T
Techno2000
Guest
Ok, can you show me a scenario where what you say is being played out in real life today right now on this planet ?
- Status
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
You don’t really understand error bars, do you? Each of the measurements of the acrocanthosaurus has an error of between 90 and 270 years, but the measurements are 2000 years apart. That means they cannot have come from the same organism, unless the contamination has been so severe as to make the measurements meaningless.
B
buffalo
Guest
Tsk Tsk. You know you are being disingenuous. Not good.
Once again, real slow. Better resolution will refine the dates.
B
buffalo
Guest
I don’t think you do. I hate to quote wiki, but it was too easy.
“The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The measurements included one with a range from about 4250 to about 4390 years ago, and another with a range from about 4520 to about 4690.[65]” Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Hmmmmmmm.
10 characters.
10 characters.
R
Richca
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
See links below:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
From the website creation.com
https://creation.com/is-there-evidence-for-expanding-universe
https://creation.com/expanding-universe-1
https://creation.com/expanding-universe-2
(Disclaimer: The author of the above articles, John Hartnett, is a retired physicist and cosmologist. I believe he presents the evidence for and against the BBT in an objective fashion. He concludes that in his opinion, “it is impossible to conclude either way whether the universe is expanding or static. The evidence is equivocal”. I believe he is also a YEC but I personally do not have a problem with incorporating the present claim from science concerning the 13.8 billion year age of the universe into Genesis 1-2. Other articles from John Hartnett or from others on the website do not necessarily reflect my own views).
Another article concerning scientific flaws with the Big Bang Theory:
https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/
My personal opinion on whether the the heavens are expanding or not is I don’t know, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. If the substance of the heavens (what we may think of as ‘space’) is expanding, and whatever it is made out of is a mystery, I would not associate the ‘space’ of the heavens with the matter or energy of the ‘singularity’ of the Big Bang from which evolved matter and the first elements and elemental particles, the formation of stars from which evolved the other elements, and entire galaxies. Maybe God ‘stretched out’ the substance of the heavens from a ‘singularity’ as it were but not a singularity packed with all the matter and energy of the cosmos from which evolved the whole universe and variety of creatures.
See links below:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
From the website creation.com
https://creation.com/is-there-evidence-for-expanding-universe
https://creation.com/expanding-universe-1
https://creation.com/expanding-universe-2
(Disclaimer: The author of the above articles, John Hartnett, is a retired physicist and cosmologist. I believe he presents the evidence for and against the BBT in an objective fashion. He concludes that in his opinion, “it is impossible to conclude either way whether the universe is expanding or static. The evidence is equivocal”. I believe he is also a YEC but I personally do not have a problem with incorporating the present claim from science concerning the 13.8 billion year age of the universe into Genesis 1-2. Other articles from John Hartnett or from others on the website do not necessarily reflect my own views).
Another article concerning scientific flaws with the Big Bang Theory:
https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/
My personal opinion on whether the the heavens are expanding or not is I don’t know, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. If the substance of the heavens (what we may think of as ‘space’) is expanding, and whatever it is made out of is a mystery, I would not associate the ‘space’ of the heavens with the matter or energy of the ‘singularity’ of the Big Bang from which evolved matter and the first elements and elemental particles, the formation of stars from which evolved the other elements, and entire galaxies. Maybe God ‘stretched out’ the substance of the heavens from a ‘singularity’ as it were but not a singularity packed with all the matter and energy of the cosmos from which evolved the whole universe and variety of creatures.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Elemental atomic matter with their protons, nuetrons, and electrons and of which the sun, earth, stars, moon, planets, water, plants, and animals are made out of and were formed by God, involved a distinct creative act from God as we find in the creation and formation of things in the six days of Genesis. I don’t believe we are 'star stuff ’ nor was hydrogen formed from the Big Bang, from which stars were formed and the rest of the elements which in time planets were formed including earth as the theory goes. No, God himself created the stars and the hydrogen element with its subatomic particles which fuels the energy and emission of light in the fusion of hydrogen into helium according to the present scientific theory on this. Whether planets, meteorites, comets, and such like things are formed from the explosion of old stars and the collection of clouds of dust particles is possible, I don’t know, it could be which would explain some of these objects. Of course, the science has its theory on this, but its a theory. God probably created either all or a lot of these objects himself with the stars and galaxies. I do believe our own planet earth, the moon, and our sun were created directly by God himself. In fact, as I mentioned, God himself created and made all the stars and galaxies throughout the universe. Whether or not there might be a few stars in the whole universe that formed via natural processes is questionable.
