Other Post Not all scientists are atheist

[Buster23]

If you wanna change my mind, you'll have to do so with specific arguments -not "go and read everything over there". Did you yourself read the stuff you try to peddle or did you just glance over it and read the authors names?

Oh well, I guess you already made up your mind, but it just so sad that you just judged these people by their beliefs but never acknowledged their great contribution to science and humanity in general.

 

[Mordoror]

I suspect that you haven't really read any of their scientific papers and you have just jumped to conclusion as their secular scientists/evolutionists peers would do. So you are saying that these people (to name a few) below are sham and a joke because they are part of my sources and they believe in creation?

Dr. John Sanford - A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of numbers and acreage) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. Author of the groundbreaking book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.

Dr. John Baumgardner - Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA. Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. -Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use. The last decade at Sandia saw greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab–scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining two other U.S. patents, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion–fusion target theory.

Just a few corrections
Stanford doesn't have 80 referenced papers, far less in fact (quick pubmed research gives a 24 or 25 return)
The others are in the same league
Nothing exceptional, i know people with far more scientific production
As for calling Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome., groundbreaking, well, nope, it's an opinion and vulgarization book. You can choose to find it terrific or terrible alike

 

[Mordoror]

1-Nope, evolution is not a fact, until now there still no evidence that inorganic matter became organic organisms and then ultimately became man/animals/plants today, even other secular scientists do not believe in evolution as propagated by Darwin and his followers > https://dissentfromdarwin.org/faq/

2-Continental drift - creationists do not dispute this, and this is supported by the historical account of the Scriptures on Noah's Flood, there were rapid and catastrophic plate tectonics movements during the flood that created the continents we have today > https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf

3-The radiometric dating methods used in measuring the age of the earth as billions of years are flawed and are based only on assumptions and interpretations, it does not give consistent results > https://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies.

If the Earth is really billions of years old, then why there are still carbon-14 present on alluvial diamonds? https://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

4-Real found fossils of "homo species" (not some fake 'missing link fossils') may actually are all human kind as "Differences in skeletal anatomy may simply reflect a greater genetic diversity within the human kind in the past. " > https://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemenpart-1-the-genus-homo

1- you are again mixing Evolution of species and how life (biogenesis) appeared on Earth. Those are two strictly different things.
2- Some creationists did and some still do
3- radiometric dating give convergent results with a margin of error that seems large (millions of years) but in percentage is not too much (4.5 or 4.6 billions of years old, well it is nitpicking)
Moreover, you seem to ignore that radiometric dating is not limited to C14 amount (10 different isotopes are used, some with an half life of 250 Gy) and that C14 is constantly produced by stellar radiation
Plus this is often combined with other methods of dating like erosion calculation, sediment deposit size etc
C14 is in fact used for relatively recent samples, not for millions old ones. that's shows how credible is the site you quoted.
Earth datation is based, among other things, on the I 129 half life (16 x 10exp6 years).
4-It could, if it was limited to a few fossils. There are enough Homo neanderthalensis fossils over a large geographic distribution for example to exclude random/accidental genetic diversity
Really, you should read a bit outside the creationnist site you are quoting over again and again

 

[RobertKLR]

@RobertKLR: Mordoror actually is a scientist you numbnut and it's no wonder that he doesn't wants to write lengthy posts when he has to deal with persons like you here. Sleep on it, maybe tomorrow you'll be ashamed of yourself.

And what do you know of me, idiot?

 

[Bombardier]

@RobertKLR: Mordoror actually is a scientist you numbnut and it's no wonder that he doesn't wants to write lengthy posts when he has to deal with persons like you here. Sleep on it, maybe tomorrow you'll be ashamed of yourself.

Ok fellas, I was enjoying this intelligent yet confusing discussion until we resorted to name calling. As it progressed I thought WOW! what a very intelligent group of people and then this comment. I dont think you should let your frustration take over your common sense.

Please refrain ?

