then, try to define groupings called “baramins.” Any organisms that exist within a baramin came from the same originally-created organism. For example, some baraminologists place domesticated dogs, wild dogs, and wolves into the same baramin because they believe that God created a basic kind of creature called a “dog,” and the various forms of dogs and wolves that we see today are simply the result of that basic kind of creature adapting to a changing environment. Although we think that there is a lot of evidence in favor of this new classification scheme, we still do not think that it should be used in this course. It is still relatively new and not fully developed. We doubt that it will be fully developed for many, many years to come. As a result, we think that the five-kingdom system still provides the best overall means by which to classify the organisms of God’s creation, and we will limit ourselves to that system. Nevertheless, we will mention the other systems (the three-domain system and baraminology) from time to time, so it is important that you understand the basics of each.

It is ineffably sad that children, eager to learn, are having this nonsense stuffed down their throats, and that there seem to be few viable alternatives if you want to homeschool your child. I’ve given my correspondent some hints about what materials might be useful, but if any of you know of other ways to do this, or have experience homeschooling your children in genuine evolutionary biology, let me know.

Listen don't speak about something you know little about. It's a fact that the Y chromosome is important in proving ancestry.

Three Basic Types of DNA Testing:

Y-Chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) reveals a man’s father’s father’s line. Y-DNA is conveyed virtually unchanged from father to son in the Y (male) chromosome without any maternal contribution. Only men have Y-DNA, so only men may contribute cells for Y-DNA testing. Female genealogists often persuade male relatives to contribute DNA in their behalf. Y-DNA results must be compared to another person’s Y-DNA results to help establish kinship. Quite logically, the closer are two people’s Y-DNA results, the closer is their relationship. The average mutation rate of individual Y-DNA markers is once every 500 years – or every 20 generations. This makes Y-DNA useful for many European and American genealogists, since the earliest use of surnames in Europe dates to between 500 and 800 years ago. Consequently, Y-DNA is the most genealogically useful DNA test. Several large, free, online Y-DNA databases already exist and are searchable for purposes of comparing your Y-DNA results to others’. Matches that are identical or differ by one or two marker values are considered relevant for genealogical comparisons.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wircgs/genetic_genealogy.html

I will ask you again. how did humans get so many more genes in the Y chromosome if they are related to apes ?

For the fiftieth time, you are asking the wrong question, and that is because you don't understand anthropoid ape evolution. Human beings didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees evolved from an earlier anthropoid ape. The question you should be asking is why chimpanzees have fewer genes in their y chromosomes than humans. And again, it doesn't matter whether humans have more or less genes in their chromosomes than other apes. It still doesn't refute the fact that ALL are apes. By the way, have you completed your analysis of the Neanderthal DNA from the pure data I provided to you?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yccI3YXMYcc

If I were you, I would not use the fossil record as evidence for your Ideological belief. The fossil record is a mess in defending your theory.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMUdHnGf0ZI]The Truth About The Fossil Record Living Fossils Interview with Dr. Carl Werner - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's be clear and completely frank about this. The eleven different radiometric and radiation dating methods have been used by thousands of scientists in hundreds of labs all over the world for over 50 years with great success, and high precision. There is nothing unambiguous about the science, which is based on the exact same physics as the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. You'd have to be a complete idiot to argue against the precision of these methods. Your "no one was there" argument is the dumbest one you people ever make. You really need a new line, because, damn!

Field trip? Yes or no?

Your supposed accuracy is based on assumption.don't you get it ? They are assuming the dating methods are accurate and have no way of proving their accuracy.

According to your logic, the atomic bomb was based on assumptions, and not scientific observations. Sonny, you should tell that to the Japanese.

Let's not confuse the process of making a nuclear bomb with the assumptions that our knowledge of atoms helps us determine the age of an object.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dr. Jay? Really? OMG! Did you know that, by his own admission, he is an Arminianist?

Arminianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I read his PhD dissertation, and I must say that I am completely unimpressed. What's more, the man hasn't published any original peer reviewed work since, but has instead written creationist homeschool text books because that is apparently the only work he can get.

Here is what one parent has said about his textbooks:

Homeschooling and evolution « Why Evolution Is True

Homeschooling and evolution


One of the best things about having written WEIT is that I hear from various people with whom I’d normally not have any contact. I’m not referring to creationists, but to thoughtful people who write with their concerns about evolution. One of them emailed me about her difficulties teaching evolution to a homeschooled child:



I have looked over the Apologia website, and I am absolutely appalled. First of all, the organization’s formal name is “Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.”, with the motto “Live, Learn, and Defend the Faith.” Of course that sets off alarm bells. The alarms get louder when you look at what they offer.

