Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

[ll74]

Everything you just said is probably scientifically false. But the blind WILL be blind. Guess when truth is considered flexible, even in science, anything can be "true". You have just shown the truth of that.

So what's your explanation of nylonase in bacteria?

 

[TastySuckToy]

Everything you just said is probably scientifically false. But the blind WILL be blind. Guess when truth is considered flexible, even in science, anything can be "true". You have just shown the truth of that.

Simply declaring something false is not a valid or honest argument.

You addressed zero points or arguments in my reply, and just made arbitrary assertions consistent with your religious views.

Guess you're not interested in actual honest debate.

 

[ll74]

New funny one I heard today - could cross post to the gun thread:

"What is Jesus's favorite gun?"

----------
-----------
A nail gun

Ba dum tis!

 

[JaySecrets]

So what's your explanation of nylonase in bacteria?

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/05/the-nylonase-story-when-imagination-and-facts-collide/

I will let the experts answer for me.

 

[ll74]

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/05/the-nylonase-story-when-imagination-and-facts-collide/

I will let the experts answer for me.

Lol...of course you will.

 

[JaySecrets]

Simply declaring something false is not a valid or honest argument.

You addressed zero points or arguments in my reply, and just made arbitrary assertions consistent with your religious views.

Guess you're not interested in actual honest debate.

Just posted a reply. Not that either of you will accept it. It doesn't fit your evolution framework.

 

[ll74]

Just posted a reply. Not that either of you will accept it. It doesn't fit your evolution framework.

The thing that you fail to grasp is that your poking holes in theories doesn't make science or evolution false nor does it make your religion true.

You're the one wanting to make science false when all science is is repeatable observational theory. Your religion is based on a static collection of words.

When theories don't work out in science, they are discarded for better theories. When your book doesn't fit the current day, you interpret it differently and pretend it was always the way.

And in the end, your religion continues to have no bearing on me while all of scientific understanding has impacted you.

 

[JaySecrets]

Simply declaring something false is not a valid or honest argument.

You addressed zero points or arguments in my reply, and just made arbitrary assertions consistent with your religious views.

Guess you're not interested in actual honest debate.

The funny thing is that I have posted evidence and pictures of the evidence in nature showing trees upside down, The same tree, through multiple layers of fossil layers, supposedly millions of years apart, at various stages of fossilization, as part of those layers not as breaking through them. For the evolutionary model to be true, these would be impossible. Yet they exist. I have yet to have one of you who are supporting evolution answer that challenge. All you've done is ignore the challenge and change the subject to something else. That one piece of evidence alone is enough to blow every bit of the millions of years on the fossil layers theory apart. And not one of you have answered it. But I'm the one being dishonest with facts?

 

[JaySecrets]

The thing that you fail to grasp is that your poking holes in theories doesn't make science or evolution false nor does it make your religion true.

You're the one wanting to make science false when all science is is repeatable observational theory. Your religion is based on a static collection of words.

When theories don't work out in science, they are discarded for better theories. When your book doesn't fit the current day, you interpret it differently and pretend it was always the way.

Everything you just said is utterly false. I actually look at actual science not tied to a big money industry that only supports evolutionary the, and will cut out funding for anybody who dares disagree. I actually listened to people who are actually doing science, not just shutting off the idea of a Creator because they don't like the idea of a Creator. True scientific theory would actually allow for the concept of a Creator and the Divine in the mix. Evolutionists won't allow for that because they can't stand the concept, therefore, they make sure they don't even consider it. Which is distinctly unscientific.

 

[JaySecrets]

The thing that you fail to grasp is that your poking holes in theories doesn't make science or evolution false nor does it make your religion true.

You're the one wanting to make science false when all science is is repeatable observational theory. Your religion is based on a static collection of words.

When theories don't work out in science, they are discarded for better theories. When your book doesn't fit the current day, you interpret it differently and pretend it was always the way.

And in the end, your religion continues to have no bearing on me while all of scientific understanding has impacted you.