 

[Buster23]

1- you are again mixing Evolution of species and how life (biogenesis) appeared on Earth. Those are two strictly different things.
2- Some creationists did and some still do
3- radiometric dating give convergent results with a margin of error that seems large (millions of years) but in percentage is not too much (4.5 or 4.6 billions of years old, well it is nitpicking)
Moreover, you seem to ignore that radiometric dating is not limited to C14 amount (10 different isotopes are used, some with an half life of 250 Gy) and that C14 is constantly produced by stellar radiation
Plus this is often combined with other methods of dating like erosion calculation, sediment deposit size etc
C14 is in fact used for relatively recent samples, not for millions old ones. that's shows how credible is the site you quoted.
Earth datation is based, among other things, on the I 129 half life (16 x 10exp6 years).
4-It could, if it was limited to a few fossils. There are enough Homo neanderthalensis fossils over a large geographic distribution for example to exclude random/accidental genetic diversity
Really, you should read a bit outside the creationnist site you are quoting over again and again

1 - Sounds like a desperate deflection on the issue, so I have to ask what is your real definition of evolution then?

3 - I am not talking about the margin of error (which is also questionable by the way), I am talking about different radiometric dating methods having different age measurement results on samples of the same source.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/tj_v14n2_crinum.pdf

.

Dating in conflict

Wood in old rocks yield recent age

creation.com

There is no debate that C14 method is used for dating fossils in the range of thousands (not millions or billions) of years only since C14 have a half life of around 5700 years only, the question is why there are still C14 present on alluvial diamonds which were supposed to be formed deep down the earth around 1 billion years ago if C14 supposed to have decayed around thousands years only?

4 - How could you be really certain that homo neanderthalensis fossils found are not the same as modern human today? Even today there are people that would fit the physical profile of a "neanderthal man".

"University of Bordeaux archaeologist Francesco d’Errico affirms these comments, stating, “Neanderthals were using technology as advanced as that of contemporary anatomically modern humans and were using symbolism in much the same way. Hard evidence backs up these claims. Anthropologist Stephen Molnar explains that “the estimated mean size of [Neanderthal] cranial capacity (1,450 cc) is actually higher than the mean for modern humans (1,345 cc).”One paper in Nature suggested, “the morphological basis for human speech capability appears to have been fully developed” in Neanderthals. Indeed, Neanderthal remains have been found associated with signs of culture including art, burial of their dead, and technology including the usage of complex tools. At least one artifact shows Neanderthals made musical instruments like the flute."

"In 2010 scientists reported finding Neanderthal DNA markers in living humans: “A genetic analysis of nearly 2,000 people from around the world indicates that such extinct species interbred with the ancestors of modern humans twice, leaving their genes within the DNA of people today.” In the words of Jeffrey Long, a genetic anthropologist at the University of New Mexico, “Neanderthals didn’t completely disappear” because “[t]here is a little bit of Neanderthal leftover in almost all humans.”

The Genus Homo: All in the Family | Evolution News

In contrast to the australopithecines, the major members of our genus Homo — such as erectus and the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) — are very similar to modern humans.

evolutionnews.org

Adam and the Genome and Neanderthal Cave Art | Evolution News

As if on cue, science news today reports a remarkable discovery from Spain.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Buster23]

Mutations are indeed not evolution. They can or cannot lead to evolution depending of the circumstances
The rest of what you wrote is false on several levels
Of course some mutations can (and do) increase or modify information content (in particular but not limited to, mutations in the UTRs, promoting or terminating areas of genes)

About drug resistance, it is also false
for some mechanisms, resistance doesn't pre-exist in the population, it has to appear through mutations. Some mutations leading to resistance rates are extremely rares (1 on 100 000 000 or 1 000 000 000 of copies). They are only selected, if they appear, under antibiotic/drug pressure i) because they are rare
ii) if they appear outside a positive slection system, because they are deleterious to fitness, they disapear very quickly

This is the very definition of evolution : selection of the most fit to survive under a given situation

I find it funny that you say "Mutations are indeed not evolution", but then you say "it (antibiotic resistance) has to appear through mutations", then you conclude "This is the very definition of evolution". See the contradictions in your statements?

With reference to an article/critique on an antibiotic resistance experiment conducted (or promoted) by darwinist biologists themselves > https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/the_low_bar_of/, this is not actually evolution (in fact devolution) since "antibiotic resistance is nearly always the result of a functional loss on the part of the mutant bacteria. Bacteria lose the ability to take up or metabolize the antibiotic, which renders then resistant to the toxicity of the antibiotic. Thus, the evolutionary change demonstrated in the experiment is the loss, not the gain, of function. Of course, no one doubts that mutations change bacterial populations by impairing function."

