The data is clear that evolution is falsified and has been for a long long time.

[Rolf]

Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
interesting debates with some of you."

A cheater.

[Boikat]

I think the actual term is "poser".

Boikat

[Rolf]

"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8c27ff03-1f4a-4450...@r7g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...

I think you are right. A word common to many languages but I don't think
I've ever used it in my life.
Maybe I can survive without it ;-)

> Boikat
>

[Will in New Haven]

A cheat. There is no need for a word "cheater," although it
regrettably exists.

--
Will in New Haven

[Burkhard]

On 4 Aug, 02:04, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
wrote:

Aren't they some sort of large cat form Africa, genus Acinonyx?

[J. J. Lodder]

A poseur is much more dignified.
There are even tables to accomodate them,

Jan

[Nashton]

There you have it.

A bunch of gossiping cheerleaders judging another individual and calling
him names. Just like in high school.

What a bunch of ultimate *LOSERS*.

[Boikat]

Nice example of irony.

Boikat

[Nivalian]

A cheater? Here I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.

Also, some accused me of cherry-picking. Choose any gene and you will have a different phylogenetic tree.

Lets compare the 9 primates, which are...

Gibbon
(Nomascus leucogenys)

Chimpanzee
(Pan troglodytes)

Macaque
(Macaca mulatta)

Orangutan
(Pongo abelii)

Gorilla
(Gorilla gorilla)

Marmoset
(Callithrix jacchus)

Mouse Lemur
(Microcebus murinus)

Bushbaby
(Otolemur Garnettii)

Tarsier
(Tarsius syrichta)


Here's a look at the CD163 gene:
http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=none;db=core;g=ENSG00000177575;r=12:7623409-7656489

Scroll down and find human (in red font). Look at the tree.
Notice how the Mouse lemur, and Bushbaby are on a separate branch.

Here's a look at the FOXP1 gene:
http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=13152251%2C13152675%2C13152909%2C13152920%2C13152893;db=core;g=ENSG00000114861;r=3:71003844-71633140

Notice that we are closely related to the Mouse Lemur. Compare this tree with the CD163. They look nothing alike.

A look at the FOXP2 gene:
http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=13152512%2C13152257%2C13152672%2C13152920%2C13152540%2C13152663%2C13152657%2C13152535%2C13152435%2C13152266;db=core;g=ENSG00000128573;r=7:113726382-114333827

This depicts chimpanzees closer to humans than gorillas. Please note that there are only 6 primates on the branch. The Bushbaby is in with the cow, pig, and dolphin. The Tarsier more closely related to the squirrel (non-primate). The Mouse Lemure is more closely related to the kangaroo rat (also non-primate).

In the search, type in any gene. Try the MAP3K3, DCAF7, SHOX...

You will get a different tree. This simply falsifies the theory of evolution and common descent.

You support the theory because of philosophical reasons; not scientific reasons.

[Frank J]

On 4 Aug, 08:19, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:22:28 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
> > Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
>
> > interesting debates with some of you."
>
> > A cheater.
>
> A cheater? �Here I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.
>
> Also, some accused me of cherry-picking. �Choose any gene and you will have a different phylogenetic tree.
>

That misconception has been answered many times. Rather than reinvent
that wheel I'll ask another question, related to one I asked you
before (I stopped checking for an answer after 2-3 days of silence).
Michael Behe, who is one of the most cited anti-evolution activists of
the past 20 years, is in 100% agreement with mainstream science, that
those species share common ancestors. So have you challenged him
directly? If not, why not?

In addition, Behe, and many evolution-deniers who disagree with him on
the common ancestor issue, do agree that mainstream science is correct
that those species arose over the course of millions of years, not
during a "busy week" a few 1000 years ago. IIRC, you briefly
mentioned that you debated those "kinds" of evolution denier, but I
have yet to see "evidences."

You claim that your objection to evolution is not theological, so
there's no reason to just debate "Darwinists." And when you mentioned
that, someone asked if your conclusion of a 6000 year old earth
(universe?) is also scientific, and not theological. We're still
awaiting your answer to that. But there too, you need to support it on
its own merits, not your perceived "weaknesses" in anything else. But
even if you have to do the latter for comparison, there's no reason to
single out "Darwinism," when you have several other very popular
alternatives to pick apart.

> Lets compare the 9 primates, which are...
>
> Gibbon
> (Nomascus leucogenys)
>
> Chimpanzee
> (Pan troglodytes)
>
> Macaque
> (Macaca mulatta)
>
> Orangutan
> (Pongo abelii)
>
> Gorilla
> (Gorilla gorilla)
>
> Marmoset
> (Callithrix jacchus)
>
> Mouse Lemur
> (Microcebus murinus)
>
> Bushbaby
> (Otolemur Garnettii)
>
> Tarsier
> (Tarsius syrichta)
>

> Here's a look at the CD163 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=none;d...

>
> Scroll down and find human (in red font). �Look at the tree.
> Notice how the Mouse lemur, and Bushbaby are on a separate branch.
>

> Here's a look at the FOXP1 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131522...

>
> Notice that we are closely related to the Mouse Lemur. �Compare this tree with the CD163. �They look nothing alike.
>

> A look at the FOXP2 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131525...

[Nivalian]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:51:58 AM UTC-4, Frank J wrote:
> On 4 Aug, 08:19, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:22:28 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>
> > > Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
>
> >
>
> > > interesting debates with some of you."
>
> >
>
> > > A cheater.
>
> >
>
> > A cheater? �Here I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.
>
> >
>
> > Also, some accused me of cherry-picking. �Choose any gene and you will have a different phylogenetic tree.
>
> >
>
>
>
> That misconception has been answered many times. Rather than reinvent
>
> that wheel I'll ask another question, related to one I asked you
>
> before (I stopped checking for an answer after 2-3 days of silence).
>
> Michael Behe, who is one of the most cited anti-evolution activists of
>
> the past 20 years, is in 100% agreement with mainstream science, that
>
> those species share common ancestors. So have you challenged him
>
> directly? If not, why not?
>

If Behe believes we share a common ancestor, then the data is contrary to what he believes. And science has nothing to do with consesus.

>
>
> In addition, Behe, and many evolution-deniers who disagree with him on
>
> the common ancestor issue, do agree that mainstream science is correct
>
> that those species arose over the course of millions of years, not
>
> during a "busy week" a few 1000 years ago. IIRC, you briefly
>
> mentioned that you debated those "kinds" of evolution denier, but I
>
> have yet to see "evidences."
>
>

But you don't want evidence contrary to evolution and common ancestor. You proved to me that you don't care about evidence. You want evidence that is in favor of evolution. Anything else to you is considered to be not scientific. Look at the trees again and show me how humans are closely related to a chimp. Just about every gene show a different tree; falsifying evolution.

>
> You claim that your objection to evolution is not theological, so
>
> there's no reason to just debate "Darwinists."

Anyone who supports common ancestory, then show me the evidence that supports it.

And when you mentioned
>
> that, someone asked if your conclusion of a 6000 year old earth
>
> (universe?) is also scientific, and not theological. We're still
>
> awaiting your answer to that. But there too, you need to support it on
>
> its own merits, not your perceived "weaknesses" in anything else. But
>
> even if you have to do the latter for comparison, there's no reason to
>
> single out "Darwinism," when you have several other very popular
>
> alternatives to pick apart.
>
>

Once you realise that Darwinian evolution is philosophical, then we'll discuss.

[Christopher Svanefalk]

If all it takes is to do a few searches on a website to utterly refute
evolution, then why has this not been recognized already?

[Ron O]

> Here's a look at the CD163 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=none;d...

>
> Scroll down and find human (in red font). �Look at the tree.
> Notice how the Mouse lemur, and Bushbaby are on a separate branch.
>

> Here's a look at the FOXP1 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131522...

>
> Notice that we are closely related to the Mouse Lemur. �Compare this tree with the CD163. �They look nothing alike.
>

> A look at the FOXP2 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131525...

>
> This depicts chimpanzees closer to humans than gorillas. �Please note that there are only 6 primates on the branch. �The Bushbaby is in with the cow, pig, and dolphin. �The Tarsier more closely related to the squirrel (non-primate). �The Mouse Lemure is more closely related to the kangaroo rat (also non-primate).
>
> In the search, type in any gene. �Try the MAP3K3, DCAF7, SHOX...
>
> You will get a different tree. �This simply falsifies the theory of evolution and common descent.
>
> You support the theory because of philosophical reasons; not scientific reasons.

What you need to do is not cherry pick if you want to deny cherry
picking. You are literally putting up a handful of genes and claiming
what? Does it negate all the other gene data? Can you determine that
none of the known factors that mess up gene phylogenies is not
operating with your examples? Have you ruled out things like gene
conversion? Just using inappropriately highly conserved genes to
analyze recent events is stupid. You were trying to make a big deal
about a gene that hasn't changed much in 40 million years and tried to
make a big deal about a 95% divergence between gorilla and human and
my guess is that you didn't even try to determine if the gorilla gene
was the same gene that they were comparing in the other analyses. Was
gene conversion involved? Did one exon get swapped out? etc. Are
all the same copies of multigene families in the right analysis?

If you don't want to be accused of cherry picking go in alphabetical
order and look at the gene trees. Rule out the multigene families
unless you can rule out gene conversion between family members and
don't use highly conserved genes to analyze an event that happened
only around 5 million years ago. About the best material to use for
this type of recent divergence is the mitochondrial sequence. The
third position changes have not been saturated and you have a bunch of
genes and variable conservation of protein sequence. You have 13
protein genes that have all been inherited as a block among mammals
because paternal transmission of mitochondrial genomes is rare if it
happens at all. You don't have to worry about recombination and gene
conversion events, but you do have to worry about horizontal transfer
(we observe it between closely related species.

Really, why deny the vast majority of the data and concentrate on a
few genes out of thousands? With divergence times of less than 20
million years you can use intergenic sequence and intron sequence to
do the analysis as long as all the species in your analysis share the
same sequence.

Demonstrate that what you are doing will lead you anywhere. Just take
your examples and demonstrate that there are no quirks in the
comparisons that you have to consider. Just look at your first
example. Why use a gene with only 2% divergence between humans and
monkeys. That is like trying to use your car odometer to measure a
few yards. There are multiple copies of the gene that you put up and
how do you know that the gorilla didn't delete the gene that you need
for the comparison or that gene conversion didn't alter the gene?
Gene conversion is when one copy of a gene in the genome goes through
a recombination event with another similar copy of the gene so the
converted gene sequence is no longer useful for phylogenetic analysis
because part of the gene that recombined isn't part of the same gene
phylogeny, but belongs to the phylogeny of the gene sequence used to
convert the sequence.

