Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I still don't trust the dating methods being reliable if they were they would not need to continue looking for new dating methods.
And i believe Dr.Ross said the oldest fossil they have in their possession is 24,000 years old.
He is also saying that creation of living organisms began 6 to 60 thousand years ago. That would also explain the land of Nod being around when cain was banished to it.
Have you trained yourself in radiologic dating methods? If not, how could you possibly reach a conclusion about a tool you have never learned to use? That's like saying you don't "trust" airplanes because you never learned to fly a plane.
" if they were they would not need to continue looking for new dating methods."
Following THAT kind of logic we would all be flying around on planes that look like what the Wright brothers flew in. Science and engineering is all about improving methods. Following the logic you give us above, we would never have gone beyond penicillin to fight bacterial infections. Penicillin works for some bacteria, but is totally ineffective against other strains. So science and medicine continued to look for more effective antibiotics. Same principle applies here! Your argument is ineffective.
Whatever Dr Ross says about fossils is not true. He has not studied, nor even reviewed the scientific literature on fossils. That was my point above, just because he's an astrophysicist doesn't mean he can do heart surgery on you, does it? Just as you may not have learned to fly a plane, Dr Ross cannot make statements about something he never learned to do, never went on expeditions to find, and has not read widely about.
I think you will find that Dr Ross does NOT claim the oldest living life forms are only a few tens of thousands old. You must have mis-understood what was in the link.
Here's what's in the link...you ignored this. FROM YOUR OWN LINK
"The fossil record testifies of life beginning on planet Earth 3.8 billion years ago. Over those 3.8 billion years, we have more and more species of greater and greater complexity and greater and greater diversity. But there's no fossil tree. We have no evidence for the horizontal branches."
Please, I ask you. Read some OTHER scientists, don't just take ONE scientist's word for it! And please, when you read, read carefully and remember what you read.
We can CONFIRM the accuracy of radiologic dating methods with other evidence. Dr Ross uses the fossil record !
I still don't trust the dating methods being reliable if they were they would not need to continue looking for new dating methods.
And i believe Dr.Ross said the oldest fossil they have in their possession is 24,000 years old.
He is also saying that creation of living organisms began 6 to 60 thousand years ago. That would also explain the land of Nod being around when cain was banished to it.
Have you trained yourself in radiologic dating methods? If not, how could you possibly reach a conclusion about a tool you have never learned to use? That's like saying you don't "trust" airplanes because you never learned to fly a plane.
" if they were they would not need to continue looking for new dating methods."
Following THAT kind of logic we would all be flying around on planes that look like what the Wright brothers flew in. Science and engineering is all about improving methods. Following the logic you give us above, we would never have gone beyond penicillin to fight bacterial infections. Penicillin works for some bacteria, but is totally ineffective against other strains. So science and medicine continued to look for more effective antibiotics. Same principle applies here! Your argument is ineffective.
Whatever Dr Ross says about fossils is not true. He has not studied, nor even reviewed the scientific literature on fossils. That was my point above, just because he's an astrophysicist doesn't mean he can do heart surgery on you, does it? Just as you may not have learned to fly a plane, Dr Ross cannot make statements about something he never learned to do, never went on expeditions to find, and has not read widely about.
I think you will find that Dr Ross does NOT claim the oldest living life forms are only a few tens of thousands old. You must have mis-understood what was in the link.
Here's what's in the link...you ignored this. FROM YOUR OWN LINK
"The fossil record testifies of life beginning on planet Earth 3.8 billion years ago. Over those 3.8 billion years, we have more and more species of greater and greater complexity and greater and greater diversity. But there's no fossil tree. We have no evidence for the horizontal branches."
Please, I ask you. Read some OTHER scientists, don't just take ONE scientist's word for it! And please, when you read, read carefully and remember what you read.
We can CONFIRM the accuracy of radiologic dating methods with other evidence. Dr Ross uses the fossil record !
Bottomline, i just want the truth. I have given my many reasons why i reject the idea of random chance because random chance would have to be orderly and we see the opposite.
Bottomline, i just want the truth. I have given my many reasons why i reject the idea of random chance because random chance would have to be orderly and we see the opposite.