 

[Mordoror]

1 - Sounds like a desperate deflection on the issue, so I have to ask what is your real definition of evolution then?

3 - I am not talking about the margin of error (which is also questionable by the way), I am talking about different radiometric dating methods having different age measurement results on samples of the same source.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/tj_v14n2_crinum.pdf

.

Dating in conflict

Wood in old rocks yield recent age

creation.com

There is no debate that C14 method is used for dating fossils in the range of thousands (not millions or billions) of years only since C14 have a half life of around 5700 years only, the question is why there are still C14 present on alluvial diamonds which were supposed to be formed deep down the earth around 1 billion years ago if C14 supposed to have decayed around thousands years only?

4 - How could you be really certain that homo neanderthalensis fossils found are not the same as modern human today? Even today there are people that would fit the physical profile of a "neanderthal man".

"University of Bordeaux archaeologist Francesco d’Errico affirms these comments, stating, “Neanderthals were using technology as advanced as that of contemporary anatomically modern humans and were using symbolism in much the same way. Hard evidence backs up these claims. Anthropologist Stephen Molnar explains that “the estimated mean size of [Neanderthal] cranial capacity (1,450 cc) is actually higher than the mean for modern humans (1,345 cc).”One paper in Nature suggested, “the morphological basis for human speech capability appears to have been fully developed” in Neanderthals. Indeed, Neanderthal remains have been found associated with signs of culture including art, burial of their dead, and technology including the usage of complex tools. At least one artifact shows Neanderthals made musical instruments like the flute."

"In 2010 scientists reported finding Neanderthal DNA markers in living humans: “A genetic analysis of nearly 2,000 people from around the world indicates that such extinct species interbred with the ancestors of modern humans twice, leaving their genes within the DNA of people today.” In the words of Jeffrey Long, a genetic anthropologist at the University of New Mexico, “Neanderthals didn’t completely disappear” because “[t]here is a little bit of Neanderthal leftover in almost all humans.”

The Genus Homo: All in the Family | Evolution News

In contrast to the australopithecines, the major members of our genus Homo — such as erectus and the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) — are very similar to modern humans.

evolutionnews.org

Adam and the Genome and Neanderthal Cave Art | Evolution News

As if on cue, science news today reports a remarkable discovery from Spain.

evolutionnews.org

1-
Now, now, you are sounding disgeneous
You were the one bringing transition of inorganic matter to organic life in your previous post. That's adressed nowhere in Darwin work. What you were talking was origin of life not evolution of species. It only shows that you don't understand what you are talking about and like all creationnists, like to mix things to try to prove your point

Evolution of species as per Darwin (who never talked about how life appeared on Earth and who created it on the contrary to what crreationnists think) is that : In a given population appears all the time variations of physical features (what we call today : phenotype). If this physical features give an advantage in a situation/environment that lasts, it allows a better survivability of the individuals bearing it so a better chance to reproduce and pass down those advantages to the offspring. This physical feature then spread in the population, giving it ultimately divergent enough of the original population to obtain a new specie.
The Darwin theory is correct while incomplete because DNA, genetics, mutations and epigenetic were not discovered during his era. It is still however accurate even if it needed to be refined with the molecular biology discoveries.

3- I am not specialist in C14 dating. However
i) if C14 was found in diamonds, it would be atremendous discovery that could be published in a major science article. Which in returns mean accuracy of the work would have been verified. Which is not the case here. I can also tomorrow write an article saying that i have found little grey DNA in a slug and publish it in "Cosmology and Alien Life" or any trash pseudoscience journal. That doesn't make it true. So, yes, to begin with, the discovery itself is questionable
ii) even if it is true they detected C14 in diamonds, the only fact that it is below the treshold admitted as last accurate limit of datation with this isotope (50 000 years but more modern and accurate mass spectrometry systems give a limit of 41 000 to 43 5000 years) should raise en eyebrow in any science man eye. Or in other mean, it screams contamination or calibration issue.

