Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. Even on a trivial point, he could not bring himself to admit the error. Instead, he turned it into an attack.

Clearly, he is not here to discuss science and certainly not to learn anything.

Some people do not want to be right, they only want to believe. I would rather be right, that is why I can and have admitted when I have made mistakes countless times. Yet we see posts loaded with incredibly ignorant mistakes by various creationists and we hardly ever seen an admission of error. Though there was one day on a now defunct forum, not Topix, where two different creationists owned up to an error on two different threads to me on the same day. That was more than a one in a million event. If I knew how rare that was I would have preserved it in some way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some people do not want to be right, they only want to believe. I would rather be right, that is why I can and have admitted when I have made mistakes countless times. Yet we see posts loaded with incredibly ignorant mistakes by various creationists and we hardly ever seen an admission of error. Though there was one day on a now defunct forum, not Topix, where two different creationists owned up to an error on two different threads to me on the same day. That was more than a one in a million event. If I knew how rare that was I would have preserved it in some way.

Like you, I recognize I make mistakes. I do not like it, but it would be foolish to pretend it does not happen. This seems to be a problem more often with people of an authoritative mindset.

Careful. That example may constitute a miracle.

 

[tas8831]

You mean like the origin of Poodles from the same stock of wolves?

Remember that time on CF when you went off on a tangent about the origin of dog breeds and you foolishly linked and cherry-pick quoted a paper that you claimed supported your position on a recent, in-population origin for all dogs? But then I pointed out that the same paper made clear they were referring only to dogs in England (or western Europe) and it mentioned that there were several other populations of dogs from elsewhere that provided admixture? And that dog origins were much older than you had insisted? That was hilarious.

Don’t blame me because you can’t understand the original wolf type creatures had all 100 plus dog variations possible within them,

Now remind me where you provided evidence for this miracle genome that works in ways contrary to what we know about genomes? It seems to have slipped my mind.

We can identify pseudogenes and mutated TEs because enough of their sequence remains intact to see sequence identity with more intact versions.

Thus, it should be a piece of cake for you to find many examples of original Wolf-kind alleles that have been degraded via mutation (which you claim does not exist... or something) in dog genomes.

Can't wait!

but you can’t get but a few from Poodles due to mutations and loss of information.....

The mutations that create new alleles you mean? Like is indicated in the Grant paper that you keep quoting for some reason?

Don’t blame me because every Asian born has over 100 mutations every birth, but remain Asian

Wow - 100? You know that amounts to a whopping 0.000003% of the genome, right? and how many of those 100 are in genes that affect superficial phenotype?
You must know in order to use this as an argument, right?

Until you mix them with an African (who is also born with those 100 mutations yet remains African) that hasn’t lost the same information the Asian lost. Then you get an Afro Asian......

Afro-Asian? Cool.

So - where did the original Asian and the original African come from? I mean, genetically, since they somehow had the correct alleles, they both had to have been around before the fake flood - but it was only like 10 generations between Adam and Eve (the clones) and Noah, and that whole line was a bunch of inbreds, so where did the originals come from?

From your oft-quoted (but apparently never read or understood) Grant paper:

" Despite the low production of hybrids, by 2007, over 30% of the population of G. scandens possessed alleles whose origin could be traced back to G. fortis. The two populations had become more similar to each other morphologically and genetically..."

Sort of blows the whole Asians arose via hybridization (between which populations? He never says) thing out of the water - hybridization, according to justa's own citation, DECREASES variation, it does not create it.

Oh my bad, mutation was your Only solution because you started from the wrong worldview.....

Right, that must be it.

Weird, though, that in my worldview I do not cite a source that explicitly indicates that new alleles arise via mutation to claim that they don't.

Maybe I am just not a desperate religious fanatic with a giant ego and a complete lack of relevant knowledge.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe it was this post, can't be sure....

Yup! A good read if I do say so myself!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I do think that he may not have an ability to admit he is wrong. People that know that they are wrong often have this behavior. They realize that all that they have is a house of cards when it comes to their beliefs, allowing one card to fall causes all of them to fall.

Earlier he made the ridiculous statement, and he sticks by it, that escape velocity would be lower from the center of the Earth than the surface This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of even Newtonian mechanics. I have offered to discuss this with him without even using the math that he either won't or more likely can't do and yet he will not respond to that.