"Random chance would have to be orderly"
Uhhhhhhhhhhh, what?
sorry i think faster then i type, i said it wrong ,and didn't complete my thought.I have read a lot on them, and their conclusions are influenced buy their presuppositions. The problem with your side is you don't believe their presuppositions could be wrong to begin with,even though many on your side have been proven wrong.
many on your side have been proven wrong
Here's a hint! I'm not on a "SIDE"! Science is NOT a matter of "taking sides" science is a disciplined process of discovery and investigation and incorporation of those discoveries and investigations into improved, efficient, effective ways of learning AS MUCH FACTUAL INFORMATION AS WE CAN about the world we live in.
I would love to see evidence of your assertion though. Like some examples?
Many examples! Yes I want to see MANY!
I posted the atheist riddle just before you posted this.
I would like your thoughts.
Read up on the topic on your own. I don't have time to educate you on the fallacies in that. It is very poorly written.
I suggest you do some queries to find counter arguments to what you want counter arguments for. I am not here to meet each and every challenge when better men and women than me have dozens of videos on this topic on the internet.
I await your "many" examples of wrong... YOUR assertion... your need to offer proofs.
I have read a lot on them, and their conclusions are influenced buy their presuppositions. The problem with your side is you don't believe their presuppositions could be wrong to begin with,even though many on your side have been proven wrong.
many on your side have been proven wrong
Here's a hint! I'm not on a "SIDE"! Science is NOT a matter of "taking sides" science is a disciplined process of discovery and investigation and incorporation of those discoveries and investigations into improved, efficient, effective ways of learning AS MUCH FACTUAL INFORMATION AS WE CAN about the world we live in.
I would love to see evidence of your assertion though. Like some examples?
Many examples! Yes I want to see MANY!
I posted the atheist riddle just before you posted this.
I would like your thoughts.
Funny how the other thread died once i gave my reasons why mutations can't do what evolutionist think they did ,and the icing on the cake was the atheist riddle, INFORMATION.
YWC seems to be a reader. One thing that he clearly has not read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (The link is just a summary of the book itself, but gives the information pertinent to the logic.)
Please read it. It's the basics. Without it you are trying to build a house by constructing the roof first.
Really.
What is Information How Creationists Fail Again.
What is Information How Creationists Fail Again.
while I am out to lunch on campus with colleauges today, I invite you to read this, and to watch the videos I posted.
Creationist Misrepresentations of Macroevolution & Microevolution
How Creationists Misdefine Evolution Through Macro- & Microevolution
Creationist Misrepresentations of Macroevolution & Microevolution
You are not addressing anything pertaining to the logic of scientific discovery. At all.YWC seems to be a reader. One thing that he clearly has not read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (The link is just a summary of the book itself, but gives the information pertinent to the logic.)
Please read it. It's the basics. Without it you are trying to build a house by constructing the roof first.
Really.
No,that is what is being addressed.
Trust me, i am a very logical person, that allows evidence to shape my logic.
That is why i reject the atheists religion.
many on your side have been proven wrong
Here's a hint! I'm not on a "SIDE"! Science is NOT a matter of "taking sides" science is a disciplined process of discovery and investigation and incorporation of those discoveries and investigations into improved, efficient, effective ways of learning AS MUCH FACTUAL INFORMATION AS WE CAN about the world we live in.
I would love to see evidence of your assertion though. Like some examples?
Many examples! Yes I want to see MANY!
I posted the atheist riddle just before you posted this.
I would like your thoughts.
Funny how the other thread died once i gave my reasons why mutations can't do what evolutionist think they did ,and the icing on the cake was the atheist riddle, INFORMATION.
Threads can't last forever, you outlasting people doesn't mean you "won." It gets old when people ignore science when trying to debate science, ignore scientists in the field of science and instead turn to religious and philosophy scholars as you did in that thread.
Evolution/natural selection/mutation are the reason for DNA being coded the way it is, here's one example. It's a yucky subject lol, but a good read.