A more detailed lenghty answer by some specialists here : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

4-Find me people with all the physical and genetic features of the neanderthal. You'd find none
Some people may have one physical feature that reminds neanderthal (like thick eyebrow bone), that doesn't mean they are of the neanderthalensis specie. Jaguar and Leopard have spots they are not of the same specie
We have enough Neanderthalensis DNA material to classify it as a different specie of Homo. Much like Jaguar and Leopard are different species of the felis branch. First check the definition of what is a specie, that's seems also to be something you are not understanding

 

[Mordoror]

I find it funny that you say "Mutations are indeed not evolution", but then you say "it (antibiotic resistance) has to appear through mutations", then you conclude "This is the very definition of evolution". See the contradictions in your statements?

With reference to an article/critique on an antibiotic resistance experiment conducted (or promoted) by darwinist biologists themselves > https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/the_low_bar_of/, this is not actually evolution (in fact devolution) since "antibiotic resistance is nearly always the result of a functional loss on the part of the mutant bacteria. Bacteria lose the ability to take up or metabolize the antibiotic, which renders then resistant to the toxicity of the antibiotic. Thus, the evolutionary change demonstrated in the experiment is the loss, not the gain, of function. Of course, no one doubts that mutations change bacterial populations by impairing function."

There is nothing contraditory in the statement. Try to understand what is meant, not what you want to read.
A mutation is a modification in a DNA area
Evolution of species, well i gave the Darwin viewn above. It's a difference in morphology (phenotype) large enough to distinguish two population from the same animal branch. This is the limited Darwin definition. It was shown that these morpholgy differences appear through mutations when DNA was discovered. Now do you see the path of reasoning ?
Off course, limiting morphology and mutations is not accurate right now (while it was in the 60s) because you have new set of knowledge refining the thing (like epigenetic, silent DNA, transposing elements) that can influence gene expressions and thus the phenotype of individuals

A more accurate definition is to define a specie with a combination of morphology and DNA datas. Some species are morphologicaly close but with a important DNA differences. Others the way around.
Here you have a lenghty but interesting chat about the pro and cons of morpholgy vs DNA in specie definition

Does DNA really help a taxonomy? Is morphology insufficient to...

I think that morphology provides all the necessary data to define a species. DNA data is useless unless you don't know the exact species name.

www.researchgate.net

As for the antibiotic resistance, this is again creationist nitpicking, twisting of words, and ultimately pile of horsecrap
It 's not a lose of function to be able to detoxify or evacuate a toxic agent (at least most of the time, in some specific cases, it could be, if you want to discuss the various ways, you are my guest, this is exactly my field of expertise). You can choose your side, becoming resistant can indeed be seen as losing your susceptibility if you want to be nitpicking. But it is a moot way to reading the things. Tomorrow if you become able to drink liters of ethanol without being intoxicated because you got a new set of enzymes in your liver, you won't call it "the lose of ability to getting intoxicated by alcohol easily". That's exactly the same thing for ATB resistance. It's is most of the time a gain of function combined with a gain of new elements (new set of enzymes, new set of cellular pumps)

 

[Junglejim]

Noah's Flood is now a historical fact? D. John Baumgardner works for Alamos because of his computer models of plate tectonics, he even has peer evaluated papers on it. However, non of his "creationist theories" have made it into a scientific peer evaluated platform. he is good at his job in modelling plate movements, but doesnt mean he isnt a nut job.

"I would say my primary goal in my scientific career is a defense of God's Word, plain and simple." Dr. John Baumgardner

There are websites that shows debates with himwith other scientists that question the sanity of his ideas.... whirlpool sucking all the dinosaurs to save from the great flood.

 

[riderboy]

If God is a politicized, ritualistic God of an organized religion I can see why many people have a hard time relating to him/her/it. If God is a spiritual, loving and tolerant God whose greatest gift to mankind is our freedom and free will then it becomes a bit more relatable. It also helps to understand that the evil in this world is directly related to the misuse of that gift. It's been my observation that deeply spiritual people, which may or may not include deeply religious people, are happier, more grateful and better able to live life on life's terms. And that they recognize that while we might have the illusion that we are in control of our lives, we most definitely are not. It's also hard to understand anyone who expresses such anger at a God they don't even believe in.....

 

[riderboy]

The other point I would make, if I may, is that it's impossible to intellectualize or rationalize what should be a relationship with whatever form of God one believes. How many here have rigorously done the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatious? Thought so. In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience William James describes the 'educational' variety as being one of the most common versus the sudden and dramatic 'white light' variety. God is not going to materialize in front of us and do cheap magic tricks, it takes some modicum of effort, which most people will never do simply because they already have their God- themselves.