You have yet to give an example of evolution on A macro scale being observed. The excuse given every time is that it takes millions of years, so of course it can't be observed. But that is the whole point. Millions of years can't be observed, which means you are accepting the very idea and concept on faith. Can't even conceive of what happens in millions of years. You can't even conceive what happens in thousands of years. Let alone millions. So everything you're saying is based on faith. No one is saying adaptation doesn't happen. Adaptation happens within the genes. What creation scientists are saying is that adaptation does not equal macroevolution. Just because a flower changes color doesn't mean a flower becomes a stalk of corn. Those are two different things.

 

[ll74]

Everything you just said is utterly false. I actually look at actual science not tied to a big money industry that only supports evolutionary the, and will cut out funding for anybody who dares disagree. I actually listened to people who are actually doing science, not just shutting off the idea of a Creator because they don't like the idea of a Creator. True scientific theory would actually allow for the concept of a Creator and the Divine in the mix. Evolutionists won't allow for that because they can't stand the concept, therefore, they make sure they don't even consider it. Which is distinctly unscientific.

I haven't shut off the idea of a creator. Ive shut off the idea that your book and your "god" has any bearing on there being one or none.

You have decided that your god is the superior being and rules over all.

I have decided that repeatable ovservable experiments give more certainty to theories.

 

[ll74]

You have yet to give an example of evolution on A macro scale being observed. The excuse given every time is that it takes millions of years, so of course it can't be observed. But that is the whole point. Millions of years can't be observed, which means you are accepting the very idea and concept on faith. Can't even conceive of what happens in millions of years. You can't even conceive what happens in thousands of years. Let alone millions. So everything you're saying is based on faith. No one is saying adaptation doesn't happen. Adaptation happens within the genes. What creation scientists are saying is that adaptation does not equal macroevolution. Just because a flower changes color doesn't mean a flower becomes a stalk of corn. Those are two different things.

You're fixated on things you think prove your point. And so you repeat them.

They don't prove anything you suggest and instead demonstrate your failure to be objective.

Nothing about my science eliminates there being a god, or even your god.

Your position requires current aspects of science to be discarded or discredited.

 

[JaySecrets]

You're fixated on things you think prove your point. And so you repeat them.

They don't prove anything you suggest and instead demonstrate your failure to be objective.

Nothing about my science eliminates there being a god, or even your god.

Here's a list of statements made by your leading evolutionary scientists and philosophers stating they can't prove evolution, that it is a religion, and the reasons why they accept it. Enjoy.

 

[ll74]

Here's a list of statements made by your leading evolutionary scientists and philosophers stating they can't prove evolution, that it is a religion, and the reasons why they accept it. Enjoy.

I added a thought in my edit: your position requires a discard or discredit of current scientific knowledge. (As you continually try to do)

Scientific knowledge doesn't say that a god exists or doesn't exist nor does it rely on either.

 

[JaySecrets]

I added a thought in my edit: your position requires a discard or discredit of current scientific knowledge. (As you continually try to do)

Scientific knowledge doesn't say that a god exists or doesn't exist nor does it rely on either.

No, my position requires an acceptance of actual evidence. You have yet to answer one simple challenge that, if true, destroys the theory of millions of years in fossil layers. The flood explanation makes perfect sense in explaining it. Evolution over millions of years shown in fossil layers makes no sense. Thousands of upsidedown trees prove it. And that is only one of hundreds of proofs against millions of years. That's not even touching the proofs of design.

 

[ll74]

No, my position requires an acceptance of actual evidence.

Of course

You have yet to answer one simple challenge that, if true, destroys the theory of millions of years in fossil layers. The flood explanation makes perfect sense in explaining it. Evolution over millions of years shown in fossil layers makes no sense. Thousands of upsidedown trees prove it. And that is only one of hundreds of proofs against millions of years. That's not even touching the proofs of design.

You seem to think this proves your point....it doesn't. Evolution existing or not existing doesn't rely on this challenge of yours...yet you seem to think that it does.

You've demonstrated that the evidence provided for evolution doesn't work for you...which is fine. It doesn't mean the evidence is wrong or right. Evolution is supported by the majority of scientists, so it works for many. That means more to me than it does for you, which also is fine.

And again, your god existing doesn't rely on any challenge...it does or it doesn't.

The biggest difference that is the reason for this thread is that YOU can't accept scientific explanation and instead accept creationism as your truth. My worldview doesn't care either way but I understand that creationism isn't an actual scientific approach. Creationism is tied to a book and therefore cannot accept anything outside of it. Scientific discovery cannot require static beliefs.