So if you can't rule out things like that, move on to some other
gene. Really go in alphabetical order and see if your analysis holds
up. For recent divergence times like you are dealing with you should
go with DNA sequence comparisons and not protein comparisons.

You could just start by explaining why the mitochondrial sequence
isn't useful for this type of analysis and can be ignored by you, when
it is likely much better material to use for the analysis that you are
trying to do. Why use the worst data instead of the data where you
don't have to worry about such details messing up your analysis?

Ron Okimoto

[Frank J]

On 4 Aug, 09:55, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:51:58 AM UTC-4, Frank J wrote:
> > On 4 Aug, 08:19, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:22:28 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>
> > > > Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
>
> > > > interesting debates with some of you."
>
> > > > A cheater.
>
> > > A cheater? Here I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.
>
> > > Also, some accused me of cherry-picking. Choose any gene and you will have a different phylogenetic tree.
>
> > That misconception has been answered many times. Rather than reinvent
>
> > that wheel I'll ask another question, related to one I asked you
>
> > before (I stopped checking for an answer after 2-3 days of silence).
>
> > Michael Behe, who is one of the most cited anti-evolution activists of
>
> > the past 20 years, is in 100% agreement with mainstream science, that
>
> > those species share common ancestors. So have you challenged him
>
> > directly? If not, why not?
>
> If Behe believes we share a common ancestor, then the data is contrary to what he believes. �And science has nothing to do with consesus.

You still have not answered the questions.

>
>
>
> > In addition, Behe, and many evolution-deniers who disagree with him on
>
> > the common ancestor issue, do agree that mainstream science is correct
>
> > that those species arose over the course of millions of years, not
>
> > during a "busy week" a few 1000 years ago. �IIRC, you briefly
>
> > mentioned that you debated those "kinds" of evolution denier, but I
>
> > have yet to see "evidences."
>
> But you don't want evidence contrary to evolution and common ancestor.

Sure I do. And "evidence contrary to evolution" and "evidence contrary
to common ancestors" are not the same thing. I'll take either, and
many "Darwinists" have given plenty of examples as to what would
qualify as both. But even solid evidence against both would, in the
absence of another potential explanation, only take us back to "I
don't know" (aka "square one"). But you have already stated not only
what you think is a candidate alternate explanation, but one that you
claim fits the evidence better than *both* evolution and common
ancestry in general (including non-Darwinian "saltation," "front
loading (Behe's favorite) etc.)

So stop the bait-and-switch and give us *positive* evidence of your
"theory."


> �You proved to me that you don't care about evidence.

Morton's Demon altert noted. If I "proved" it to *readers* too they'll
tell me, not *you*

> �You want evidence that is in favor of evolution. �Anything else to you is considered to be not scientific. �Look at the trees again and show me how humans are closely related to a chimp. �Just about every gene show a different tree; falsifying evolution.

Google "evolution is a big plot" to see the game you're playing.

>
>
>
> > You claim that your objection to evolution is not theological, so
>
> > there's no reason to just debate "Darwinists."
>
> Anyone who supports common ancestory, then show me the evidence that supports it.
>
> And when you mentioned
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that, someone asked if your conclusion of a 6000 year old earth
>
> > (universe?) is also scientific, and not theological. We're still
>
> > awaiting your answer to that. But there too, you need to support it on
>
> > its own merits, not your perceived "weaknesses" in anything else. But
>
> > even if you have to do the latter for comparison, there's no reason to
>
> > single out "Darwinism," when you have several other very popular
>
> > alternatives to pick apart.
>

> Once you realise that Darwinian evolution is philosophical, then we'll discuss.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Nivalian]

Because evolution is a worldview.

[Christopher Svanefalk]

In all honesty, I think you have to go a bit deeper than that. Have you
explored any alternative explanations to your perceived inconsistency?
Why is it that evangelical scientists such as Behe (who, I would guess,
have more knowledge in the field than either you or me, by several
orders of magnitude) do not see this as a refutation?

What are your scientific credentials by the way? Just asking for
context...Im a computer science student myself.

[Steven L.]

I admit I don't understand your explanation.

Why should there be any genes that depict humans as to closer to
non-apes than to apes?

How did that come about with the FOXP1 gene, which has humans as more
closely related to the Mouse Lemur?



--
Steven L.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 4, 7:55�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Anyone who supports common ancestory, then show me the evidence that supports it.

So, tell me: what would _you_ "accept" as "evidence" that "supports"
common ancestry?
Your proven track record is to ignore evidence, claim that it's all
just a plot, ot just a philosophy, then go post in another thread...
...often after a bit of gratuitous abuse.

What _would_ you accept as "evidence"?
Or, are you one of those whose world-view insists that there _is_ no
"evidence, letting you dismiss, a priori, the multitudes of convergent
and congruent lines of evidence?

Let me know...

<snip>

> Once you realise that Darwinian evolution is philosophical, then we'll discuss.

Oh. I see. Your mind is made up, _without_ looking at any
evidence...certainty is a _lot_ easier then thinking, innit?

[Nivalian]

The links are broken. Try to follow these directions to get where I am.

Click on one of the links I provided you above. The page says "Gene not found".

In the upper right hand corner, you'll see a search. Type in FOXP1 and enter.

To the right of the page you will see a category By Species.

Click human under By Species. Then click Gene.

Click Variation table under FOXP1.

There is a display list on the left. Click Gene Tree (image).

Scroll down and you'll the diagram.

Hope this helps!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:50:40 -0300, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:

>What a bunch of ultimate *LOSERS*.

Don't. Door. Hit. Ass.

Bye, and HACCL.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Ron O]

I can't reproduce those results doing my own analysis. The FoxP1
coding sequence is amazingly similar between the primates. I just
took NM_032682. This is the human reference sequence for FoxP1
transcript variant 1. The DNA sequence is 99% similar to the chimp,
gibbon and orang sequence. Gorrila doesn't show up in my Blast
search. This is an incredibly highly conserved gene. Horses and
humans separated by around 80 million years are 96% similar in their
DNA sequence of the coding region. If you look at the expanded
phylogenetic tree that Nivalian put up the human transcript map
associated with mouse lemur is missing a major exon and some other
exons seem to be altered in size compared to primates. I can't find
this transcript, the identification number given isn't on the list of
human transcript variants for FoxP1. I don't know what human FoxP1
sequence was used for Navalian's comparison, but the reference human
FoxP1 sequence doesn't come up with the same similarity. The
reference sequence is the sequence picked to represent the gene. This
doesn't mean that it can't be a wrong selection or that there isn't
another sequence that could be better, but it has passed some hurdles
in its identification. As an example the reference chicken
mitochondrial sequence has known sequencing errors and may be a
chimeric molecule (composed of the sequence of two mitochondrial
sequences) so it isn't the one that I would pick to do phylogenetic
analysis, but a lot of people that don't know any better keep putting
it in instead of picking one that would be more accurate.

Ron Okimoto

[Nivalian]

I didn't say humans were not similar to primates.

I just
>
> took NM_032682. This is the human reference sequence for FoxP1
>
> transcript variant 1.

Do you see the mouse lemur in the tree?

[Ernest Major]

In message <Tf6dnQm5f47z1IDN...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes

I don't know enough about how Ensembl presents its data to be sure what
the numbers mean, but looking at the list of orthologs I get the
impression that FOXP1 is highly conserved.

At a highly conserved locus the first two base pairs of a codon are
highly constrained, and the third much less so. Given enough time the
third position can end up pretty much randomised, by which time it's of
little use for phylogenetic estimates. If there is insufficient signal
(too few phylogenetically informative base pairs) from the other two
bases, you're going to have problems.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message
<5287dac1-1c41-47f0...@c25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Ron
O <roki...@cox.net> writes

I read that FOXP1 has alternative splicing producing different isoforms
of the protein. Could that have been adding to the confusion.
>
>Ron Okimoto
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Harry K]

More like "creationist liar".

Harry K

[Harry K]

Names that are fully justified based on his posts...just like you have
earned every insult ever launched at you.

Harry K

[Ron O]

I did a BLAST search and Mouse lemurs did not make it into the top 100
matches to the human reference sequence. Other mammals like horses
did. I cannot reproduce the results of the tree that you put up. I
did not find a mouse lemur sequence that is closer to human than
chimp, orang and gibbon. If you can find it I will do an analysis.
You can also explain why the human transcript map is missing an exon
for the sequence that was compared to the mouse lemur. I did not note
a missing exon in the primate comparisons with human in the BLAST
search. I do not know what human sequence was used in your
comparison. It obviously is not the reference human sequence.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Aug 4, 1:26�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <5287dac1-1c41-47f0-bc02-294cd8a3a...@c25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes

There are a boat load of transcript variants for FoxP1 many with very
short coding regions of only a couple hundred aa the reference
sequence has over 1000 aa in the protein sequence. I didn't count the
number of transcript variants but it looked like around 20.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/4/12 5:19 AM, Nivalian wrote:
> [snip a lot because I tire of manually wrapping long lines]

> Lets compare the 9 primates, which are...
>
> Gibbon
> (Nomascus leucogenys)
>
> Chimpanzee
> (Pan troglodytes)
>
> Macaque
> (Macaca mulatta)
>
> Orangutan
> (Pongo abelii)
>
> Gorilla
> (Gorilla gorilla)
>
> Marmoset
> (Callithrix jacchus)
>
> Mouse Lemur
> (Microcebus murinus)
>
> Bushbaby
> (Otolemur Garnettii)
>
> Tarsier
> (Tarsius syrichta)
>
>
> Here's a look at the CD163 gene:

> [see original post for links]

>
> Here's a look at the FOXP1 gene:

> [...]

> A look at the FOXP2 gene:

> [...]

> In the search, type in any gene. Try the MAP3K3, DCAF7, SHOX...
>
> You will get a different tree. This simply falsifies the theory
> of evolution and common descent.

You did not need to invoke the technobabble of gene trees. Consider a
much more obvious trait: long tails. When you look at this trait, you
see that kangaroos, cougars, and salamanders may be grouped together in
one branch, while wombats, bobcats, and frogs are on a completely
separate branch, exactly opposite what standard evolutionary tree shows.
And obviously, evolutionists have known about this for centuries, and
it does not seem to bother them.

When you figure out why tail length is not a falsification of
evolutionary theory, you will have a clue why nobody is much impressed
by your invocation of individual genes, either.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Ernest Major]

In message <jvk6ir$iin$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes

You may need to make your argument more explicit - the two cases are not
obviously equivalent or closely analogous.

