Joined: April 2006
AFDAVE'S LAST POST ON THE GOOD OLD CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS THREAD (SNIFF)
A PARTIAL LIST OF THE FUN STUFF WE HAVE COVERED HERE AT ATBC
1) I showed you how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they say it is only a mirage
2) I showed you the contradiction in saying that if a high-tech UFO lands on earth, it must be designed, yet a high-tech rotary motor driving a flagellum in a bacterium is not designed.
3) I showed you that the fundamental difference between a butterfly (which reproduces) and a watch (which doesn't) is degree of technological sophistication. This proves that if the watch was designed, then much more the butterfly.
4) You were shown how Talk Origins supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind
5) I showed you how the broken GULO gene in humans and chimps can just as easily be explained by Common Design as by Common Descent
6) I gave you three major objections to the notion of common descent between apes and humans. These objections are large and problematic for ToE.
7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
8) We discussed supposed human evolution and pointed out how absurd it is to say that modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago, but didn't begin keeping written records until 194,000 years later.
9) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages
10) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds. If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.
11) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
12) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.
13) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
14) You were shown how many leading geologists, including Derek Ager, past president of the British Geological Association, have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
15) You have been shown that the "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time, and is characterized by gaps, not by a continuous sequence of evolutionary change
16) We discussed the fact that the term "Punctuated Equilibrium" was invented because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.
17) You have been shown two modern day examples--the Palouse Canyon and the Toutle River--of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock, showing exactly how the Grand Canyon was probably formed.
18) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically. When will they stop laughing at creationists who say the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly?
19) You have been shown that incised meanders such as those found in the Grand Canyon require soft sediments, thus showing that the Grand Canyon was formed while sediments were still soft in the Receding Phase of the Great Flood.
20) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils--which is pure speculation, not radiometrically as we are led to believe. Some layers claim radiometric dates, but these are "calibrated" by fossils
21) Another example of dates being "calibrated" by fossils was Koobi Fora in which dates ranging from approximately 1.6 my to 230 my were obtained.
22) You have been shown how K-Ar dating used to be the most popular radiometric dating method until geologists realized that there are all kinds of problems with it making it often wildly discordant from other methods
23) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.
24) You have been shown that radiometric dating discordance is the rule, not the exception and that this creationist contention was confirmed by creationist scientists' own experiments, which some of you say never happens.
25) I showed you Ayala's quote where he says that “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
26) I showed that the genetic bottleneck of Noah's Ark need not have been a problem WRT preserving variability. All that was required would be a fair amount of heterozygosity in the pairs taken on the ark.
27) It was claimed that the 500 or so alleles of the HLA-B gene are some sort of problem for creationism, but this was shown not to be true. The HLA-B gene mutates in response to different environments more rapidly than other genes. And these mutated genes are then mixed in the various populations of the world.
28) We showed how C14 dating is based upon the flawed assumption of relatively constant carbon levels throughout earth history. This is an incorrect assumption as the fossil record clearly shows.
29) Dr. John Sanford has shown in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, that the Primary Axiom (RM + NS) has now been shown by modern genetics to be utterly false. This leaves ToE advocates without any mechanism at all to drive evolution.
30) Eight alternative mechanisms were proposed, but I showed that they are inadequate. Sanford is right. There is no other mechanism.
31) I showed you where Allen MacNeill of Cornell has said that the Modern Synthesis of ToE (which he says equates to the Micro-Evo = Macro-Evo extrapolation) is DEAD.
32) And ... last but not least, I showed that recombination involves the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information, which is quite a different thing than random mutation. And neither can serve as a mechanism for creating new biological structures.
Wherever I go next, I will be getting into the Tower of Babel, Egypt and China, the Ice Age, Post-Flood ecology, the prophecies of the Book of Daniel, Biblical Archaeology, Ante-Diluvian Man, Christianity and America, the Reformation and Protestantism and other fun topics. I hope you will join me!
If there were only 1 YEC book that I could recommend to you, it would be Dr. John Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. He is a semi-retired, prominent, successful Cornell geneticist who has recently rejected Darwinism with it's RM + NS dogma, and has become a Young Earth Creationist as have many competent scientists. The list grows longer every day. A lot of the folks here say that YECism is dying and point to the Dover trial. But the exact opposite is happening. YECism is growing worldwide ... and quickly.
Close runners up to Dr. Sanford's book would be Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood and John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study.
All three books are heavily documented from the science literature and are quite convincing of the YEC case.
Websites you should bookmark are ...
www.answersingenesis.org (growing rapidly ... opening a Creation Museum in May)
www.icr.org (where the modern YEC revival started ... growing, opened new office in Dallas recently)
airdave.blogspot.com (My blog which is inactive at the moment because I have been here at ATBC, but I may restart and enable comments)
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php (where I will probably be posting soon ... same username as here probably ... "afdave")
You can download both of my CGH threads here ...
... and here are some search terms for my AFD_CGH1 thread. Just download them to a text file, then search using CTRL-F. Here's some I set up for you. You can also just search terms in the list of 32 items above.
INSPIRATION FOR MY TITLE "CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS"
Search term: http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf
C.S. LEWIS ARGUMENT FOR GOD BASED UPON UNIVERSAL MORAL CODE
Search term: morality as a clue to the meaning of the universe
GENESIS IS A WRITTEN, EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT, NOT ORAL TRADITION
Search term: reliability of the Genesis Record
JOSH McDOWELL ON TYRE
Search term: josh mcdowell on tyre
TYRE FULFILLMENT REFUTATION EQUIVOCAL AT BEST
Search term: trinitysem
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE JUNE 13, 2006
Search term: June 13 2006,13:11
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN THE WORLD
Search term: evil in the world
Thanks to Wesley, Steve and all of you for your hospitality! I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and I wish you all the best in the future. Wesley, I had fun arguing with you for ... what was it 3 posts? Er ... what was that you were saying about no quoted authority at Wikipedia? Better look again. Anyway, if you or Argy (I suppose Argy is David Phippard? ) or Incorygible or Deadman or Russell or Chris Hyland or Drew Headley or JonF or Carlson and whoever else want to debate any other particular YEC topics here (as opposed to over at the Dawkins forum), I would suggest one thread at a time on a very narrow topic. Let me know ... you know where to find me!
And most of all ... if any of you don't already know Him, I hope you get to know your Creator in 2007!
Have a good life!
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.