 

[JaySecrets]

Of course

You seem to think this proves your point....it doesn't. Evolution existing or not existing doesn't rely on this challenge of yours...yet you seem to think that it does.

Yet it does. Because evolution requires millions of years. Your so-called evidence for millions of years is these fossil layers. Without millions of years proved by fossil layers you have no evidence. The upsidedown trees make sense of there was a worldwide catastrophic flood. They don't make sense if the layers are millions of years apart. So it is incumbent on evolution to explain those trees if the theory of millions of years is to hold water.

You've demonstrated that the evidence provided for evolution doesn't work for you...which is fine. It doesn't mean the evidence is wrong or right. Evolution is supported by the majority of scientists, so it works for many. That means more to me than it does for you, which also is fine.

Science is not a democracy. A majority of scientists accepting something is NOT proof of ANYTHING except that the mainstream scientific establishments have an accepted narrative.

And again, your god existing doesn't rely on any challenge...it does or it doesn't.

The biggest difference that is the reason for this thread is that YOU can't accept scientific explanation and instead accept creationism as your truth. My worldview doesn't care either way but I understand that creationism isn't an actual scientific approach. Creationism is tied to a book and therefore cannot accept anything outside of it. Scientific discovery cannot require static beliefs.

I accept SCIENTIFIC explanation. I don't accept an explanation based in blind acceptance of evolution. Creation science is not based in a Book. The Book has an explanation of the creation, but there are those who are NOT Christians who are scientists who point out and acknowledge there must be a Designer because there is clear design. They simply don't accept the Book as explanation. And evolution requires a static belief that there cannot be a personal Creator. Your own evolutionary scientists and philosophers have acknowledged that evolution is indistinguishable from a religion.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Because evolution requires millions of years. Your so-called evidence for millions of years is these fossil layers. Without millions of years proved by fossil layers you have no evidence.

For dating very old objects, such as those that are millions of years old, we use methods that are suited for such extensive time ranges. Here are the refined methods:

1. **Uranium-Lead Dating**
- Used for dating zircon crystals in igneous and metamorphic rocks.
- Effective for objects ranging from about 1 million to over 4.5 billion years old.
- Based on the decay of uranium-238 to lead-206 and uranium-235 to lead-207.

2. **Potassium-Argon Dating**
- Used for dating volcanic rocks and minerals.
- Effective for objects over 100,000 years old, often in the range of millions of years.
- Based on the decay of potassium-40 to argon-40.

3. **Argon-Argon Dating**
- An advanced form of potassium-argon dating.
- Allows for more precise dating and smaller sample sizes.
- Suitable for objects over 100,000 years old, extending into millions of years.

4. **Rubidium-Strontium Dating**
- Used for dating rocks and meteorites.
- Effective for objects over 10 million years old.
- Based on the decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87.

5. **Samarium-Neodymium Dating**
- Used for dating rocks and meteorites.
- Effective for objects over 10 million years old, often in the billions of years.
- Based on the decay of samarium-147 to neodymium-143.

6. **Fission Track Dating**
- Used for dating minerals and glasses, particularly in volcanic rocks.
- Effective for objects ranging from thousands to billions of years old.
- Based on the tracks formed by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238.

7. **Lead-Lead Dating**
- Used for dating certain minerals and meteorites.
- Effective for very old objects, ranging from millions to billions of years old.
- Based on the isotopic ratios of lead.

8. **Isochron Dating (General)**
- Can involve various parent-daughter isotope systems such as rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead, and samarium-neodymium.
- Effective for dating rocks and minerals over a wide range of geological timescales.

9. **Paleomagnetic Dating**
- Used for dating rocks and sediments based on the record of Earth's magnetic field orientation.
- Effective for objects over thousands to millions of years old.

10. **Rhenium-Osmium Dating**
- Used for dating sulfide ores and meteorites.
- Effective for objects in the range of millions to billions of years old.
- Based on the decay of rhenium-187 to osmium-187.

These methods are particularly valuable for studying geological and extraterrestrial materials, providing insights into the history of Earth and the solar system.

But sure, no evidence.