Short versus long tails is a single naively defined trait. A tree based
on a single gene still uses multiple traits (all phylogenetically
informative base pairs - that is all base pairs at which more than two
nucleotides occur in more than one species). An individual gene may have
too few traits to give a meaningful phylogeny, but many genes give
pretty good approximations to the consensus phylogeny. Problems occur
when you use a too slowly evolving locus (not enough traits) or a too
quickly evolving locus (sequences randomised), or when there's a family
of loci with frequent duplication and loss (difficulty in identifying
orthologs; gene conversion); other problems arise from variation in the
rate of change between loci and lineages (e.g. long branch artefacts).
--
alias Ernest Major

[Frank J]

On 4 Aug, 11:51, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 10:37:11 AM UTC-4, Christopher wrote:
> > On 08/04/2012 02:19 PM, Nivalian wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:22:28 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>
> > >> Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
>
> > >> interesting debates with some of you."
>
> > >> A cheater.
>

> > > A cheater? �ｿｽHere I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.
>
> > > Also, some accused me of cherry-picking. �ｿｽChoose any gene and you will have a different phylogenetic tree.

>
> > > Lets compare the 9 primates, which are...
>
> > > Gibbon
>
> > > (Nomascus leucogenys)
>
> > > Chimpanzee
>
> > > (Pan troglodytes)
>
> > > Macaque
>
> > > (Macaca mulatta)
>
> > > Orangutan
>
> > > (Pongo abelii)
>
> > > Gorilla
>
> > > (Gorilla gorilla)
>
> > > Marmoset
>
> > > (Callithrix jacchus)
>
> > > Mouse Lemur
>
> > > (Microcebus murinus)
>
> > > Bushbaby
>
> > > (Otolemur Garnettii)
>
> > > Tarsier
>
> > > (Tarsius syrichta)
>
> > > Here's a look at the CD163 gene:
>

> > >http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=none;d...
>
> > > Scroll down and find human (in red font). �ｿｽLook at the tree.

>
> > > Notice how the Mouse lemur, and Bushbaby are on a separate branch.
>
> > > Here's a look at the FOXP1 gene:
>

> > >http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131522...
>
> > > Notice that we are closely related to the Mouse Lemur. �ｿｽCompare this tree with the CD163. �ｿｽThey look nothing alike.

>
> > > A look at the FOXP2 gene:
>

> > >http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131525...
>
> > > This depicts chimpanzees closer to humans than gorillas. �ｿｽPlease note that there are only 6 primates on the branch. �ｿｽThe Bushbaby is in with the cow, pig, and dolphin. �ｿｽThe Tarsier more closely related to the squirrel (non-primate). �ｿｽThe Mouse Lemure is more closely related to the kangaroo rat (also non-primate).
>
> > > In the search, type in any gene. �ｿｽTry the MAP3K3, DCAF7, SHOX...
>
> > > You will get a different tree. �ｿｽThis simply falsifies the theory of evolution and common descent.

>
> > > You support the theory because of philosophical reasons; not scientific reasons.
>
> > If all it takes is to do a few searches on a website to utterly refute
>
> > evolution, then why has this not been recognized already?
>
> Because evolution is a worldview.

Do you consider your "explanation" a "worldview?" How about Behe's
that I asked you about 3x and have yet to get a straight answer?

[Louann Miller]

Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

(240 lines, mostly quotes and blank space -- you really must learn to trim
your posts)

Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?

Louann

[Glenn]

"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DtKdnbfaoLNaH4PN...@giganews.com...

Has he claimed that he has non-theological reasons for believing in a 6000 year
old earth?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:51:24 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid>:

Yes; one of his early posts in a different thread. And as
Louann said, when asked for the reason he became silent on
the subject.

[Richard or Blanche Mathers]

On Aug 5, 7:51�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Louann Miller" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

[Will in New Haven]

On Aug 4, 6:50�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> On 12-08-04 7:32 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

> >> On Aug 3, 12:22 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
> >>> interesting debates with some of you."
>
> >>> A cheater.
>

> >> I think the actual term is "poser".
>
> > A poseur is much more dignified.
> > There are even tables to accomodate them,
>
> > Jan
>
> There you have it.
>
> A bunch of gossiping cheerleaders judging another individual and calling
> him names. Just like in high school.
>
> What a bunch of ultimate *LOSERS*.

They let you start high-school?

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

No one has ever insulted him in this ng, at least not that I have
seen. We have described him.

[Richard or Blanche Mathers]

On Aug 5, 7:51�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Louann Miller" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:DtKdnbfaoLNaH4PN...@giganews.com...> Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (240 lines, mostly quotes and blank space -- you really must learn to trim
> > your po
>

> > Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
> > you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
> > 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>
> Has he claimed that he has non-theological reasons for believing in a 6000 year
> old earth?

Yes, unless his claim is that his religion is atheological.

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:51:24 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>
> >
>
> Has he claimed that he has non-theological reasons for believing in a 6000 year
>
> old earth?

No I didn't. I said the earth is not billions of years old for non-theological reasons.

[Nivalian]

> Yes, unless his claim is that his religion is atheological.

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>
> you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>
> 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>
>

Not yet. Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.

[Ernest Major]

In message <2c2f6b57-5525-42dc...@googlegroups.com>,
Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes

I seem to recall giving you a list of ways of falsifying evolution in
response to an earlier instance of you posting this falsehood. You don't
seem to have responded.
--
alias Ernest Major

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:23:55 -0400, Nivalian wrote
(in article <0f4a07f1-408b-43dc...@googlegroups.com>):

Then what are the reasons?

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>>
>> you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>>
>> 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?

.

>Not yet. Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.

There's nothing philosophical about the fossil record - even if you deny
radiometric dating. Dino fossils are not found with modern mammal
fossils, Jurassic dino's are not found with Cretaceous dino's and
Trilobyte's are not found with crabs and so on.

Nor of course is there anything philosophical about the distance and
time it takes light to travel here from remote galaxies.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yet when asked to address the obvious evidence, all you could say was
"Who knows?"

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1f306d640071f886

apparently not you or anyone you know of.

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce937671-226a-4f15...@googlegroups.com...

> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 10:37:11 AM UTC-4, Christopher wrote:
>> On 08/04/2012 02:19 PM, Nivalian wrote:
>>

>> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:22:28 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>>
>> >> Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> interesting debates with some of you."
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> A cheater.
>>
>> >
>>

>> > A cheater? Here I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual

>> > data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.
>>
>> >
>>

>> > Also, some accused me of cherry-picking. Choose any gene and you will

>> > have a different phylogenetic tree.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Lets compare the 9 primates, which are...
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Gibbon
>>
>> > (Nomascus leucogenys)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Chimpanzee
>>
>> > (Pan troglodytes)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Macaque
>>
>> > (Macaca mulatta)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Orangutan
>>
>> > (Pongo abelii)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Gorilla
>>
>> > (Gorilla gorilla)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Marmoset
>>
>> > (Callithrix jacchus)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Mouse Lemur
>>
>> > (Microcebus murinus)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Bushbaby
>>
>> > (Otolemur Garnettii)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Tarsier
>>
>> > (Tarsius syrichta)
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Here's a look at the CD163 gene:
>>

>> > http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=none;db=core;g=ENSG00000177575;r=12:7623409-7656489
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Scroll down and find human (in red font). Look at the tree.

>>
>> > Notice how the Mouse lemur, and Bushbaby are on a separate branch.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Here's a look at the FOXP1 gene:
>>

>> > http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=13152251%2C13152675%2C13152909%2C13152920%2C13152893;db=core;g=ENSG00000114861;r=3:71003844-71633140
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Notice that we are closely related to the Mouse Lemur. Compare this
>> > tree with the CD163. They look nothing alike.

>>
>> >
>>
>> > A look at the FOXP2 gene:
>>

>> > http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=13152512%2C13152257%2C13152672%2C13152920%2C13152540%2C13152663%2C13152657%2C13152535%2C13152435%2C13152266;db=core;g=ENSG00000128573;r=7:113726382-114333827
>>
>> >
>>
>> > This depicts chimpanzees closer to humans than gorillas. Please note
>> > that there are only 6 primates on the branch. The Bushbaby is in with
>> > the cow, pig, and dolphin. The Tarsier more closely related to the
>> > squirrel (non-primate). The Mouse Lemure is more closely related to

>> > the kangaroo rat (also non-primate).
>>
>> >
>>

>> > In the search, type in any gene. Try the MAP3K3, DCAF7, SHOX...
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You will get a different tree. This simply falsifies the theory of

>> > evolution and common descent.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You support the theory because of philosophical reasons; not scientific
>> > reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>> If all it takes is to do a few searches on a website to utterly refute
>>
>> evolution, then why has this not been recognized already?
>
> Because evolution is a worldview.
>
>

All we want to know is: Where is the evidence for creation of the universe
6000 years ago? Why 6000?

All your argumens so far are of no interest, all we want to know how you
arrive at the figure "6000".

Also, Hoe does that figure fit with the evidence from Greenland ice cores?
The evidence for repeated glaciations around the globe? Better yet, show why
geology, arceheology or dendrochronology is nonsenes like evolution,
according to your, ahem, "worldwiew."

You see, you have a strange worldwiev, and that's your problem, a problem
you now are pestering us with.

Take care of the real facts first before wandering off in the neverland of
your worldwiev.

[chris thompson]

On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.

Chris

[Rolf]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message
news:jvk6ir$iin$1...@dont-email.me...

From our experience with Ray Martinez we know that no amount of facts or
debate may rock his worldwiev.
He builds his life on that worldwiev and it would be very painful to give
that up. Imagine the wonderful scenario:
His God create the universe, the solar system, Earth and all life in just
six days, six thousand years ago

What could be more convenient? Just relax and wait for the herafter with a
harp in heaven. People kill themselves with a bomb because they can't wait.
Nivalian is insecure so he's come her to convince himself. Otherwise he
wouldn't bother, can't be too bad having to wait at most a few decades for
eternal bliss.

[Nivalian]

If you could please, direct me where you posted that or just paste it here. Thanks

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:24:34 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:

> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
>
> would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.
>

First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct. Prove to me that they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory. Prove to me that when a date does NOT match their theory, they blame it on contamination.

I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.

And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."


Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.

[Tom McDonald]

OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
philosophical.

Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
without reference to theology.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:24:34 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>
>> > Not yet.  Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
>>
>> would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.
>>
>
>
>First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct. Prove to me that they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory. Prove to me that when a date does NOT match their theory, they blame it on contamination.