 

[Buster23]

1-
Now, now, you are sounding disgeneous
You were the one bringing transition of inorganic matter to organic life in your previous post. That's adressed nowhere in Darwin work. What you were talking was origin of life not evolution of species. It only shows that you don't understand what you are talking about and like all creationnists, like to mix things to try to prove your point

Evolution of species as per Darwin (who never talked about how life appeared on Earth and who created it on the contrary to what crreationnists think) is that : In a given population appears all the time variations of physical features (what we call today : phenotype). If this physical features give an advantage in a situation/environment that lasts, it allows a better survivability of the individuals bearing it so a better chance to reproduce and pass down those advantages to the offspring. This physical feature then spread in the population, giving it ultimately divergent enough of the original population to obtain a new specie.
The Darwin theory is correct while incomplete because DNA, genetics, mutations and epigenetic were not discovered during his era. It is still however accurate even if it needed to be refined with the molecular biology discoveries.

3- I am not specialist in C14 dating. However
i) if C14 was found in diamonds, it would be atremendous discovery that could be published in a major science article. Which in returns mean accuracy of the work would have been verified. Which is not the case here. I can also tomorrow write an article saying that i have found little grey DNA in a slug and publish it in "Cosmology and Alien Life" or any trash pseudoscience journal. That doesn't make it true. So, yes, to begin with, the discovery itself is questionable
ii) even if it is true they detected C14 in diamonds, the only fact that it is below the treshold admitted as last accurate limit of datation with this isotope (50 000 years but more modern and accurate mass spectrometry systems give a limit of 41 000 to 43 5000 years) should raise en eyebrow in any science man eye. Or in other mean, it screams contamination or calibration issue.

A more detailed lenghty answer by some specialists here : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

4-Find me people with all the physical and genetic features of the neanderthal. You'd find none
Some people may have one physical feature that reminds neanderthal (like thick eyebrow bone), that doesn't mean they are of the neanderthalensis specie. Jaguar and Leopard have spots they are not of the same specie
We have enough Neanderthalensis DNA material to classify it as a different specie of Homo. Much like Jaguar and Leopard are different species of the felis branch. First check the definition of what is a specie, that's seems also to be something you are not understanding

1- Ah the usual evolutionists' desperate excuse, but then

"Those trained in the sciences of life, such as molecular biology, know that the origin of life is a lost cause, so some want to put it aside as ‘not part of evolution’ because it is a gaping hole in the naturalists’ argument. However, almost every major university includes the origin of life as part of evolution in introductory biology courses. It is often called ‘chemical evolution’. High-profile evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins agree; see the introduction to Origin of life. This ‘dodge’ is pure obfuscation because the materialist must still explain the origin of life to present a coherent view of reality, regardless of whether they can play word games with the matter."

Is evolution true?

21 arguments for biological evolution are examined.

creation.com

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

Is it true that there are “no weaknesses” in evolutionary theory? All one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to…

www.discovery.org

By the way, creation scientists do not dispute speciation, except that they also dont equate speciation as evolution nor natural selection as evolution.

3 - Ah of course the contamination/calibration excuse, this was also answered by the RATE team https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/

4 - The fact that there still neanderthal genes within the DNA of people today which means they interbred with the ancestors of modern human (homo sapiens) and that study on the genetics of homo neanderthalensis is not that extensive, it is still premature to conclude that they are distinct species from modern human.

"While evolutionists (including theistic evolutionists) and ‘progressive creationists’ will probably be trumpeting this new paper as evidence that Neandertals and modern humans are two distinct species, I believe their conclusions are premature. As I have briefly outlined above, there is a lot we do not know about the science of modern genetics. And there are factors like coalescence and genetic drift in small isolated populations that can potentially explain the findings. In any case, modern chimps can differ more from each other in their mtDNA than modern humans differ from this Neandertal specimen, so beware of anyone who claims Neandertals are a separate species based on genetic differences."

Taking a crack at the Neandertal mitochondrial genome

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

 

[BCNTM]

@Buster23

Did 'God' have a second go??

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/10/africa/white-throated-rail-extinction-scli-intl-scn/index.html

 

[Buster23]

@Buster23

Did 'God' have a second go??