First, check out the store, with its suggested science curriculum. Here are the “supplementary readings” for “science oriented students”. Note that they are all about either evolution or Christianity:


These OPTIONAL supplemental readings for science-oriented students do not replace the main courses listed. They merely give your student additional science material to learn if your student is interested. Here are some suggestions:
Supplement I
◾ Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Dr. Duane T. Gish, Master Books paperback ISBN 0890511128
◾ Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity, Dr. Jay L. Wile, Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., Paperback ISBN 0965629406

Supplement II
◾ What is Creation Science, Dr. Henry M. Morris and Dr. Gary E. Parker, Master Books, Paperback ISBN 0890510814

Supplement III
◾ Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Michael Denton, Adler & Adler, Paperback ISBN 091756152X
◾ Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe, Touchstone Books, Hardcover ISBN 0684827549, Paperback ISBN 0684834936

• Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? Dixy Lee Ray, Regnery Gateway, Hardcover ISBN 0895265125, Paperback ISBN 0060975

The table of contents of the “Evolution Module” tells you that the kids are not in for good instruction in evolutionary biology:


MODULE #9: Evolution: Part Scientific Theory, Part Unconfirmed Hypothesis …. 261
Introduction …………………………………….261
Charles Darwin……………………………………262
Darwin’s Theory ………………………….264
Microevolution and Macroevolution……………………………..267
Inconclusive Evidence: The Geological Column……………………………………270
The Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution……..273
The Cambrian Explosion………………………………….280
Structural Homology: Formerly Evidence for Macroevolution, Now Evidence against It..282
Molecular Biology: The Nail in Macroevolution’s Coffin……..285
Macroevolution Today …………………………………….289
Why Do So Many Scientists Believe in Macroevolution?……..293

This could easily have been taken straight out of Jon Well’s attacks on evolution. Finally, if you look at some sample pages of their book, you see them reverting to the insane pastime of baraminology, in which creationists desperately (and fruitlessly) try to figure out which animals and plants correpond to the created “kinds” of Genesis. At least they recognize that this “field” is going nowhere:


As you will learn when we study the hypothesis of evolution in depth, there is precious little evidence for such an idea and quite a bit of evidence against it. As a result, it does not make sense to us to base a classification system on such a tenuous hypothesis. Instead, it makes more sense to base our classification system on the observable similarities among organisms. This is the essence of what Carrolus Linnaeus developed in the 1700s, and it has served biology well since that time. Since we have touched on a classification system that has been inspired by the hypothesis of evolution, we should at least mention a classification system that has been proposed by those who believe that the earth and the life on it were specially created out of nothing by God. This classification system, usually called baraminology (bear’ uh min ol’ uh jee), attempts to determine the kinds of creatures that God specifically created on earth. Indeed, the word “baraminology” comes from two Hebrew words used in Genesis: bara, which means “create,” and min, which means “kind.” Thus, baraminology is the study of created kinds.

Those who work with baraminology think that God created specific kinds of creatures and that He created them with the ability to adapt to their changing environment. As time went on, then, these created kinds did change within strict limits that we will discuss later on in the course. This led to a greater diversity of life on the planet than what existed right after creation. As a result, baraminologists think that all organisms we see on the planet today came from one of the many kinds of creatures that God created during the creation period discussed in the first chapter of Genesis. Baraminologists, then, try to define groupings called “baramins.” Any organisms that exist within a baramin came from the same originally-created organism. For example, some baraminologists place domesticated dogs, wild dogs, and wolves into the same baramin because they believe that God created a basic kind of creature called a “dog,” and the various forms of dogs and wolves that we see today are simply the result of that basic kind of creature adapting to a changing environment. Although we think that there is a lot of evidence in favor of this new classification scheme, we still do not think that it should be used in this course. It is still relatively new and not fully developed. We doubt that it will be fully developed for many, many years to come. As a result, we think that the five-kingdom system still provides the best overall means by which to classify the organisms of God’s creation, and we will limit ourselves to that system. Nevertheless, we will mention the other systems (the three-domain system and baraminology) from time to time, so it is important that you understand the basics of each.

It is ineffably sad that children, eager to learn, are having this nonsense stuffed down their throats, and that there seem to be few viable alternatives if you want to homeschool your child. I’ve given my correspondent some hints about what materials might be useful, but if any of you know of other ways to do this, or have experience homeschooling your children in genuine evolutionary biology, let me know.

Listen don't speak about something you know little about. It's a fact that the Y chromosome is important in proving ancestry.

Three Basic Types of DNA Testing:

Y-Chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) reveals a man’s father’s father’s line. Y-DNA is conveyed virtually unchanged from father to son in the Y (male) chromosome without any maternal contribution. Only men have Y-DNA, so only men may contribute cells for Y-DNA testing. Female genealogists often persuade male relatives to contribute DNA in their behalf. Y-DNA results must be compared to another person’s Y-DNA results to help establish kinship. Quite logically, the closer are two people’s Y-DNA results, the closer is their relationship. The average mutation rate of individual Y-DNA markers is once every 500 years – or every 20 generations. This makes Y-DNA useful for many European and American genealogists, since the earliest use of surnames in Europe dates to between 500 and 800 years ago. Consequently, Y-DNA is the most genealogically useful DNA test. Several large, free, online Y-DNA databases already exist and are searchable for purposes of comparing your Y-DNA results to others’. Matches that are identical or differ by one or two marker values are considered relevant for genealogical comparisons.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wircgs/genetic_genealogy.html

I will ask you again. how did humans get so many more genes in the Y chromosome if they are related to apes ?