So you start out defending your allegations by asserting that scientists
are all liars. What a very, very smug approach.

>I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>
>Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.

Why do you imply this is a concern?

>And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."

How is this a problem?

>Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.

Where do you find any evidence that anything is a billion years off?

[Ernest Major]

In message <c8f0e40b-eba5-4303...@googlegroups.com>,

Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes
>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 2:34:55 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <2c2f6b57-5525-42dc...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Not yet. Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is
>>
>> >philosophical.
>>
>> >
>>
>> I seem to recall giving you a list of ways of falsifying evolution in
>>
>> response to an earlier instance of you posting this falsehood. You don't
>>
>> seem to have responded.
>>
>> --
>>
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>
>If you could please, direct me where you posted that or just paste it
>here. Thanks
>

To quote myself

"The theory of evolution would be falsified if the fossil record did not
show a faunal succession, i.e. if rocks of all ages had the same fauna.
Less drastic differences from the fossil record we observe would also be
sufficient to falsify evolution. For example, analysis of morphology and
DNA indicates that birds are derived from within reptiles, and therefore
reptiles should appear earlier in the fossil record than birds. This is
subject to some obscuration by the vagaries of fossilisation, but a
fossil record in the relative order of appearance of groups was not
correlated with the relative age of groups inferred from analysis of
morphology and DNA would falsify evolution.

The theory of evolution would be falsified if different groups of
organisms had different genetic codes (mapping from codon to amino acid
residue) uncorrelated with the relationships inferred from analysis of
morphology.

The theory of evolution would be falsified if DNA sequence data did not
form a nested hierarchy, or if the nested hierarchy so formed was
uncorrelated with that inferred from analysis of morphology.

The theory of evolution would be falsified if the gene content of
genomes did not form a nested hierarchy, or if the nested hierarchy so
formed was uncorrelated with that inferred from analysis of morphology
and DNA sequence data. (Unlike the other tests, which have been passed
by the theory, this test is still in progress; would you like to donate
some money to a genome project or several?) "

--
alias Ernest Major

[pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:37:34 PM UTC-4, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:24:34 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>

> First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct.

They are based on real world physics and not the deranged 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales.

> Prove to me that they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory.

Calibrated TO BE MORE ACCURATE OR REPRODUCIBLE, yes.
To match a theory - NO.

You seem to be under the very common creotard delusion that ALL branches of science kneel before evolution.

They don't.

If geologists showed that the world was just 6000 years old, the ToE would have to take that into account.

> Prove to me that when a date does NOT match their theory, they blame it on contamination.

[sarcasm]
Right ! Why would any sane or rational person EXPLAIN an anomalous result by mentioning KNOWN processes that can throw dating off ?
[/sarcasm]

Contamination is KNOWN to occur - there are many different ways samples can be contaminated, and people that actually do research in this field not only KNOW about them, can CORRECT for them if possible, but were the ones that DISCOVERED those problems in the first place !

You seem to 'think' that everyone is as ignorant of reality as you are.

That researchers merely say 'contamination' to shield their ideas (pretty much an idea YECs and IDiots project onto the reality-based community)

> I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>
> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>
> Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.

They say that because that is what the data shows.

What did you expect them to do - LIE ?

> And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."

BECAUSE IT DOES ! Most available dating methods can only date from when the rock was solid - melt it, AND THE CLOCK IS RESET as isotopes are freed.

This effect has been tested and KNOWN to occur. So saying 'heating the rock resets the clock' is not 'pathological obedience to a worldview or philosophy' as you desperately want it to be.

Thanks to erosion and KNOWN metamorphic processes, the older the rock, the less chance of ever finding a sample of it. So by now, the odds of ever finding a 4.5 billion year old rock on Earth is pretty much on par with an IDio-creotard ever understanding real world biology - slim to none.

> Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.

Wow, you ARE willfully stupid. Par for the course for YECs.

Reality-based folk ACCEPT THE FACT that the radiometric clocks were reset due to KNOWN effects.

WHERE did you get the silly idea that radiometrists are LYING to support evolution ?

And isn't 3.5 billion years still about a million times older than your ilk 'thinks' the universe is ?

[Nivalian]

The Bible is my worldview so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology. Science deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know. Creation and evolution are both philosophical.

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:44:02 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:24:34 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
>
> >>
>
> >> would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct. Prove to me that they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory. Prove to me that when a date does NOT match their theory, they blame it on contamination.
>
>
>
> So you start out defending your allegations by asserting that scientists
>
> are all liars. What a very, very smug approach.
>
>
>
> >I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>
> >http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>
> >
>
> >Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.
>
>
>
> Why do you imply this is a concern?
>
>

According to evolutionists, the earth suppose to be 4.5 billion.

>
> >And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."
>
>
>
> How is this a problem?
>

The multiple dating methods gave 3.5 billion. Evolutionists believe the world is 4.5 billions years old. The dating must be wrong due to contamination because the dates are a billion years off (20%).

>
>
> >Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.
>
>
>
> Where do you find any evidence that anything is a billion years off?

4.5
-3.5
=1

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 16:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>

wrote in talk.origins:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:44:02 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:24:34 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>>
>> >> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>> >> On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
>>
>> >> would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.
>>
>> >First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct. Prove to me that they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory. Prove to me that when a date does NOT match their theory, they blame it on contamination.
>>
>> So you start out defending your allegations by asserting that scientists
>>
>> are all liars. What a very, very smug approach.
>>
>> >I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>>
>> >http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>>
>> >Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.
>>
>> Why do you imply this is a concern?
>
>According to evolutionists, the earth suppose to be 4.5 billion.

Why do you assume that rocks on earth are as old as earth?

>>
>> >And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."
>>
>> How is this a problem?
>>
>The multiple dating methods gave 3.5 billion. Evolutionists believe the world is 4.5 billions years old. The dating must be wrong due to contamination because the dates are a billion years off (20%).

Again, you make an assumption that you cannot back up. There's no reason
to think that the oldest rocks would be as old as the earth.

>> >Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.
>>
>> Where do you find any evidence that anything is a billion years off?
>
>4.5
>-3.5
>=1

I understand your mathematics. I don't understand your assumption that
the oldest rocks must be as old as the earth, particularly when there is
clear evidence that they cannot be.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 16:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>>
>> philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
>>
>> without reference to theology.
>
>
>The Bible is my worldview

Is that your excuse for making false claims? What did God do to you that
you insist on lying about this?

>so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology. Science
>deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know.
>Creation and evolution are both philosophical.

Religion makes claims that have been proven false.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:15:05 -0400, Nivalian wrote
(in article <422cf9e6-0b42-4b21...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:44:02 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:24:34 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>> Not yet. ï¿œNot until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is

>>>>> philosophical.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct. Prove to me that
>>> they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory. Prove to me that when
>>> a date does NOT match their theory, they blame it on contamination.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you start out defending your allegations by asserting that scientists
>>
>> are all liars. What a very, very smug approach.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>>
>>> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently
>>> show 3.5 billion years old.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you imply this is a concern?
>>
>>
>
> According to evolutionists, the earth suppose to be 4.5 billion.
>
>
>>
>>> And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods
>>> are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so
>>> far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of
>>> their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the
>>> radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of
>>> the original rock."
>>
>>
>>
>> How is this a problem?
>>
>
> The multiple dating methods gave 3.5 billion. Evolutionists believe the
> world is 4.5 billions years old. The dating must be wrong due to
> contamination because the dates are a billion years off (20%).

Err... No. You _do_ understand the difference between _the oldest rocks we
can date_ and _the oldest rocks on the planet_, don't you? How do you think
they got the dates in the first place? And, oh, 3.5 billion is just a tad
more than 6,000. You _still_ haven't said where you get the 6,000 year figure
from. Proving someone else wrong does not prove that you are right.
Especially when you haven't, in fact, proved a damn thing.

Are you _sure_ that you're not Nando?

>
>
>>
>>
>>> Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will
>>> believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but
>>> because of philosophical reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where do you find any evidence that anything is a billion years off?
>
> 4.5
> -3.5
> =1
>
>

[Ernest Major]

In message <422cf9e6-0b42-4b21...@googlegroups.com>,
Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:44:02 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:24:34 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not
>> >> >falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct. Prove to

>> >that they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory. Prove to

>> >that when a date does NOT match their theory, they blame it on
>> >contamination.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you start out defending your allegations by asserting that scientists
>>
>> are all liars. What a very, very smug approach.
>>
>>
>>
>> >I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>>
>> >http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all
>> >consistently show 3.5 billion years old.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you imply this is a concern?
>>
>>
>
>According to evolutionists, the earth suppose to be 4.5 billion.
>

If you were to engage your brain you would realise that the age of
oldest terrestrial rocks gives a minimum age for the earth.

The next stage in your inquiry would be to find out why scientists infer
that the earth is 4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years old. Clearly it cannot be
from the ages of rocks, so there must be at least one other line of
evidence.

For example zircon crystals are more robust than rocks, and zircon
crystals eroded from one rock and deposited in a later sediment can be
dated. Some such crystals have been dated at over 4 billion years old -
the oldest is 4.404 billion years old, fide Wikipedia.

For example, the earth and moon are inferred to have formed at the same
time - however the lower mass of the moon means not only did it form
solid rocks earlier, but those rocks are not subject to loss from
metamorphosis and erosion. A lunar rock is dated at 4.5 billion years,
fide Wikipedia.

For a full explanation as to how the earth is dated, Dalrymple's "The
Age of the Earth" is often recommended.

>
>>
>> >And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating
>> >methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on
>> >the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus
>> >have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or
>> >partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger
>> >ages than the true age of the original rock."
>>
>>
>>
>> How is this a problem?
>>
>
>The multiple dating methods gave 3.5 billion. Evolutionists believe
>the world is 4.5 billions years old. The dating must be wrong due to
>contamination because the dates are a billion years off (20%).
>

If you were to engage your brain you would realise that the age of a
rock is not the age of the earth, and there is no need to invoke
contamination to explain the discrepancy.

>
>>
>>
>> >Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They
>> >will believe that some of the history was lost not because of
>> >science, but because of philosophical reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where do you find any evidence that anything is a billion years off?
>
>4.5
>-3.5
>=1
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/5/12 1:31 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:23:55 -0400, Nivalian wrote
> (in article <0f4a07f1-408b-43dc...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:51:24 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>> Has he claimed that he has non-theological reasons for believing in a 6000
>>> year
>>>
>>> old earth?
>>
>> No I didn't. I said the earth is not billions of years old for
>> non-theological reasons.
>
> Then what are the reasons?