The lights in the firmament of the heavens were made on the fourth day, i.e., a distinct creative act from God who first created the heavens (verse 1), a space or body as it were, for the lights. All the billions of stars and galaxies were created effortlessly and at once (or possibly some independently from others over the ‘time span’ of day 4) by the simple word of God "And God said, ‘Let there be lights…’
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and all their host by the breath of his mouth…
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood forth (Psalm 33: 6,9)
Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!..
Let them praise the name of the Lord!
For he commanded and they were created. (Psalm 148: 3,5)
He determines the number of the stars,
he gives to all of them their names. (Psalm 147: 4)
Elemental atomic matter with their protons, nuetrons, and electrons and of which the sun, earth, stars, moon, planets, water, plants, and animals are made out of and were formed by God, involved a distinct creative act from God as we find in the creation and formation of things in the six days of Genesis. I don’t believe we are 'star stuff ’ nor was hydrogen formed from the Big Bang, from which stars were formed and the rest of the elements which in time planets were formed including earth as the theory goes. No, God himself created the stars and the hydrogen element with its subatomic particles which fuels the energy and emission of light in the fusion of hydrogen into helium according to the present scientific theory on this. Whether planets, meteorites, comets, and such like things are formed from the explosion of old stars and the collection of clouds of dust particles is possible, I don’t know, it could be which would explain some of these objects. Of course, the science has its theory on this, but its a theory. God probably created either all or a lot of these objects himself with the stars and galaxies. I do believe our own planet earth, the moon, and our sun were created directly by God himself. In fact, as I mentioned, God himself created and made all the stars and galaxies throughout the universe. Whether or not there might be a few stars in the whole universe that formed via natural processes is questionable.
The lights in the firmament of the heavens were made on the fourth day, i.e., a distinct creative act from God who first created the heavens (verse 1), a space or body as it were, for the lights. All the billions of stars and galaxies were created effortlessly and at once (or possibly some independently from others over the ‘time span’ of day 4) by the simple word of God "And God said, ‘Let there be lights…’
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and all their host by the breath of his mouth…
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood forth (Psalm 33: 6,9)
Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!..
Let them praise the name of the Lord!
For he commanded and they were created. (Psalm 148: 3,5)
He determines the number of the stars,
he gives to all of them their names. (Psalm 147: 4)
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
Whether God created the sun, moon, stars of day 4 from nothing or from matter he previously created such as the light on day 1, there is a variety of opinion among the fathers and theologians. The opinion of St Thomas Aquinas is that the light created in verse 3 is when God created the substance (substantial form and matter) of the lights (the sun, moon, and stars) out of nothing but as yet in a way formless then on day 4 God completed their formation.
(2) I do not believe the singularity of the Big Bang ‘created’ the heavens and the earth in an evolutionary fashion even supposing God’s providence. Gen. 1:1 is clear: ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.’ And many texts of the Bible say the same and the first article of our professions of faith, the creeds, reiterate Gen. 1:1. And Genesis 1 goes on to explain God’s creative activity in the creation and formation of the other ‘major’ natural phenomena of the world including us humans.
Whether God created the sun, moon, stars of day 4 from nothing or from matter he previously created such as the light on day 1, there is a variety of opinion among the fathers and theologians. The opinion of St Thomas Aquinas is that the light created in verse 3 is when God created the substance (substantial form and matter) of the lights (the sun, moon, and stars) out of nothing but as yet in a way formless then on day 4 God completed their formation.
(2) I do not believe the singularity of the Big Bang ‘created’ the heavens and the earth in an evolutionary fashion even supposing God’s providence. Gen. 1:1 is clear: ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.’ And many texts of the Bible say the same and the first article of our professions of faith, the creeds, reiterate Gen. 1:1. And Genesis 1 goes on to explain God’s creative activity in the creation and formation of the other ‘major’ natural phenomena of the world including us humans.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Maybe to God the Universe is like a small little patio .
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Yes. The house mouse, Mus musculus, is a common pest, and often controlled by an anticoagulant poison. The gene complex responsible for sensitivity to the poison is well known. Over the years, different populations of rats and mice have had genetic changes to their sensitivity. Some have become more sensitive, and some less sensitive. As, until recently, mice did not often come across a lot of anti-coagulants, these genetic changes had little effect on the population. When warfarin was developed as a rodent poison, whole populations of mice were destroyed completely. Some, perhaps where the poison was being less well administered, became stressed, such that susceptible mice were more likely to be killed before they reproduced, while stronger mice were more likely to reproduce. In this way, immunity to warfarin has spread through some populations.