Gonorrhea acquires a piece of human DNA: First evidence of gene transfer from human host to bacterial pathogen
The discovery offers insight into evolution as well as gonorrhea's nimble ability to continually adapt and survive in its human hosts. Gonorrhea, which is transmitted through sexual contact, is one of the oldest recorded diseases and one of a few exclusive to humans.
"This has evolutionary significance because it shows you can take broad evolutionary steps when you're able to acquire these pieces of DNA," said study senior author Hank Seifert, professor of microbiology and immunology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "The bacterium is getting a genetic sequence from the very host it's infecting. That could have far reaching implications as far as how the bacteria can adapt to the host."
It's known that gene transfer occurs between different bacteria and even between bacteria and yeast cells. "But human DNA to a bacterium is a very large jump," said lead author Mark Anderson, a postdoctoral fellow in microbiology. "This bacterium had to overcome several obstacles in order to acquire this DNA sequence."
sorry but already been down that road.You are not addressing anything pertaining to the logic of scientific discovery. At all.YWC seems to be a reader. One thing that he clearly has not read is The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (The link is just a summary of the book itself, but gives the information pertinent to the logic.)
Please read it. It's the basics. Without it you are trying to build a house by constructing the roof first.
Really.
No,that is what is being addressed.
Trust me, i am a very logical person, that allows evidence to shape my logic.
That is why i reject the atheists religion.
You need to apply it if you want to talk to scientists. If that's not what you want, then don't learn it.
But, your approach has nothing at all to do with the logic of scientific discovery even though you are talking about science.
Your choice, though, of course.
No you haven't. Not here.I posted the atheist riddle just before you posted this.
I would like your thoughts.
Funny how the other thread died once i gave my reasons why mutations can't do what evolutionist think they did ,and the icing on the cake was the atheist riddle, INFORMATION.
Threads can't last forever, you outlasting people doesn't mean you "won." It gets old when people ignore science when trying to debate science, ignore scientists in the field of science and instead turn to religious and philosophy scholars as you did in that thread.
Evolution/natural selection/mutation are the reason for DNA being coded the way it is, here's one example. It's a yucky subject lol, but a good read.
Gonorrhea acquires a piece of human DNA: First evidence of gene transfer from human host to bacterial pathogen
The discovery offers insight into evolution as well as gonorrhea's nimble ability to continually adapt and survive in its human hosts. Gonorrhea, which is transmitted through sexual contact, is one of the oldest recorded diseases and one of a few exclusive to humans.
"This has evolutionary significance because it shows you can take broad evolutionary steps when you're able to acquire these pieces of DNA," said study senior author Hank Seifert, professor of microbiology and immunology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "The bacterium is getting a genetic sequence from the very host it's infecting. That could have far reaching implications as far as how the bacteria can adapt to the host."
It's known that gene transfer occurs between different bacteria and even between bacteria and yeast cells. "But human DNA to a bacterium is a very large jump," said lead author Mark Anderson, a postdoctoral fellow in microbiology. "This bacterium had to overcome several obstacles in order to acquire this DNA sequence."
Oh no, another diseaes is the answer to evolution ?
1. DNA IS a molecule. The pattern of that molecule is indeed a code for transcription. It is not a language, unless all codes are languages, and they are not.You are not addressing anything pertaining to the logic of scientific discovery. At all.No,that is what is being addressed.
Trust me, i am a very logical person, that allows evidence to shape my logic.
That is why i reject the atheists religion.
You need to apply it if you want to talk to scientists. If that's not what you want, then don't learn it.
But, your approach has nothing at all to do with the logic of scientific discovery even though you are talking about science.
Your choice, though, of course.
Ok this is the atheist riddle.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
Perry Marshall
Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists « Cosmic Fingerprints
I posted the atheist riddle just before you posted this.
I would like your thoughts.
Funny how the other thread died once i gave my reasons why mutations can't do what evolutionist think they did ,and the icing on the cake was the atheist riddle, INFORMATION.
Threads can't last forever, you outlasting people doesn't mean you "won." It gets old when people ignore science when trying to debate science, ignore scientists in the field of science and instead turn to religious and philosophy scholars as you did in that thread.
Evolution/natural selection/mutation are the reason for DNA being coded the way it is, here's one example. It's a yucky subject lol, but a good read.