He already effectively admitted religious reasons. Religion is the only
source for the 6000-year figure. And creationism, though religion, is
certainly non-theological (or perhaps anti-theological would be more
accurate).

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:28:42 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 16:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>
> >>
>
> >> philosophical.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
>
> >>
>
> >> without reference to theology.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >The Bible is my worldview
>
>
>
> Is that your excuse for making false claims? What did God do to you that
>
> you insist on lying about this?
>

What are the false claims? What fact do I dispute?

>
>
> >so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology. Science
>
> >deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know.
>
> >Creation and evolution are both philosophical.
>
>
>
> Religion makes claims that have been proven false.

Some religions, yes.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:32:18 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>

Name those who have made claims that have not yet been proven false.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

My guess is yes.

On Aug 4, 8:19 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:22:28 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
> > Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
>
> > interesting debates with some of you."
>
> > A cheater.
>
> A cheater?  Here I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.
>
> Also, some accused me of cherry-picking.  Choose any gene and you will have a different phylogenetic tree.
>

> Lets compare the 9 primates, which are...
>
> Gibbon
> (Nomascus leucogenys)
>
> Chimpanzee
> (Pan troglodytes)
>
> Macaque
> (Macaca mulatta)
>
> Orangutan
> (Pongo abelii)
>
> Gorilla
> (Gorilla gorilla)
>
> Marmoset
> (Callithrix jacchus)
>
> Mouse Lemur
> (Microcebus murinus)
>
> Bushbaby
> (Otolemur Garnettii)
>
> Tarsier
> (Tarsius syrichta)
>

> Here's a look at the CD163 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=none;d...

>
> Scroll down and find human (in red font).  Look at the tree.
> Notice how the Mouse lemur, and Bushbaby are on a separate branch.
>

> Here's a look at the FOXP1 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131522...

>
> Notice that we are closely related to the Mouse Lemur.  Compare this tree with the CD163.  They look nothing alike.
>

> A look at the FOXP2 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131525...

>
> This depicts chimpanzees closer to humans than gorillas.  Please note that there are only 6 primates on the branch.  The Bushbaby is in with the cow, pig, and dolphin.  The Tarsier more closely related to the squirrel (non-primate).  The Mouse Lemure is more closely related to the kangaroo rat (also non-primate).
>

> In the search, type in any gene.  Try the MAP3K3, DCAF7, SHOX...
>
> You will get a different tree.  This simply falsifies the theory of evolution and common descent.
>

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:27:26 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:

>
> >> >I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>
> >>
>
> >> >http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>
> >>
>
> >> >Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.
>
> >>
>
> >> Why do you imply this is a concern?
>
> >
>
> >According to evolutionists, the earth suppose to be 4.5 billion.
>
>
>
> Why do you assume that rocks on earth are as old as earth?
>

Because the crux of the article I provided was to show the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The results were 3.5 billion and assume "Older rocks may have been lost due to erosion or have not yet been discovered".

> >>
>
> >> >And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."
>
> >>
>
> >> How is this a problem?
>
> >>
>
> >The multiple dating methods gave 3.5 billion. Evolutionists believe the world is 4.5 billions years old. The dating must be wrong due to contamination because the dates are a billion years off (20%).
>
>
>
> Again, you make an assumption that you cannot back up. There's no reason
>
> to think that the oldest rocks would be as old as the earth.
>

What!?

>
>
> >> >Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.
>
> >>
>
> >> Where do you find any evidence that anything is a billion years off?
>
> >
>
> >4.5
>
> >-3.5
>
> >=1
>
>
>
> I understand your mathematics. I don't understand your assumption that
>
> the oldest rocks must be as old as the earth, particularly when there is
>
> clear evidence that they cannot be.

A snip from the article:

"Scientists have settled on the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion years as a result of research started almost 50 years ago. This conclusion was based upon carefully designed and conducted experiments that compared the ratios in rock samples of parent elements to daughter elements..."

They measured rocks using six different methods, all of which date to roughly 3.6 billion years.

Instead putting their trust in the dating method (3.5 billion), they went with their belief (4.5 billion).

[Dana Tweedy]

On 8/5/12 4:37 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:24:34 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>
>>> Not yet. Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
>>
>> would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.
>>
>
>
> First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct.

What would you accept as "proof"?

> Prove to me that they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory.

Since radioactivity doesn't care about any particular biological theory,
why would the dates be "fudged" to match any theory of biology? As
pointed out before, the main users of radiometric dating are oil
companies. Oil companies don't care which theory explaining biological
diversity is dominant. They are only interested in making profits.
Why would they allow their geologists to "fudge" dating techniques to
favor evolution?

> Prove to me that when a date does NOT match their theory, they blame it on contamination.

First of all, what would you accept as proof? Second, considering that
geologists don't have any vested interest in evolutionary theory, why
would they care if dating matched this theory? Third, when
contamination is the most likely reason for an aberrant date, why would
scientists not suspect contamination when a particular date does not
match all the other findings?

>
> I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>
> Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.

Yes, because any rocks older than that have been destroyed by geologic
processes. Earth's surface is geologically active, so there is little,
or no undisturbed rocks older than about 3.8 billion years old.

>
> And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997).

Showing the rocks are 3.8 billion years old tends to indicate the
creationists are indeed wrong. Even the creationists' own "RATE"
project indicated the Earth was at least 500 million years old.

> These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."

That's correct. Metamorphic rocks have had their ages "re-set", so they
are younger than the rocks they were made from.

>
>
> Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad.

The dating is not a "billion years off". They were correctly dated to
the age they were re-worked from older rocks. There aren't any
original crustal rocks to date any older.

> They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.

What 'philosophical reasons"? The reason they "believe" some of the
history was lost is that some of the history was lost. There's no
reason why according to evolutionary theory the Earth must be 4.5
billion years old, or any other particular age. Evolution has had
plenty of time to work, but that was determined before the theory of
evolution was proposed.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 8/5/12 5:05 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>>
>> philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
>>
>> without reference to theology.
>
>
> The Bible is my worldview so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology.

Ok, but how does that work for you in real world situations? When your
car doesn't start, do you consult the Bible for an explanation? When
your bathroom sink doesn't drain, do you look for evil spirits, or do
you look for a natural explanation like a hair clog?

If you choose to interpret the evidence according to your theology, how
can you know if you are right, or wrong? Also, why do you ignore the
vast majority of the evidence, instead of interpreting it?

> Science deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know.

Actually, science deals with what we can test. Philosophy deals with
abstract ideas.

> Creation and evolution are both philosophical.

No, creation is a religious belief. Evolution is a scientific theory.
Neither are properly "philosophical".


DJT




>
>

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:46:05 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:

>
> Name those who have made claims that have not yet been proven false.

I can prove radiometric dating is false:
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm

This is a list of all published age measurements of moon rocks.

The dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.

[Tom McDonald]

How disappointing. You turn out to be just another garden-variety
biblical creationist. And I had such high hopes for you.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:49:33 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:27:26 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>
>> >> >I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>>
>> >> >http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>>
>> >> >Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.
>>
>> >> Why do you imply this is a concern?
>>
>> >According to evolutionists, the earth suppose to be 4.5 billion.
>>
>> Why do you assume that rocks on earth are as old as earth?
>
>Because the crux of the article I provided was to show the earth is 4.5
>billion years old. The results were 3.5 billion and assume "Older rocks
>may have been lost due to erosion or have not yet been discovered".

Do you understand that there is no inconsistency between the two claims?

>> >> >And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."
>>
>> >> How is this a problem?
>>
>> >The multiple dating methods gave 3.5 billion. Evolutionists believe the world is 4.5 billions years old. The dating must be wrong due to contamination because the dates are a billion years off (20%).
>>
>> Again, you make an assumption that you cannot back up. There's no reason
>> to think that the oldest rocks would be as old as the earth.
>
>What!?

Do you know anything about geology?

>> >> >Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.
>>
>> >> Where do you find any evidence that anything is a billion years off?
>>
>> >4.5
>> >-3.5
>> >=1
>>
>> I understand your mathematics. I don't understand your assumption that
>> the oldest rocks must be as old as the earth, particularly when there is
>> clear evidence that they cannot be.
>
>A snip from the article:
>
>"Scientists have settled on the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion
>years as a result of research started almost 50 years ago. This
>conclusion was based upon carefully designed and conducted experiments
>that compared the ratios in rock samples of parent elements to daughter
>elements..."
>
>They measured rocks using six different methods, all of which date to roughly 3.6 billion years.
>
>Instead putting their trust in the dating method (3.5 billion), they went with their belief (4.5 billion).

What was the earth like when it first was formed? Why do you assert,
even though the article does not, that the oldest rocks found must be as
old as the earth?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 18:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:46:05 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>
>> Name those who have made claims that have not yet been proven false.
>
>I can prove radiometric dating is false:
>http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm

No, you cannot. You can show me that there are religious zealots who do
no science who misrepresent the little they know about science.

>This is a list of all published age measurements of moon rocks.
>
>The dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.

And this proves what?

You seem to have forgotten the question. The question is which religion
makes claims that have not be proven false.

[Louann Miller]

Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2c2f6b57-5525-42dc...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I
>> asked
>> you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the
>> world is
>> 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?

> Not yet. Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is
> philosophical.

You have no idea how unoriginal "first you have to believe what I believe,
and then you'll be able to believe what I believe" is around here.

Some context may help. When a new poster turns up here, we tend to get all
excited and assume the best about him (or other pronoun) for as long as
possible. The ideal would be a yes answer to the question "does he have
something substantial to contribute?" You pretty much blew that one by
identifying yourself as a creationist.
However, there's always the next, "Is he willing and able to learn?" Hence
my approach of asking detailed questions. This level has a corrollary, "Is
he at least *honest*?" You're in the process of blowing that one.
This is SO. NOT. Our first rodeo. The collective experience level is such
that it's pretty impossible for a creationist to lie to us without
detection. About your name and age and residency in or out of your mom's
basement, maybe. Not about our chosen subject.
Skipping over a few levels, rock bottom is "if he has a pattern of
obsessive rants, are they at least *funny*?" That's the role you're
steering yourself toward around here.

Just so you know.

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 9:05:27 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 8/5/12 5:05 PM, Nivalian wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>
> >>
>
> >> philosophical.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
>
> >>
>
> >> without reference to theology.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The Bible is my worldview so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology.
>
>
>
> Ok, but how does that work for you in real world situations? When your
>
> car doesn't start, do you consult the Bible for an explanation?

No, I inspect it myself to find the problem.