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/10/africa/white-throated-rail-extinction-scli-intl-scn/index.html

I am not sure if you are arguing for the evolutionists or for the creationist, because this news surely supports creationism. This is speciation and not evolution. You can read more about speciation here https://creation.com/speciation-questions-and-answers

Much like the coelacanth fish which supposed be to extinct "millions" of years ago and supposedly had evolved to amphibian creatures, but then living specimen of coelacanth fish was caught by a fishermen in africa (1938) and in indonesia (1998).

 

[bfc1001]

@Buster23

Did 'God' have a second go??

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/10/africa/white-throated-rail-extinction-scli-intl-scn/index.html

I would say that story proves that the composition of an animal is purely down to it's environment as opposed to third party intervention .

 

[riderboy]

For all the naysayers....

 

[Mordoror]

1- Ah the usual evolutionists' desperate excuse, but then

"Those trained in the sciences of life, such as molecular biology, know that the origin of life is a lost cause, so some want to put it aside as ‘not part of evolution’ because it is a gaping hole in the naturalists’ argument. However, almost every major university includes the origin of life as part of evolution in introductory biology courses. It is often called ‘chemical evolution’. High-profile evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins agree; see the introduction to Origin of life. This ‘dodge’ is pure obfuscation because the materialist must still explain the origin of life to present a coherent view of reality, regardless of whether they can play word games with the matter."

Is evolution true?

21 arguments for biological evolution are examined.

creation.com

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

Is it true that there are “no weaknesses” in evolutionary theory? All one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to…

www.discovery.org

By the way, creation scientists do not dispute speciation, except that they also dont equate speciation as evolution nor natural selection as evolution.

3 - Ah of course the contamination/calibration excuse, this was also answered by the RATE team https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/

4 - The fact that there still neanderthal genes within the DNA of people today which means they interbred with the ancestors of modern human (homo sapiens) and that study on the genetics of homo neanderthalensis is not that extensive, it is still premature to conclude that they are distinct species from modern human.

"While evolutionists (including theistic evolutionists) and ‘progressive creationists’ will probably be trumpeting this new paper as evidence that Neandertals and modern humans are two distinct species, I believe their conclusions are premature. As I have briefly outlined above, there is a lot we do not know about the science of modern genetics. And there are factors like coalescence and genetic drift in small isolated populations that can potentially explain the findings. In any case, modern chimps can differ more from each other in their mtDNA than modern humans differ from this Neandertal specimen, so beware of anyone who claims Neandertals are a separate species based on genetic differences."

Taking a crack at the Neandertal mitochondrial genome

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

Well, my job here is done. You are only answering with straws, redherring and creationist fakescience S**t. It's ok. Everybody has the right to believe in aliens, unicorns or fairies. Everybody has the right to believe that a virgin gave birth to the son of an extraquantic entity, that this son was able to make walk again a several day dead man, that he has the power to turn water into wine, to walk on water and come back from death. Everybody has the right to believe that something written by men and compiled in texts dating from era when men still believed that earth was flat and the center of the solar system is accurate.
Texts compiled and selected by the will of a few men, be it the Talmud, the Bible or the Quran. You have the right to believe but stop wrapping your belief in pseudoscience.

Btw which of these books is correct if they were all writen by God ?
Is it the Talmud?
The Bible?
The Quran?
The Mormon bible?
The Sikh, Jain, yezidi holy books?
The Veda?
The Shinto?

Believe on what you want but stop discuting science. You are with the wronh audience and if it is to push your agenda , youd be better among your creationist fellows

 

[Yevgeny]

Everybody has a right to believe that infinite economic growth is possible on the planet with finite resources.

 

[AAR Galileo]

I am scientist and a devote Pastafarian, also priest of the church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (I can say my God balls are bigger and tastier than the others gods)

Every day I say a prayer (here your book of prayer http://www.loose-canon.info/page53.htm ):

Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles.
Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan.
Give us this day, our garlic bread, …and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns.
And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever.
R’amen.

If you want to become Pastafarian you just need to like pasta.

How to Become a Pastafarian: 13 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

Pastafarianism is the world's fastest growing carbohydrate-based religion. Pastafarians worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), an omnipotent deity that the church does not necessarily believe to actually exist. Outsiders call the...

m.wikihow.com