These researches illustrate several aspects of evolution we have been discussing. Firstly the mutation of a genetic complex to achieve a potential, but not actual survival advantage. Then the environmental change enabling the potential to be actualised. But also the fact that in other populations the resistant gene complex simply hasn’t appeared (yet), and so in spite of the environmental change, their is no change to the population’s resistance to the poison, and then the fact that where the environmental change is too extreme, there is no time for the resistant gene to spread through the population before they all die.
Actually the story is even more exciting as we are also discovering mice of two different species hybridising, but we don’t want to get too complicated here.
T
Techno2000
Guest
I’m talking about macroevolution.Techno2000:
Yes. The house mouse, Mus musculus, is a common pest, and often controlled by an anticoagulant poison. The gene complex responsible for sensitivity to the poison is well known. Over the years, different populations of rats and mice have had genetic changes to their sensitivity. Some have become more sensitive, and some less sensitive. As, until recently, mice did not often come across a lot of anti-coagulants, these genetic changes had little effect on the population. When warfarin was developed as a rodent poison, whole populations of mice were destroyed completely. Some, perhaps where the poison was being less well administered, became stressed, such that susceptible mice were more likely to be killed before they reproduced, while stronger mice were more likely to reproduce. In this way, immunity to warfarin has spread through some populations.
These researches illustrate several aspects of evolution we have been discussing. Firstly the mutation of a genetic complex to achieve a potential, but not actual survival advantage. Then the environmental change enabling the potential to be actualised. But also the fact that in other populations the resistant gene complex simply hasn’t appeared (yet), and so in spite of the environmental change, their is no change to the population’s resistance to the poison, and then the fact that where the environmental change is too extreme, there is no time for the resistant gene to spread through the population before they all die.
Actually the story is even more exciting as we are also discovering mice of two different species hybridising, but we don’t want to get too complicated here.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
The specific experiment to which you refer involved 24 measurements, of which the difference between the greatest and the least averages was about 6% of the age of the object. The difference between the greatest and the least averages of your dinosaurs is about 12%.
E
edwest211
Guest
The redshift may not be what many think it is. Halton Arp, who was Edwin Hubble’s assistant, observed connected galaxies where the redshift varied. Hubble himself was not 100% sure his idea about redshifts was correct.
The latest Hubble telescope deep space image shows faint galaxies at maximum distance.
The latest Hubble telescope deep space image shows faint galaxies at maximum distance.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Doesn’t mean anything to me. Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution stuck together. It takes far to long to observe. I suppose the best we can do in real time is to observe animals in the same way as we observe stars. Although we have never seen a star be born, exist and die, we think that by looking at dozens of them, we can generate a model of what their whole life stories are. We can certainly produce an explanation which fits the observations.
If we want to look at speciation, perhaps the best thing we can do it look at hybridisation, and compare degrees of hybridisation with genetic similarity. Some similar species cannot hybridise at all - the model is that a speciation event is complete. Others can produce offspring, but the offspring is sterile. Others again produce offspring which can mate with one or other of the parent species, but not with its own generation. Finally there are those which mate freely when brought together, but actually live separate lives in the wild. Good examples to research are, say, horses/donkeys, horses/zebras, lions/tigers, grizzlies/polar bears, sheep/goats, yaks/cattle, and so on. All these represent examples of speciation in progress.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Our understanding of the red shift is a superb example of science in action. An observation is made, and a variety of explanations adduced to explain it. More observations enable us to refine the explanation, and while anomalous observations keep some less well accepted explanations in the frame, they also provide a focus for clarification and further refinement.
R
rossum
Guest
OK, those carbon dates are wrong. We can discard them as useless since they are incorrect. Now we can look at the Ar-Ar dates, the U-Pb dates and all the other dates from non-carbon methods.rossum
The carbon dating has to be wrong. Sound familiar?
I have never claimed a six thousand year earth. The Bible does not give an age. I tend to favor 10-12000 years as I have posted consistently over the years. If it goes back to even 50,000 years it is a long way from 4 Billion. See the point?
Also, if the carbon dates are wrong then they do not constitute an argument against evolution. You cannot make any argument from incorrect dates.
The 4 billion year date comes from multiple dating methods on different rock formations and on meteors. Carbon dates were not used as they do not do that far back.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
That is your story and your are sticking to it.
Speciation is loss of a function once had.
B
buffalo
Guest
That’s what I said.
B
buffalo
Guest
Whoa… The evo dates are always changing. We can discard them too. Thanks!
- Status