Perhaps the idea is that the pull of mass in all directions, if you could truly be at "the center", might be relatively equalized, and so you'd be pushing off from within a tiny pocket of virtual "weightlessness"? Though, obviously, you still need to pass "the surface" in order to actually "escape", and all movement away from the center quickly increases the imbalance toward full-on, "normal" Earth gravity. Not to mention the Earth is oblate spheroid, and the effects of our orbit and gravity of the other bodies in the solar system (the sun most notably) puts any "balance" point that may exist decidedly off-center.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe it was this post, can't be sure....

Yup! A good read if I do say so myself!

Nice work. Informative and useful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps the idea is that the pull of mass in all directions, if you could truly be at "the center", might be relatively equalized, and so you'd be pushing off from within a tiny pocket of virtual "weightlessness"? Though, obviously, you still need to pass "the surface" in order to actually "escape", and all movement away from the center quickly increases the imbalance toward full-on, "normal" Earth gravity. Not to mention the Earth is oblate spheroid, and the effects of our orbit and gravity of the other bodies in the solar system (the sun most notably) puts any "balance" point that may exist decidedly off-center.

It can be a bit hard to understand, but a long time ago it was mathematically demonstrated that if one has a shell of constant density the gravitational field everywhere within it will be zero. And if one is outside a sphere of constant density, or even a shell of constant density, the mass that has a lower radius than yours will produce the same gravitational pull as it would from the center of the Earth. What that means is that when calculating the force of gravity anywhere under the Earth on only needs to consider the mass that is of a lesser radius than the one of the mass being whose weight or gravity we are trying to measure. For the Earth the means that since it is not of constant density the value of g increases until the mantle outer core boundary. At that point it begins to drop. Gravity is roughly ten percent stronger there than at the surface. From there it drops roughly linearly to zero at the center of the Earth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It can be a bit hard to understand, but a long time ago it was mathematically demonstrated that if one has a shell of constant density the gravitational field everywhere within it will be zero. And if one is outside a sphere of constant density, or even a shell of constant density, the mass that has a lower radius than yours will produce the same gravitational pull as it would from the center of the Earth. What that means is that when calculating the force of gravity anywhere under the Earth on only needs to consider the mass that is of a lesser radius than the one of the mass being whose weight or gravity we are trying to measure. For the Earth the means that since it is not of constant density the value of g increases until the mantle outer core boundary. At that point it begins to drop. Gravity is roughly ten percent stronger there than at the surface. From there it drops roughly linearly to zero at the center of the Earth.

The Earth not being of "constant density" makes complete sense... I always thought of the material of the Earth behaving somewhat like a mixture of liquids of various density, just much more slowly in resolving to a sort of rough "separation." Plus the pressure on the various layers exerted by gravity likely causes its own differences in density throughout.Interesting, and thanks for the explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Earth not being of "constant density" makes complete sense... I always thought of the material of the Earth behaving somewhat like a mixture of liquids of various density, just much more slowly in resolving to a sort of rough "separation." Plus the pressure on the various layers exerted by gravity likely causes its own differences in density throughout.Interesting, and thanks for the explanation.

If I was at home using my desktop I would have posted the images, but if you scroll down to "Depth" you will see a plot of density and some curves of gravity based upon several models of density.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If I was at home using my desktop I would have posted the images, but if you scroll down to "Depth" you will see a plot of density and some curves of gravity based upon several models of density.

So, I kept thinking about this, and came to a question - is it that the crust, or upper-most layers of the Earth act as a sort of "buffer" that puts us at a distance from the more dense shells/inner-spheres of Earth material that causes the force of their gravitational effects on things at the surface to be lower?

 

[tas8831]

Guess the author:

"Yes it is. It's telling that evolutionary pontificator's think a copy error, rewriting what already existed, is not a continuous variation......."

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, I kept thinking about this, and came to a question - is it that the crust, or upper-most layers of the Earth act as a sort of "buffer" that puts us at a distance from the more dense shells/inner-spheres of Earth material that causes the force of their gravitational effects on things at the surface to be lower?

Arggh!! I forgot my link:

Gravity of Earth - Wikipedia

Sorry about that. Now you can see the densities If you check out the article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guess the author:

"Yes it is. It's telling that evolutionary pontificator's think a copy error, rewriting what already existed, is not a continuous variation......."

Just a second, it is on the tip of my tongue.