 

[JaySecrets]

For dating very old objects, such as those that are millions of years old, we use methods that are suited for such extensive time ranges. Here are the refined methods:

1. **Uranium-Lead Dating**
- Used for dating zircon crystals in igneous and metamorphic rocks.
- Effective for objects ranging from about 1 million to over 4.5 billion years old.
- Based on the decay of uranium-238 to lead-206 and uranium-235 to lead-207.

Fundamental flaws with this method of dating...

https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
https://answersresearchjournal.org/problems-radioisotope-dating-u-pb-1/

2. **Potassium-Argon Dating**
- Used for dating volcanic rocks and minerals.
- Effective for objects over 100,000 years old, often in the range of millions of years.
- Based on the decay of potassium-40 to argon-40.

Fundamental flaws with this type of dating...

https://creationliberty.com/articles/kardating.php

3. **Argon-Argon Dating**
- An advanced form of potassium-argon dating.
- Allows for more precise dating and smaller sample sizes.
- Suitable for objects over 100,000 years old, extending into millions of years.

...

https://www.icr.org/article/potassium-dating-crystal-rocks-problem-excess-argo/

4. **Rubidium-Strontium Dating**
- Used for dating rocks and meteorites.
- Effective for objects over 10 million years old.
- Based on the decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87.

https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/radiometric-dating-flaws-of-presumption/

5. **Samarium-Neodymium Dating**
- Used for dating rocks and meteorites.
- Effective for objects over 10 million years old, often in the billions of years.
- Based on the decay of samarium-147 to neodymium-143.

https://blog.drwile.com/scientist-realizes-important-flaw-in-radioactive-dating/

6. **Fission Track Dating**
- Used for dating minerals and glasses, particularly in volcanic rocks.
- Effective for objects ranging from thousands to billions of years old.
- Based on the tracks formed by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238.

https://www.icr.org/article/fissiontracks
https://www.icr.org/article/nuclear-fission-dating-methods-are-unreliable

7. **Lead-Lead Dating**
- Used for dating certain minerals and meteorites.
- Effective for very old objects, ranging from millions to billions of years old.
- Based on the isotopic ratios of lead.

8. **Isochron Dating (General)**
- Can involve various parent-daughter isotope systems such as rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead, and samarium-neodymium.
- Effective for dating rocks and minerals over a wide range of geological timescales.

9. **Paleomagnetic Dating**
- Used for dating rocks and sediments based on the record of Earth's magnetic field orientation.
- Effective for objects over thousands to millions of years old.

10. **Rhenium-Osmium Dating**
- Used for dating sulfide ores and meteorites.
- Effective for objects in the range of millions to billions of years old.
- Based on the decay of rhenium-187 to osmium-187.

These methods are particularly valuable for studying geological and extraterrestrial materials, providing insights into the history of Earth and the solar system.

But sure, no evidence.

I could go on, but the point is made. Every one of these has been proven unreliable. And you have yet to explain upside down trees through all these rock layers supposedly millions of years apart, in various stages of fossilization, as part of those layers. That one piece of physical evidence disproves the whole idea of millions of years apart on fossil layers, and that's just one problem of many. You said I won't engage in honest debate unless I answer your challenges, but you can't answer mine.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I could go on, but the point is made. Every one of these has been proven unreliable. And you have yet to explain upside down trees through all these rock layers supposedly millions of years apart, in various stages of fossilization, as part of those layers. That one piece of physical evidence disproves the whole idea of millions of years apart on fossil layers, and that's just one problem of many. You said I won't engage in honest debate unless I answer your challenges, but you can't answer mine.

You think upside down trees disproves biological evolution? Tell you what:

Where's your scientific papers and methodologies submitted for peer review on the subject?

If you honestly thought you're on to something, you wouldn't be debating on obscure political forums, but instead be challenging actual experts in the field.

So why aren't you?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Fundamental flaws with this method of dating...

https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
https://answersresearchjournal.org/problems-radioisotope-dating-u-pb-1/
https://creationliberty.com/articles/kardating.php
https://www.icr.org/article/potassium-dating-crystal-rocks-problem-excess-argo/
https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/radiometric-dating-flaws-of-presumption/
https://blog.drwile.com/scientist-realizes-important-flaw-in-radioactive-dating/
https://www.icr.org/article/fissiontracks
https://www.icr.org/article/nuclear-fission-dating-methods-are-unreliable

oh look...All blogs and propaganda sites. None of them credible.
They exist solely to provide a pseudoscientific rebuttal to established geological science.
"Creation science" is a fraud.