When
>
> your bathroom sink doesn't drain, do you look for evil spirits, or do
>
> you look for a natural explanation like a hair clog?
>

I inspect it. Wow, do you really believe Creationists do this because they question evolution and the dating methods?

>
>
> If you choose to interpret the evidence according to your theology, how
>
> can you know if you are right, or wrong? Also, why do you ignore the
>
> vast majority of the evidence, instead of interpreting it?

Actually, evolutionists ignore the vast majority of the evidence. For example, the age of moon rocks:
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm

Evolutionists believe the earth is 4.5 years old (give or take a few million). Out of 116 tests, only 10 gave the results between 4.3 to 4.56 billion years.

Your belief supercedes your own measurements.

>
>
>
>
> > Science deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know.
>
>
>
> Actually, science deals with what we can test. Philosophy deals with
>
> abstract ideas.

And you cannot test a date of a rock.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Creation and evolution are both philosophical.
>
>
>
> No, creation is a religious belief. Evolution is a scientific theory.
>
> Neither are properly "philosophical".
>

Both are religious beliefs and philosophical.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 8/5/12 7:11 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:46:05 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>
>> Name those who have made claims that have not yet been proven false.
>
> I can prove radiometric dating is false:
> http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm

The above do not "prove" any such thing.

>
> This is a list of all published age measurements of moon rocks.
>
> The dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.
>
>
>

Your source doesn't give the error bars that the scientists assigned to
the tests, and the tests are apparently all over 40 years old. Do you
have any more recent tests?


The majority of the dates seem to line up rather well with the accepted
estimates as to the age of the solar system. The isochron subsets are
particularly accurate.

Scientists don't depend on single methods to work out dates. One or
two aberrant dates do not invalidate all dating techniques.

So, why do you think the above "proves" that radiometric dating is
invalid?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 8/5/12 6:32 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:28:42 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 16:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> philosophical.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> without reference to theology.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The Bible is my worldview
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that your excuse for making false claims? What did God do to you that
>>
>> you insist on lying about this?
>>
>
> What are the false claims? What fact do I dispute?

The Earth being only 6000 years old, for one. Even the creationist RATE
project showed that wasn't possible.

Your false claim that radiometric dating is invalid is another one.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology. Science
>>
>>> deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know.
>>
>>> Creation and evolution are both philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> Religion makes claims that have been proven false.
>
> Some religions, yes.

Religious claims are usually taken on faith alone, so saying they are
true or false is irrelevant. The fact remains that scientific claims
can be evaluated, and discarded if found to be inaccurate.


DJT




>
>

[Dana Tweedy]

On 8/5/12 7:33 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 9:05:27 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 8/5/12 5:05 PM, Nivalian wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> philosophical.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> without reference to theology.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The Bible is my worldview so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, but how does that work for you in real world situations? When your
>>
>> car doesn't start, do you consult the Bible for an explanation?
>
>
> No, I inspect it myself to find the problem.

Using your Biblical interpretations, or an expectation that the problem
will most likely be a physical problem? If your "worldview" is indeed
Biblical, you will have to consult the Bible for the explanation.

>
>
> When
>>
>> your bathroom sink doesn't drain, do you look for evil spirits, or do
>>
>> you look for a natural explanation like a hair clog?
>>
>
> I inspect it.

By what method? If you are basing your "worldview" on your religious
beliefs, how do you know that your sight isn't being affected by demons?

> Wow, do you really believe Creationists do this because they question evolution and the dating methods?

No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of questioning the "naturalism" of
science, when you use the same "naturalism" in everyday applications.
If one treats evolution the same way one treats plumbing, it's the only
scientifically valid theory to explain the evidence.

If you truly had a Biblical "worldview" then inspecting the problem
yourself would be pointless. Only God could tell you the answer, you
would not be looking for natural explanations.

>
>
>>
>>
>> If you choose to interpret the evidence according to your theology, how
>>
>> can you know if you are right, or wrong? Also, why do you ignore the
>>
>> vast majority of the evidence, instead of interpreting it?
>
>
>
> Actually, evolutionists ignore the vast majority of the evidence.

That is not true. Evolution is a scientific theory. It's based on
evidence, and evaluated by the evidence alone.

> For example, the age of moon rocks:
> http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm
>
> Evolutionists believe the earth is 4.5 years old (give or take a few million).

The theory of evolution doesn't depend on the Earth being 4.5 billion
years old. Those who accept evolution accept the geologists estimate as
to the age of the Earth, because geologists are using the same
scientific method.

> Out of 116 tests, only 10 gave the results between 4.3 to 4.56 billion years.

I've already addressed this in a separate post. The tests actually
line up with conventional ages fairly well, with only a few being really
outside the ballpark. Scientists know that not every method is going
to provide an accurate reading, which is why there are multiple tests.

There's also the issue of those results being more than 40 years old.
More accurate techniques and methods have been developed over the last
40 years. None have given any indication that radiometric dating is
invalid.

>
> Your belief supercedes your own measurements.

Again, I have to point out this is not a matter of "belief" but what can
be demonstrated. The main users of radiometric dating techniques are
oil companies, who don't care a whit about evolution. If the
techniques were not accurate, they wouldn't be using them. I suggest
you read:

http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?book_id=1569%202331

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Science deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, science deals with what we can test. Philosophy deals with
>>
>> abstract ideas.
>
>
> And you cannot test a date of a rock.

Personally, I can't, but geologists who have studied the matter can,
with fairly good accuracy. Igneous rocks are best for dating,
sedimentary rocks usually can't be dated directly.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Creation and evolution are both philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, creation is a religious belief. Evolution is a scientific theory.
>>
>> Neither are properly "philosophical".
>>
>
> Both are religious beliefs and philosophical.

Sorry, but just saying so doesn't make it true. Evolution is not a
religious belief, it's a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not
held in the absence of evidence, and is subject to falsification.
Evolution meets this, your own position does not.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 8/5/12 6:49 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:27:26 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>
>>>>> I'll give you an example from an anti-creation site:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Notice the first chart "The Earth's Oldest Rocks". They all consistently show 3.5 billion years old.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Why do you imply this is a concern?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> According to evolutionists, the earth suppose to be 4.5 billion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you assume that rocks on earth are as old as earth?
>>
>
> Because the crux of the article I provided was to show the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Which, as the article indicated, is not shown by rocks available on the
Earth's surface, but by other means.

> The results were 3.5 billion and assume "Older rocks may have been lost due to erosion or have not yet been discovered".

Which is a reasonable finding, as Earth is geologically active, and
older rocks keep getting recycled. Do you deny that erosion, and
geological forces are found on Earth?

>
>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> And proving to those pesky creationists how accurate the dating methods are, they say, "These are the oldest of the rocks dated on the earth so far (as of 1997). These are metamorphic rocks and thus have had some of their "history" lost - metamorphosis fully or partially resets the radiometric ages of rocks pointing to younger ages than the true age of the original rock."
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> How is this a problem?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> The multiple dating methods gave 3.5 billion. Evolutionists believe the world is 4.5 billions years old. The dating must be wrong due to contamination because the dates are a billion years off (20%).
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, you make an assumption that you cannot back up. There's no reason
>>
>> to think that the oldest rocks would be as old as the earth.
>>
>
> What!?

There is no reason to assume the oldest rocks on the Earth's crust have
been undisturbed through all of Earth's history.

Granted, his question could have been worded better, but the question
is valid. Why would you expect all the Earth's crust to have been
unworked by erosion, or subduction due to plate tectonics?

>
>
>>
>>
>>>>> Now to an evolutionist, only a billion years off is not bad. They will believe that some of the history was lost not because of science, but because of philosophical reasons.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Where do you find any evidence that anything is a billion years off?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 4.5
>>
>>> -3.5
>>
>>> =1
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand your mathematics. I don't understand your assumption that
>>
>> the oldest rocks must be as old as the earth, particularly when there is
>>
>> clear evidence that they cannot be.
>
> A snip from the article:
>
> "Scientists have settled on the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion years as a result of research started almost 50 years ago. This conclusion was based upon carefully designed and conducted experiments that compared the ratios in rock samples of parent elements to daughter elements..."

Ok so far. What are you disputing?

>
> They measured rocks using six different methods, all of which date to roughly 3.6 billion years.

All of those are on Earth itself, which is geologically active. There's
no reason to expect the oldest rocks are the original crustal rocks.
The rocks available have been recycled by tectonic forces, so the oldest
rocks accessable aren't the age of the earth itself.

>
> Instead putting their trust in the dating method (3.5 billion), they went with their belief (4.5 billion).

No, the "belief" wasn't the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, that was
the finding. That finding was from examination of meteorites, and moon
rocks, which haven't been re-worked by Earth's geological forces. They
were what indicated the Solar System, and the Earth itself is 4.5
billion years old.

If the researchers had estimated the earth's age as 3.6 billion years
old, based on rocks that had obviously been re-worked, and ignored the
4.5 billion year old meteorites, and moon rocks, then there might be a
problem.


DJT




>
>
>
>

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:35:47 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

>
> For example zircon crystals are more robust than rocks, and zircon
>
> crystals eroded from one rock and deposited in a later sediment can be
>
> dated. Some such crystals have been dated at over 4 billion years old -
>
> the oldest is 4.404 billion years old, fide Wikipedia.

Zircons are not dependable as you say:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/earths-time-capsules-may-be-flaw-1.html

Excerpts are below...
In recent years, some researchers have used analyses of zircons and their inclusions�and in particular, the temperatures and pressures they�ve been exposed to since their formation�to infer the presence of oceans or of modern-style plate tectonics on Earth more than 4 billion years ago, well before previously suspected, Rasmussen says. But based on the team�s new findings, which will be reported next month in Geology, those conclusions are suspect, he notes.

�The results �suggest that analyses of zircon inclusions can�t be trusted much at all,� adds Jonathan Patchett, an isotope geochemist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.�

[jillery]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:24:34 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 5, 2:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>>
>> > you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>>
>> > 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>> Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>

>On the other hand, if you showed that the earth was very young, it
>would go a long way toward falsifying evolution.
>

>Chris


Showing the Earth was very young would go a long way towards
falsifying a whole lot of things.

[jillery]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:49:33 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

To repeat my earlier question; let's assume for argument's sake that
all you assert is true, that these geologists fudged the numbers and
went with their belief instead. Now, how does that make any
difference to your belief about the age of the Earth?