Gonorrhea acquires a piece of human DNA: First evidence of gene transfer from human host to bacterial pathogen
The discovery offers insight into evolution as well as gonorrhea's nimble ability to continually adapt and survive in its human hosts. Gonorrhea, which is transmitted through sexual contact, is one of the oldest recorded diseases and one of a few exclusive to humans.
"This has evolutionary significance because it shows you can take broad evolutionary steps when you're able to acquire these pieces of DNA," said study senior author Hank Seifert, professor of microbiology and immunology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "The bacterium is getting a genetic sequence from the very host it's infecting. That could have far reaching implications as far as how the bacteria can adapt to the host."
It's known that gene transfer occurs between different bacteria and even between bacteria and yeast cells. "But human DNA to a bacterium is a very large jump," said lead author Mark Anderson, a postdoctoral fellow in microbiology. "This bacterium had to overcome several obstacles in order to acquire this DNA sequence."
Oh no, another diseaes is the answer to evolution ?
1. DNA IS a molecule. The pattern of that molecule is indeed a code for transcription. It is not a language, unless all codes are languages, and they are not.You are not addressing anything pertaining to the logic of scientific discovery. At all.
You need to apply it if you want to talk to scientists. If that's not what you want, then don't learn it.
But, your approach has nothing at all to do with the logic of scientific discovery even though you are talking about science.
Your choice, though, of course.
Ok this is the atheist riddle.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
Perry Marshall
Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists « Cosmic Fingerprints
Fail.
2. The sequence of the nucleotides in a strand of DNA is not determined by a mind, rather it is determined by a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.
Fail.
3. As (1) and (2) fail, (3) fails as well.
Nothing in there supports your claim in (1) that the sequence of nucleotides is a language.1. DNA IS a molecule. The pattern of that molecule is indeed a code for transcription. It is not a language, unless all codes are languages, and they are not.Ok this is the atheist riddle.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, youve toppled my proof. All you need is one.
Perry Marshall
Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists « Cosmic Fingerprints
Fail.
2. The sequence of the nucleotides in a strand of DNA is not determined by a mind, rather it is determined by a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.
Fail.
3. As (1) and (2) fail, (3) fails as well.
Wrong, if there is no information there is no science ?
Transcription of our DNA say's you're wrong and so do biologists.
.
DNA transcription is a process that involves the transcribing of genetic information from DNA to RNA. The transcribed DNA message is used to produce proteins. DNA is housed within the nucleus of our cells. It controls cellular activity by coding for the production of enzymes and proteins. The information in DNA is not directly converted into proteins, but must first be copied into RNA. This ensures that the information contained within the DNA does not become tainted.
DNA Transcription
DNA consists of four nucleotide bases [adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T)] that are paired together (A-T and C-G) to give DNA its double helical shape.
There are three main steps to the process of DNA transcription. RNA Polymerase Binds to DNA
DNA is transcribed by an enzyme called RNA polymerase. Specific nucleotide sequences tell RNA polymerase where to begin and where to end. RNA polymerase attaches to the DNA at a specific area called the promoter region.
Elongation
Certain proteins called transcription factors unwind the DNA strand and allow RNA polymerase to transcribe only a single strand of DNA into a single stranded RNA polymer called messenger RNA (mRNA). The strand that serves as the template is called the antisense strand. The strand that is not transcribed is called the sense strand.
Like DNA, RNA is composed of nucleotide bases. RNA however, contains the nucleotides adenine, guanine, cytosine and uricil (U). When RNA polymerase transcribes the DNA, guanine pairs with cytosine and adenine pairs with uricil.
Termination
RNA polymerase moves along the DNA until it reaches a terminator sequence. At that point, RNA polymerase releases the mRNA polymer and detaches from the DNA.
Since proteins are constructed in the cytoplasm of the cell by a process called translation, mRNA must cross the nuclear membrane to reach the cytoplasm. Once in the cytoplasm, mRNA along with ribosomes and another RNA molecule called transfer RNA, work together to produce proteins. Proteins can be manufactured in large quantities because a single DNA sequence can be transcribed by many RNA polymerase molecules at once.
DNA Transcription