 

[Bray123]

Evolution deniers do not accept that a few hundred years ago we started with wolves and then with selective breeding of characteristics we ended up with Dalmations and Dachsunds.

Every now and then we find a throw-back to previous generations (which explains Marjorie Taylor-Greene).

 

[JaySecrets]

You think upside down trees disproves biological evolution? Tell you what:

Where's your scientific papers and methodologies submitted for peer review on the subject?

If you honestly thought you're on to something, you wouldn't be debating on obscure political forums, but instead be challenging actual experts in the field.

So why aren't you?

Evolutionary scientists have in fact been challenged on this, and they regularly fail to even respond, They just pretend places like the petrified forests aren't a problem. Here's the issue. It is physically impossible for trees to be UPSIDE DOWN as part of various fossil layers millions of years apart, each section of the tree at the stage of fossilization as the layer that part is found in. There is zero way that could happen with one tree. The tree would have rotted away before the first layer was formed. Unless you know of a way that upside down trees can stand upright and last for millions of years. And we have thousands of these all over the planet. And my favorite detail, there are even leaves that managed to be buried and run through layers supposedly millions of years apart. Some really strong leaves there!

There is, however, an answer that would predict this kind of thing. We actually see it in the explosion of Mt St. Helen. A massive catastrophe of a grand scale. And because of the way, the locations, and the consistency of the trees, on a worldwide scale. Like a universal flood. That would give you exactly that as upside down trees (the way they naturally end up in that situation, heavy side down and stripped) are quickly buried in rapidly laid layers of sediment that hardens under a lot of pressure, heat, and water. Where have I read about an event like that happening?

https://thecreationclub.com/fossils-stretching-through-multiple-ages-polystrates/

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...c53c1cf32dc337d3591d49ff7ac4aaeb&action=click

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=1c7354e258c1a80526d77b1ef293fbbc&action=view

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=1c7354e258c1a80526d77b1ef293fbbc&action=view

https://educateforlife.org/polystrate-fossils/

https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/da...cut-through-millions-of-years-of-rock-layers/

There's tons of information and actual pictures. Problem with your "peer review" is that evolutionists will rarely adress the problem. They know even one tree like this is a huge problem for their theory. So they will deflect to how trees are petrified, claim it takes millions of years (it doesn't.... country folk know you can petrify just about anything in far less than that... a few proofs-

https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substack.com/p/10a6-electric-fossilization

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...-flood/fossilized-teddy-bear.jpg&action=click ), then if they do acknowledge the existence of these trees at all, they don't give a reasonable explanation. They won't "peer review" anything that disproves their pet religion of evolution. After all, to quote an evolutionary scientist cited in an earlier post, they can't even allow God "a foot in the door".

So actually look at the evidence yourself and use your brain, minus the evolution grid you place over everything. They are impossible. Unless the worldwide flood is true. They can't be millions of years.

 

[JaySecrets]

Evolution deniers do not accept that a few hundred years ago we started with wolves and then with selective breeding of characteristics we ended up with Dalmations and Dachsunds.

Every now and then we find a throw-back to previous generations (which explains Marjorie Taylor-Greene).

Actually, creationists hold something more constant with what we see in DNA.... All dogs, from wolves to poodles, are part of one kind: the dog kind. And we can easily prove that because we can breed a wolf with a shepherd or a fox with a pit bull, and they will have offspring that can breed. You know what we can't do? Breed a cat with a dog. Hmmm.... Kinda like what the Book of Genesis says: "After their KIND".

 

[JaySecrets]

oh look...All blogs and propaganda sites. None of them credible.
They exist solely to provide a pseudoscientific rebuttal to established geological science.
"Creation science" is a fraud.

Oh, look... You refuse to look at evidence presented because you don't like that sources you don't like disprove your pet theories. So instead of addressing clearly laid out evidence on the merit of the information, you just mock the source. Gotcha.