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce937671-226a-4f15...@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 10:37:11 AM UTC-4, Christopher wrote:

>> On 08/04/2012 02:19 PM, Nivalian wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:22:28 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>>
>> >> Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> interesting debates with some of you."
>>
>>
>> >> A cheater.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > A cheater? Here I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual
>> > data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.
>>

[snip]

>
>> > You will get a different tree. This simply falsifies the theory of
>> > evolution and common descent.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You support the theory because of philosophical reasons; not scientific
>> > reasons.
>>
>>
>>

>> If all it takes is to do a few searches on a website to utterly refute
>>
>> evolution, then why has this not been recognized already?
>
> Because evolution is a worldview.
>

Well, cheater may not mean quite what my corresponding Norwegian word means,
but it certainy borders on dishonesty and false preteneses and such.

So tell me young man, where is the intent to learn and have interesting
debate visible in all that you'v writen so far?

Al I see is you jumping straight into refutation of the ToE and anything
related to any science supportiong the evolutionary perspective.

Radimetric dating?
Age of Earth?
And all the rest.

Con man, that might perhaps being too kind.

[Dan Espen]

Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes:

> A snip from the article:
>
> "Scientists have settled on the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion
> years as a result of research started almost 50 years ago. This
> conclusion was based upon carefully designed and conducted experiments
> that compared the ratios in rock samples of parent elements to
> daughter elements..."
>
> They measured rocks using six different methods, all of which date to
> roughly 3.6 billion years.
>
> Instead putting their trust in the dating method (3.5 billion), they
> went with their belief (4.5 billion).

Are you serious?

This seems to be so elementary that I don't think any of the other
posters have explained it in detail. But they shouldn't have to.
It's something every 3rd grader has heard dozens of times.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

And then come back and admit how wrong you were.

--
Dan Espen

[Richard or Blanche Mathers]

On Aug 5, 11:23�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:51:24 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>
> > Has he claimed that he has non-theological reasons for believing in a 6000 year
>
> > old earth?
>
> No I didn't. �I said the earth is not billions of years old for non-theological reasons.

And your understanding of science is such that you use creationist
sources. That belies a misunderstanding of science. Plus others have
pointed out your scientific misinterpretations of dating methods.

As a result of this rigid and incomplete understanding of science, I'm
willing to hypothesize you have an engineers training and
understanding of science. Am I correct?

[Louann Miller]

Richard or Blanche Mathers <rmat...@macomb.com> wrote in news:a4e492cd-
b309-4d74-8c3...@z11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

> As a result of this rigid and incomplete understanding of science, I'm
> willing to hypothesize you have an engineers training and
> understanding of science. Am I correct?

Wouldn't we usually get "I'll have you know I'm an engineer!" earlier in
the process than this?

[Tom McDonald]

On Aug 6, 11:32�am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Richard or Blanche Mathers <rmath...@macomb.com> wrote in news:a4e492cd-
> b309-4d74-8c3b-c099d9d44...@z11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

>
> > As a result of this rigid and incomplete understanding of science, I'm
> > willing to hypothesize you have an engineers training and
> > understanding of science. �Am I correct?
>
> Wouldn't we usually get "I'll have you know I'm an engineer!" earlier in
> the process than this?

Well, Niv did start out more coyly than a lot of other posters. It may
be he's holding that in reserve for when he feels he is ready to deal
the death blow to all our evolutionist hopes.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 16:05:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Nivalian
<rhe...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:

>> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I asked
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the world is
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and is philosophical.
>>
>>
>>

>> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>>
>> philosophical.
>>
>>
>>

>> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
>>
>> without reference to theology.
>
>
>The Bible is my worldview

So in your view the Bible has no relation to theology?

Oy...

> so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology. Science deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know. Creation and evolution are both philosophical.

With the proviso that evolution, unlike Creation, has
physical evidence to support it. Actually, that should be
"the Theory of Evolution"; evolution per se is an observed
phenomenon, not a hypothesis or theory.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 06:55:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Richard or Blanche
Mathers <rmat...@macomb.com>:

Doubtful; most of the engineers I worked with weren't
religious idiots. Perhaps you should re-read the Conjecture
as written by Bruce Salem:

"My position is not that most creationists are engineers or
even that engineering predisposes one to Creationism. In
fact, most engineers are not Creationists and more
well-educated people are less predisposed to Creationism,
the points the statistics in the study bear out. My position
was that of those Creationists who presented themselves with
professional credentials, or with training that they wished
to represent as giving them competence to be critics of
Evolution while offering Creationism as the alternative, a
significant number turned out to be engineers."

And I've seen nowhere that Nivalian claimed any expertise in
either science or engineering, making the Conjecture
irrelevant in his case.

Care to re-phrase your question?

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/5/12 4:05 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old

>> without reference to theology.
>
> The Bible is my worldview so I will interpret the evidence according
> to my theology.

I see. So the age of the universe is determined by your opinion. One
more little question: What is your rationale for claiming godhood?

> Science deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we
> think we know.

Out of curiosity, what does philosophy of science deal with?

> Creation and evolution are both philosophical.

Everything is philosophical, or at most one small step away from it.
"Philosophical" does not mean you get to make stuff up.

Most twelve-year-olds understand philosophy better than you do. Do you
have any plans to educate yourself on the subject? Or, since you are a
god, do you feel that is unnecessary?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/5/12 3:37 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> [...]
> First, prove to me that your dating methods are correct. Prove

> to me that they are not calibrated (fudged) to match a theory.

> Prove to me that when a date does NOT match their theory, they
> blame it on contamination.

Prove it yourself. Creationists are not excluded from doing science.
Learn the techniques, find some rocks, and figure out their ages.

If you do that conscientiously and get dates reliably different from
what is expected (like 6000 years for rocks in very old strata), you
should win the Nobel Prize. If you get wildly varying dates because you
forget to calibrate one time, do the math wrong another time, and leave
a mess of peanut butter in the test chamber another time, nobody will
pay any attention to you, nor should they.

Note that your current behavior of picking wildly varying dates from the
literature without even trying to understand them is very similar to the
second alternative above, except much, much lazier.

[Mike Painter]

Since against evolution is an oxymoron.
Can you provide an actual source showing these claims.

Another secondary source claims "They range in age from about 3.16
billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria,
up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

" Dalrymple reports that thirteen samples from the lunar highlands gave
the oldest ages. These were collected by Apollo 15, 16, 17 and Luna 20.
The radiometric dates range from 3.9 to 4.5 Gy"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html#c8

Only a religious site argues anything else.


Assuming they were valid it adds to the latest theory about the moon
formation


And for the billionth time.

MATH IS FOR PROOF, SCIENCE IS FOR THEORY.
AND YOU NEVER PROVE A THEORY.

It is odd that the YEC never seems to learn this.

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:88535f7c-96f6-45f3...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:

>> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I
>> > > asked
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the
>> > > world is
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable, and
>> > is philosophical.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>>
>> philosophical.
>>
>>
>>

>> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,

>>
>> without reference to theology.
>
>
> The Bible is my worldview so I will interpret the evidence according to my

> theology. Science deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what
> we think we know. Creation and evolution are both philosophical.
>

Theology isnt?

You dind't come her to learn anything, did you? You know all the answers:
Evolution is philosophical. Evidence doesn't matter. Theology beats science
every time.

A pity you are not aiming for a Nobel prize, should be pretty easy for a
genius like you. How many scientists do you estimate you beat? 10.000,
100.000, 1.000.000?

Me, I don't beat even 1.
>

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:edcb348f-ca44-48bd...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:28:42 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 16:05:09 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>

>> >On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>
>> >> On Aug 5, 1:28�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:27:19 AM UTC-4, loua...@yahoo.com
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > > Oh, there you are. You disappeared from the 'zeroth' thread when I
>> >> > > asked
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > > you to explain what non-theological reasons led you to think the
>> >> > > world is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > > 6000 years old. Care to tackle that now?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > Not yet. �Not until you realize that evolution not falsifiable,
>> >> > and is philosophical.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> OK, I now realize that evolution is not falsifiable, and is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> philosophical.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Now give me the reasons why you think the world is ca. 6000 years old,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> without reference to theology.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >The Bible is my worldview
>>
>>
>>

>> Is that your excuse for making false claims? What did God do to you that
>>
>> you insist on lying about this?
>>
>
> What are the false claims? What fact do I dispute?
>
>
>>
>>

>> >so I will interpret the evidence according to my theology. Science
>>
>> >deals with what we do know; philosophy deals with what we think we know.
>>
>> >Creation and evolution are both philosophical.
>>
>>
>>

>> Religion makes claims that have been proven false.
>
> Some religions, yes.
>
>

Care to show some of the proven true claims of some of the "not some"
religions?

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2c6a81d3-892d-4bb0...@googlegroups.com...

> A snip from the article:
>
> "Scientists have settled on the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion
> years as a result of research started almost 50 years ago. This conclusion
> was based upon carefully designed and conducted experiments that compared
> the ratios in rock samples of parent elements to daughter elements..."
>
> They measured rocks using six different methods, all of which date to
> roughly 3.6 billion years.
>
> Instead putting their trust in the dating method (3.5 billion), they went
> with their belief (4.5 billion).
>
>
>

What article? Link, please
>

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7f138d98-55e8-48ed...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 8:46:05 PM UTC-4, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>
>> Name those who have made claims that have not yet been proven false.
>
> I can prove radiometric dating is false:
> http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ages.htm
>
> This is a list of all published age measurements of moon rocks.
>
> The dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.
>
>
>

I bow to the maestro, he's priven it, all by himself, single-handed!
He said it: "I can prove"
Bet he can prove a lot of other things as well.
Who are we to doubt a genius like that?

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:29c40e96-f9ce-4f06...@googlegroups.com...

We can't test the dates of trees either, can we?

Creation still 6000 years ago?

No tree rings beyond that?

Creationsism isn't even philospohical, it is junk theology.

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7a6e27ce-fd82-48c5...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:35:47 PM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
>
>>
>> For example zircon crystals are more robust than rocks, and zircon
>>
>> crystals eroded from one rock and deposited in a later sediment can be
>>
>> dated. Some such crystals have been dated at over 4 billion years old -
>>
>> the oldest is 4.404 billion years old, fide Wikipedia.
>
>
> Zircons are not dependable as you say:
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/earths-time-capsules-may-be-flaw-1.html
>
> Excerpts are below...
> In recent years, some researchers have used analyses of zircons and their

> inclusions—and in particular, the temperatures and pressures they’ve been
> exposed to since their formation—to infer the presence of oceans or of

> modern-style plate tectonics on Earth more than 4 billion years ago, well

> before previously suspected, Rasmussen says. But based on the team’s new

> findings, which will be reported next month in Geology, those conclusions
> are suspect, he notes.
>

> “The results ‘suggest that analyses of zircon inclusions can’t be trusted
> much at all,’ adds Jonathan Patchett, an isotope geochemist at the
> University of Arizona in Tucson.”
>
>
"Still, Allen Nutman, a geochemist at the University of Wollongong in
Australia, says that although the work casts doubt on some zircon
inclusions, others may still provide valuable information. "You don't have
to throw away information, you just have to be careful what you do with it."
"

>

[Steven L.]