 

[Polymath257]

So, I kept thinking about this, and came to a question - is it that the crust, or upper-most layers of the Earth act as a sort of "buffer" that puts us at a distance from the more dense shells/inner-spheres of Earth material that causes the force of their gravitational effects on things at the surface to be lower?

Well, the less dense stuff will 'float' on the more dense stuff because of gravity. But to have the maximum force be below the surface requires the density of the upper material be low enough to counteract the fact that there is more of it per unit radius.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A combination of natural and artificial selection. Well established and supported.

Agreed, versus the belief that they will change species....

I blame you for your ignorance and willful misunderstanding that has lead you to believe this short-sighted, incorrect and incomplete response somehow refutes evolution. You have not established that information is lost, while the evidence shows that information is increased. You claim no variation in poodles leading to new breeds of dogs, but poodle breeders are looking for the poodles they breed to breed true. Anything less than that, is not continued. Your claim falls apart. You are assuming that all variation is going to be a desired trait by a breeder and perpetuated. Your claim again falls apart.

And if poodle breeders did not attempt to breed true, you would still only end up with Poodles until they mated with another breed.

Just as Asians mated primarily with other Asians (they bred true in your words) and remained Asian. Only when they mate with say an African (which also tended to breed true) is variation in the species produced (Afro-Asian).

All you have demonstrated is that you do not understand animal breeding. You need not have bothered. It was obvious.

Who is it that you think you are that you express the arrogance that you are the object of blame?

What is an pure Asian? When does one stop being Asian and start being something else? You cannot even define the type, let alone show that a change from that has or has not occurred. You have just words and a lot of anger.

We have a human population full of variation. You claim that mixing members of different populations is not evolution? When did that happen? Variation acted on by selection leads to evolution no matter the source of the variation. Interbreeding does not change the fact of evolution.

Change in taxa is not a requirement of evolution. By falsely claiming it is, your argument falls apart here as well.

The most damaging feature of your assertions is your failure to establish support for them other than to repeat them. That dog genomes contain information that is different from wolves refutes you from the start. All the traits that dogs possess that wolves do not is the result of new information.

Again, there is no need to demonstrate your ignorance and even less need for you to double down on it as if it was valid. We accept that you do not like science for religious reasons. We accept that you have no valid argument to bring against it. We accept that this makes you very angry.

Shots fired wildly over your shoulder in retreat is not evidence to support your world view. Why do you creationists always land at the same ad hominem destination? It is because you arguments are garbage.

The blame is all on you for not understanding that Poodles always remain Poodles unless bred with something else in their species, then still remain the same species. That just the same Asians always remain Asians unless bred with something else in their species, then still remain the same species.

Granted, I understand you can’t see what mated with what from a pile of bones, so your ignorance can be partially forgiven.

But every creature in the fossil record remains the same for its entire span of existence until it goes extinct. They all bred true.... only when they bred with another in their species did variation occur.

Their were no missing common ancestors because just as from Asian and African to Afri-Asian, there was no evolution and there were no missing common ancestors.

You simply mistake new variation appearing suddenly in the fossil record as meaning something evolved. Just as the poodle appeared suddenly in the record but did not evolve at all.

Give it up, you clearly do not understand even the basics of breeding, let alone things you can’t observe in the past with a pile of bones.

Error upon uncorrected error, incorrect classifications after incorrect classifications is the ToE.....

Yes, I understand you will never consider your beliefs to be wrong. But then every generation thinks they are correct and eventually every generation is shown to be wrong. But you still believe you are right when throughout history popular theory has never been correct.....

Your only real claim to fame is connecting different creatures with “missing common ancestors” for every single creature on every single tree for every claimed split.... your biggest claim to fame is your pure imagination......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, I kept thinking about this, and came to a question - is it that the crust, or upper-most layers of the Earth act as a sort of "buffer" that puts us at a distance from the more dense shells/inner-spheres of Earth material that causes the force of their gravitational effects on things at the surface to be lower?

Well, the less dense stuff will 'float' on the more dense stuff because of gravity. But to have the maximum force be below the surface requires the density of the upper material be low enough to counteract the fact that there is more of it per unit radius.

It’s neither.

The densest part of the earth is near the surface.

Which is why all experiments have shown this to be true.

Kola Superdeep Borehole

“Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible.”

But your belief in density increase was based upon seismic reflection data which was found to not accurately predict the reality of decreasing density....