For the fiftieth time, you are asking the wrong question, and that is because you don't understand anthropoid ape evolution. Human beings didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees evolved from an earlier anthropoid ape. The question you should be asking is why chimpanzees have fewer genes in their y chromosomes than humans. And again, it doesn't matter whether humans have more or less genes in their chromosomes than other apes. It still doesn't refute the fact that ALL are apes. By the way, have you completed your analysis of the Neanderthal DNA from the pure data I provided to you?

No there is no mechanism to add a completely new gene to the Y chromosome. Here again you're relying on faith it magically happened because you don't have a mechanism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's be clear and completely frank about this. The eleven different radiometric and radiation dating methods have been used by thousands of scientists in hundreds of labs all over the world for over 50 years with great success, and high precision. There is nothing unambiguous about the science, which is based on the exact same physics as the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. You'd have to be a complete idiot to argue against the precision of these methods. Your "no one was there" argument is the dumbest one you people ever make. You really need a new line, because, damn!

Field trip? Yes or no?

Your supposed accuracy is based on assumption.don't you get it ? They are assuming the dating methods are accurate and have no way of proving their accuracy.

According to your logic, the atomic bomb was based on assumptions, and not scientific observations. Sonny, you should tell that to the Japanese.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgbO18l5gZk]Radio Metric Dating and How it Works - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0h2sXzHls]Changes in Radioactive Decay Startles Physicists - Space News - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yccI3YXMYcc

If I were you, I would not use the fossil record as evidence for your Ideological belief. The fossil record is a mess in defending your theory.

If I were you, I would not rely on what evangelical loose screws have to say about anything, much less what they have to say about the fossil record, of which they know less than nothing.

Evolution: What the Fossils ACTUALLY Say and Why It Matters

 

[orogenicman]

Your supposed accuracy is based on assumption.don't you get it ? They are assuming the dating methods are accurate and have no way of proving their accuracy.

According to your logic, the atomic bomb was based on assumptions, and not scientific observations. Sonny, you should tell that to the Japanese.

Let's not confuse the process of making a nuclear bomb with the assumptions that our knowledge of atoms helps us determine the age of an object.

There is no confusion. The physical processes that make the atomic bomb possible are the same physical processes that allow for the age determination in rocks and minerals. Every scientist on the planet worth his or her credentials understands this. The only ones who don't are religious idjuts such as yourself.

 

[Hollie]

Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yccI3YXMYcc

If I were you, I would not use the fossil record as evidence for your Ideological belief. The fossil record is a mess in defending your theory.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMUdHnGf0ZI]The Truth About The Fossil Record Living Fossils Interview with Dr. Carl Werner - YouTube[/ame]

Even by your standards of stupidity, that conspiracy theory riddled bit of trash brought you to new levels of idiosy.

 

[LittleNipper]

The naturalists still insist on a "Flood layer." What they fall to comprehend is that all the Fossils layers most likely represent the "Flood layer." And they need to consider the ramifications from there. And NO ONE except GOD knows the radiation levels that existed in the rocks, gravel, sand, and soil at the point of origin in God's creation. And this is what Creationist and Believers have always understood.

 

[Hollie]

The naturalists still insist on a "Flood layer." What they fall to comprehend is that all the Fossils layers most likely represent the "Flood layer." And they need to consider the ramifications from there. And NO ONE except GOD knows the radiation levels that existed in the rocks, gravel, sand, and soil at the point of origin in God's creation. And this is what Creationist and Believers have always understood.

What naturalists insist on a "Flood layer?


You write authoritatively on what the gods know/knew: NO ONE except GOD knows ...."

How do you know that? Do you hear voices?

 

[orogenicman]

The naturalists still insist on a "Flood layer." What they fall to comprehend is that all the Fossils layers most likely represent the "Flood layer." And they need to consider the ramifications from there. And NO ONE except GOD knows the radiation levels that existed in the rocks, gravel, sand, and soil at the point of origin in God's creation. And this is what Creationist and Believers have always understood.

What I understand rather well is that five minutes with me in the field will dispel any notion that any of that is true. Then again, I've yet to get a single creationist to agree to go into the field with me. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[orogenicman]

NOVA | Evolution

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So is the earth considered orderly or chaotic and experiencing an increase in disorder ?

If you understood physics, you should understand that you can have areas of decreasing entropy, even though the entropy of the Universe is increasing.

But you don't, obviously.

Not a physics major and never claimed to be. Give me an example and let's see how rational your thinking is.

The entropy of the Sun is increasing.
The Sun's energy allows a plant to turn CO2 and H2O into sugar and cellulose.
See, decreasing entropy in a localized area without violating the 2nd Law.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yccI3YXMYcc

If I were you, I would not use the fossil record as evidence for your Ideological belief. The fossil record is a mess in defending your theory.

If I were you, I would not rely on what evangelical loose screws have to say about anything, much less what they have to say about the fossil record, of which they know less than nothing.

Evolution: What the Fossils ACTUALLY Say and Why It Matters

You offer a video with artist renditions of your argument and the creationist use real fossils and you call the creationist loose screws