Evidence for God from Science

erawdrah wrote:According to the AKC, a new breed is defined by 6 or 7 generations and 1,000+ dogs. http://www.akc.org/reg/fss_details.cfm With this knowledge it wouldn't take thousands of years to get a new breed. Almost everyone, including the evolutionists, believe that all dogs are descendants of wolves. And the reason there are so many different breeds is because of man.

And, again, BREEDS are NOT different species. The myriad breeds of dogs are NOT different species!

Man bred them for his purpose. Here's a good article that explains how this works beware this is from an evolutionists point of view. http://www.canismajor.com/dog/whtzbred.html#Whatis Another good article is http://www.petsplace.co.za/dogs.htm . I do not believe in evolution, but I do believe in natural selection. Dog breeding is man using natural selection and manipulating for his goal. This happens in the wild but at a much, much slower rate. The important thing to remember is these dogs can all be breed together and they did not become a non-dog. There is no evidence that a dog gave birth to a non-dog or any other creature give birth other than it's own kind.

I'm not debating the dog/wolves timing. I'm sying the timing that you are giving would not work ater the ark. To declare that all you would need would be 75 "kinds" would be ridiculous considering that in the timeline of the dog and wolf, we don't even have a BIOLOGICAL definition of a different species yet.

He grew 29,000 peas and did heredity tests. He noticed that when pure bred red flowered peas were pollinated he only saw red flowers. Only when he cross bred red flowers with yellow flowers can you get both colors of flowers. In fact, if you have two red flowers where one of them has a yellow flower in parent, then the two red flowered plants could produce a yellow offspring. The only way a red flowered plant can reproduce a yellow plant is by having a yellow plant in it's genealogy.

Mendel wasn't proving or disproving evolution. Mendel showed the mechansim of heredity. His yellow and red flowers were simply different ALLELES of the flower color gene. ONe allele was dominant and one was recessive. Breeding together two plant with different alleles will not change their species or even kinds.

This is the problem with evolution. If your parents or parent's parents or parent's parent's parent and so on didn't have the gene for blue eyes then you won't have it either. Look at this chart http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html What do you see on the tree of life picture? Reading it from bottom to top, you see the very first item is a hypothetical common ancestor. So we know this chart is built on theory from the ground up. Now look at the blue dots. They represent where a creature developed something that its parent did not have. This is a violation of Mendel's study. Dog breeds have nothing to do with evolution and they don't need millions or billions of years to produce them.

Well, sure if gene were static then absolutely this is true. But the theory of evolution is built upon genetic changes such as mutations, both chromosomal and gene, as well as entire genome changes. Now whether this supplies enough variation is the question. But we must make sure that we understand the theory. The theory of evoluton does not rest upon a static gene pool. The picture on talk origins with the common ancestors would rely on gene pool changes that introduce new changes in the alleles that selection then acts upon.

Zoegirl I did state dogs were the same species. The point is a Great Dane and a Chiwawa (same species) look more radically different looking than a horse and a donkey which are different species. Another point is while the Ark only carried one pair of unclean kinds, it included 3 pairs (plus 1 sacrifice) of clean animals and birds. So Noah could have had 3 different species pairs per kind for the clean animals. Species are really only a human invention.

No, the point is whether populations can change to the point that the YEC who claim this process can. And we just don't see the reproductive isolation across the board, whether it is artificial selection or natural selection.

Just out of curiosity...ther was a claim that only 75 "kinds" on mammals would have been brought on board. What are these kinds...

Gman wrote:If you are stating that a dog could morph into a wolf in less than 6 thousand years then you are giving credence to evolution.. I don't except that evolution can morph species that quickly..

The dog post was for Gman. And yes a wolf did "morph" into a dog. They are of the same kind or specie or what ever you want to call it. This is not evolution, this is natural selection. My pointedly, this is un-natural selection because man did the selecting and developed the different breeds for his wants. Evolution (macro) is when a dog becomes a non-dog. This proves that there would ample time for dogs to diversify since the flood.

What is a specie then?

Are wolves and dogs the same breed or specie?

It is true that Mendel was not trying to prove or disprove evolution but he did disprove it. So show me a mutation that added information. Show me a mutation that was not negative. What makes a gene mutate? Environment?