“Though the discontinuity has been detected beneath all of the continents, the drill at Kola never encountered the proposed layer of basalt. Instead, the granitic rock was found to extend beyond the twelve kilometer point. This led to scientists’ realization that the seismic-reflection results were due to a metamorphic change in the rock (i.e. from intense heat and pressure), and not a change in rock type as they had previously anticipated.”

Although let’s be clear that their belief it changed because of increased pressure was shown to be false. The density decreased and the porosity increased..... the exact opposite of what increasing pressure would cause....

We can discuss earth and space rocks next if you like and show how they also falsify your beliefs.....

Because I have no doubt the actual experimental data of decreasing density and increasing porosity will not change your false beliefs.... it’s changed nothing so far, except the data to be ignored so it doesn’t get in the way of theory.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, versus the belief that they will change species....


And if poodle breeders did not attempt to breed true, you would still only end up with Poodles until they mated with another breed.

Just as Asians mated primarily with other Asians (they bred true in your words) and remained Asian. Only when they mate with say an African (which also tended to breed true) is variation in the species produced (Afro-Asian).



The blame is all on you for not understanding that Poodles always remain Poodles unless bred with something else in their species, then still remain the same species. That just the same Asians always remain Asians unless bred with something else in their species, then still remain the same species.

Granted, I understand you can’t see what mated with what from a pile of bones, so your ignorance can be partially forgiven.

But every creature in the fossil record remains the same for its entire span of existence until it goes extinct. They all bred true.... only when they bred with another in their species did variation occur.

Their were no missing common ancestors because just as from Asian and African to Afri-Asian, there was no evolution and there were no missing common ancestors.

You simply mistake new variation appearing suddenly in the fossil record as meaning something evolved. Just as the poodle appeared suddenly in the record but did not evolve at all.

Give it up, you clearly do not understand even the basics of breeding, let alone things you can’t observe in the past with a pile of bones.

Error upon uncorrected error, incorrect classifications after incorrect classifications is the ToE.....

Yes, I understand you will never consider your beliefs to be wrong. But then every generation thinks they are correct and eventually every generation is shown to be wrong. But you still believe you are right when throughout history popular theory has never been correct.....

Your only real claim to fame is connecting different creatures with “missing common ancestors” for every single creature on every single tree for every claimed split.... your biggest claim to fame is your pure imagination......

We have observed the changing of species in real time. In fact we can see it in ring species. And your inability to understand the fossil record or what is expected of it does not help you. Your claim is the same as saying that this person:

Could not be this person:

Since neither picture changes. Both those pictures always remain the same so they can't be the same person!!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have observed the changing of species in real time. In fact we can see it in ring species. And your inability to understand the fossil record or what is expected of it does not help you. Your claim is the same as saying that this person:

Could not be this person:

Since neither picture changes. Both those pictures always remain the same so they can't be the same person!!

I don’t claim that at all... people grow up, they don’t evolve into larger versions of themselves. Such a false analogy you present..... I’m flabbergasted you had the nerve to even try something so ridiculous .....

That you think it was a “gotcha” moment instead of just silliness.....

Ring species are merely incorrect classifications. But then they claimed the same thing about finches, that they couldn’t mate because of reproductive isolation. Then 200 plus years after Darwin someone actually looked and found them humping like rabbits right before their eyes. With the DNA data to show their genealogy was so intermixed that it couldn’t be matched to the current classifications, and that they had always been interbreeding. No one just ever took the time to actually look.....

So granted, it might take another 200 years before someone actually looks instead of just jumps to conclusions as Darwin did and classified them as separate species based upon that incorrect assumption.

It was claimed Tigers and lions couldn’t mate. It was claimed Grizzly and Polar bears couldn’t mate. And even if we know they can they still hold to the incorrect classifications......

 

[Polymath257]

It’s neither.

The densest part of the earth is near the surface.

Which is why all experiments have shown this to be true.

Kola Superdeep Borehole

“Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible.”
.

14800 Feet? Really? That is fully within the crust! It isn't even 3 miles down? The densest part of the Earth is well below the crust.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

14800 Feet? Really? That is fully within the crust! It isn't even 3 miles down? The densest part of the Earth is well below the crust.

That’s what you keep claiming due to your false beliefs even if the actual experimental data has proven otherwise.....

As I said, will continue to ignore the experimental data so it doesn’t get in the way of theory....