On 8/4/2012 1:39 PM, Ron O wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:10 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 8/4/2012 11:17 AM, Ron O wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 7:19 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:22:28 PM UTC-4, Rolf wrote:
>>>>> Says Nivalian. After coming here "hoping to learn a lot and have clean
>>
>>>>> interesting debates with some of you."
>>
>>>>> A cheater.
>>
>>>> A cheater? Here I gave you a database with mapped genomes with actual data and compare the orthologues and you call me a cheater.
>>

>>>> Also, some accused me of cherry-picking. Choose any gene and you will have a different phylogenetic tree.
>>
>>>> Lets compare the 9 primates, which are...
>>
>>>> Gibbon
>>>> (Nomascus leucogenys)
>>
>>>> Chimpanzee
>>>> (Pan troglodytes)
>>
>>>> Macaque
>>>> (Macaca mulatta)
>>
>>>> Orangutan
>>>> (Pongo abelii)
>>
>>>> Gorilla
>>>> (Gorilla gorilla)
>>
>>>> Marmoset
>>>> (Callithrix jacchus)
>>
>>>> Mouse Lemur
>>>> (Microcebus murinus)
>>
>>>> Bushbaby
>>>> (Otolemur Garnettii)
>>
>>>> Tarsier
>>>> (Tarsius syrichta)
>>
>>>> Here's a look at the CD163 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=none;d...
>>
>>>> Scroll down and find human (in red font). Look at the tree.
>>>> Notice how the Mouse lemur, and Bushbaby are on a separate branch.
>>
>>>> Here's a look at the FOXP1 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131522...
>>
>>>> Notice that we are closely related to the Mouse Lemur. Compare this tree with the CD163. They look nothing alike.
>>
>>>> A look at the FOXP2 gene:http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Compara_Tree?collapse=131525...
>>
>>>> This depicts chimpanzees closer to humans than gorillas. Please note that there are only 6 primates on the branch. The Bushbaby is in with the cow, pig, and dolphin. The Tarsier more closely related to the squirrel (non-primate). The Mouse Lemure is more closely related to the kangaroo rat (also non-primate).
>>
>>>> In the search, type in any gene. Try the MAP3K3, DCAF7, SHOX...

>>
>>>> You will get a different tree. This simply falsifies the theory of evolution and common descent.
>>
>>>> You support the theory because of philosophical reasons; not scientific reasons.
>>

>>> What you need to do is not cherry pick if you want to deny cherry
>>> picking. You are literally putting up a handful of genes and claiming
>>> what? Does it negate all the other gene data? Can you determine that
>>> none of the known factors that mess up gene phylogenies is not
>>> operating with your examples? Have you ruled out things like gene
>>> conversion? Just using inappropriately highly conserved genes to
>>> analyze recent events is stupid. You were trying to make a big deal
>>> about a gene that hasn't changed much in 40 million years and tried to
>>> make a big deal about a 95% divergence between gorilla and human and
>>> my guess is that you didn't even try to determine if the gorilla gene
>>> was the same gene that they were comparing in the other analyses. Was
>>> gene conversion involved? Did one exon get swapped out? etc. Are
>>> all the same copies of multigene families in the right analysis?
>>
>>> If you don't want to be accused of cherry picking go in alphabetical
>>> order and look at the gene trees. Rule out the multigene families
>>> unless you can rule out gene conversion between family members and
>>> don't use highly conserved genes to analyze an event that happened
>>> only around 5 million years ago. About the best material to use for
>>> this type of recent divergence is the mitochondrial sequence. The
>>> third position changes have not been saturated and you have a bunch of
>>> genes and variable conservation of protein sequence. You have 13
>>> protein genes that have all been inherited as a block among mammals
>>> because paternal transmission of mitochondrial genomes is rare if it
>>> happens at all. You don't have to worry about recombination and gene
>>> conversion events, but you do have to worry about horizontal transfer
>>> (we observe it between closely related species.
>>
>> I admit I don't understand your explanation.
>>
>> Why should there be any genes that depict humans as to closer to
>> non-apes than to apes?
>>
>> How did that come about with the FOXP1 gene, which has humans as more
>> closely related to the Mouse Lemur?
>>
>> --
>> Steven L.
>
> I can't reproduce those results doing my own analysis. The FoxP1
> coding sequence is amazingly similar between the primates. I just
> took NM_032682. This is the human reference sequence for FoxP1
> transcript variant 1. The DNA sequence is 99% similar to the chimp,
> gibbon and orang sequence. Gorrila doesn't show up in my Blast
> search. This is an incredibly highly conserved gene. Horses and
> humans separated by around 80 million years are 96% similar in their
> DNA sequence of the coding region. If you look at the expanded
> phylogenetic tree that Nivalian put up the human transcript map
> associated with mouse lemur is missing a major exon and some other
> exons seem to be altered in size compared to primates. I can't find
> this transcript, the identification number given isn't on the list of
> human transcript variants for FoxP1. I don't know what human FoxP1
> sequence was used for Navalian's comparison, but the reference human
> FoxP1 sequence doesn't come up with the same similarity. The
> reference sequence is the sequence picked to represent the gene. This
> doesn't mean that it can't be a wrong selection or that there isn't
> another sequence that could be better, but it has passed some hurdles
> in its identification. As an example the reference chicken
> mitochondrial sequence has known sequencing errors and may be a
> chimeric molecule (composed of the sequence of two mitochondrial
> sequences) so it isn't the one that I would pick to do phylogenetic
> analysis, but a lot of people that don't know any better keep putting
> it in instead of picking one that would be more accurate.

So you're saying that this was just inadequate or poor sequencing. I
didn't know there were alternatives. Thanks.



--
Steven L.

[Steven L.]

On 8/4/2012 3:30 PM, Ron O wrote:
> On Aug 4, 1:26 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <5287dac1-1c41-47f0-bc02-294cd8a3a...@c25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes

>> I read that FOXP1 has alternative splicing producing different isoforms
>> of the protein. Could that have been adding to the confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
> There are a boat load of transcript variants for FoxP1 many with very
> short coding regions of only a couple hundred aa the reference
> sequence has over 1000 aa in the protein sequence. I didn't count the
> number of transcript variants but it looked like around 20.

Thank you, that makes sense.



--
Steven L.

[Ron O]

On Aug 7, 8:31锟絘m, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 1:39 PM, Ron O wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 11:10 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On 8/4/2012 11:17 AM, Ron O wrote:

SNIP:

>
> >> Why should there be any genes that depict humans as to closer to
> >> non-apes than to apes?
>
> >> How did that come about with the FOXP1 gene, which has humans as more
> >> closely related to the Mouse Lemur?
>
> >> --
> >> Steven L.
>

> > I can't reproduce those results doing my own analysis. 锟絋he FoxP1
> > coding sequence is amazingly similar between the primates. 锟絀 just
> > took NM_032682. 锟絋his is the human reference sequence for FoxP1
> > transcript variant 1. 锟絋he DNA sequence is 99% similar to the chimp,
> > gibbon and orang sequence. 锟紾orrila doesn't show up in my Blast
> > search. 锟絋his is an incredibly highly conserved gene. 锟紿orses and

> > humans separated by around 80 million years are 96% similar in their

> > DNA sequence of the coding region. 锟絀f you look at the expanded

> > phylogenetic tree that Nivalian put up the human transcript map
> > associated with mouse lemur is missing a major exon and some other

> > exons seem to be altered in size compared to primates. 锟絀 can't find

> > this transcript, the identification number given isn't on the list of

> > human transcript variants for FoxP1. 锟絀 don't know what human FoxP1

> > sequence was used for Navalian's comparison, but the reference human

> > FoxP1 sequence doesn't come up with the same similarity. 锟絋he
> > reference sequence is the sequence picked to represent the gene. 锟絋his

> > doesn't mean that it can't be a wrong selection or that there isn't
> > another sequence that could be better, but it has passed some hurdles

> > in its identification. 锟紸s an example the reference chicken

> > mitochondrial sequence has known sequencing errors and may be a
> > chimeric molecule (composed of the sequence of two mitochondrial
> > sequences) so it isn't the one that I would pick to do phylogenetic
> > analysis, but a lot of people that don't know any better keep putting
> > it in instead of picking one that would be more accurate.
>

> So you're saying that this was just inadequate or poor sequencing. 锟絀
> didn't know there were alternatives. 锟絋hanks.
>
> --
> Steven L.

Since I can't find the sequences I can only guess. My first guess is
that they are using some strange transscript variant of the highly
conserved FOXP1 gene. I would guess that if they used the reference
human sequence that they would not have that problem. There really is
only around 1% difference between this gene in humans orangs and
gibbons. Mouse lemurs might be only 2% different (since horses at
around 80 million years divergent are so similar) and if you muck with
the sequence by deleting exons as the diagram indicates for the human
transcript you might get some strange matchups due to the missing
information and just chance mutation overlaps. The gene is so
conserved that redundant third positions that are usually free to
change are likely being selected for. The gene must be really
sensitive to tRNA concentrations or something.

At this level of difference sequencing errors do become significant.
It would depend on how sloppy the researchers were in their
sequencing. Obvioiusly 99% accuracy isn't going to be good enough.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Richard or Blanche Mathers" <rmat...@macomb.com> wrote in message news:a4e492cd-b309-4d74...@z11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 5, 11:23 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 10:51:24 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > > Has he claimed that he has non-theological reasons for believing in a 6000 year
> >
> > > old earth?
> >
> > No I didn't. I said the earth is not billions of years old for non-theological reasons.
>
> And your understanding of science is such that you use creationist
> sources. That belies a misunderstanding of science. Plus others have
> pointed out your scientific misinterpretations of dating methods.

Its easy to make claims about what others have said when there is no
easy way of verifying them, and no references are provided.

>
> As a result of this rigid and incomplete understanding of science, I'm
> willing to hypothesize you have an engineers training and
> understanding of science. Am I correct?
>

My server provides no record of "Nivalian" posting to talk.origins. The post
is dated almost a year ago. It occurs to me that a rational person would likely
not expect the person to be aware of your question.
Did the door on your Delorean get stuck or was this post of yours created months
ago and is just now being posted?