And response to you about reading my material. You copied a portion out of my link but missed the whole picture. Let me copy and paste the section on K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating.


"Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique

Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement. "

So they developed Ar/Ar dating to solve these problems. The problem with that is Ar/Ar is even harder to conduct. Here's another copy and paste

"Some problems with the 40Ar/39Ar technique.

Standard Intercalibration "Note the J parameter is the amount of time that the sample is exposed to the reactor core."

In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be known. For the J to be determined, a standard of known age must be irradiated with the samples of unknown age. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. The primary standard must be a mineral that is homogeneous, abundant and easily dated by the K/Ar and 40Ar/39Ar methods. Traditionally, this primary standard has been a hornblende from the McClure Mountains, Colorado (a.k.a. MMhb-1). Once an accurate and precise age is determined for the primary standard, other minerals can be dated relative to it by the 40Ar/39Ar method. These secondary minerals are often more convenient to date by the 40Ar/39Ar technique (e.g. sanidine). However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise, because of heterogeneity problems with the MMhb-1 sample, the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. This imprecision (and inaccuracy) is transferred to the secondary minerals used daily by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Fortunately, other techniques are available to re-evaluate and test the absolute ages of the standards used by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Some of these include other isotopic dating techniques (e.g. U/Pb) and the astronomical polarity time scale (APTS).

Decay Constants

Another issue affecting the ultimate precision and accuracy of the 40Ar/39Ar technique is the uncertainty in the decay constants for 40K. This uncertainty results from 1) the branched decay scheme of 40K and 2) the long half-life of 40K (1.25 billion years). As technology advances, it is likely that the decay constants used in the 40Ar/39Ar age equation will become continually more refined allowing much more accurate and precise ages to be determined.

J Factor

Because the J value is extrapolated from a standard to an unknown, the accuracy and precision on that J value is critical. J value uncertainty can be minimized by constraining the geometry of the standard relative to the unknown, both vertically and horizontally. The NMGRL does this by irradiating samples in machined aluminum disks where standards and unknowns alternate every other position. J error can also be reduced by analyzing more flux monitor aliquots per standard location.

39Ar Recoil

The affects of irradiation on potassium-bearing rocks/minerals can sometimes result in anomalously old apparent ages. This is caused by the net loss of 39ArK from the sample by recoil (the kinetic energy imparted on a 39ArK atom by the emission of a proton during the (n,p) reaction). Recoil is likely in every potassium-bearing sample, but only becomes a significant problem with very fine grained minerals (e.g. clays) and glass. For multi-phase samples such as basaltic wholerocks, 39ArK redistribution may be more of a problem than net 39ArK loss. In this case, 39Ar may recoil out of a low-temperature, high-potassium mineral (e.g. K-feldspar) into a high-temperature, low potassium mineral (e.g. pyroxene). Such a phenomenon would great affect the shape of the age spectrum. "

It says the "J" parameter must be known, if it's not irradiated for the proper length of time then you will get faulty results. That doesn't mean as your article put it "hours", it means a definite time. And because you can't determine that time by Ar/Ar you must us a different dating method like K/Ar. But wait that's circular there. However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise, because of heterogeneity problems with the MMhb-1 sample, the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. Fortunately, other techniques are available to re-evaluate and test the absolute ages of the standards used by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Some of these include other isotopic dating techniques (e.g. U/Pb) and the astronomical polarity time scale (APTS).

APST I love this one. It says that the APST time scale is determined by using K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating methods. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/94GL03214.shtml Circular again. This one here will really get you http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~dvk/Time%20 ... nt1995.pdf This one says our Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale or APST is off because of a bad Ar/Ar date. We need to recalibrate it so that the KP line is at 65 mya because that's the date that has been adopted for that line.

My point is that there is no way possible to get an exact date. Now I do believe that there is value in radiometric dating but don't tell me that radiometric dating is the cats meow and that it's never wrong. What other ways do you have to prove the age of the earth? There must be more than one. What do you feel backs up radiometric dating?

I posted a link to Godandscience.org that shows over 20 different methods of dating the universe, all of which show old ages. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... verse.html

And I defend radiometric dating, jsut as I do other methods, mainly because it has stood the test of time.

As Mendel, my point was that you were erroneously describing evolution with respect to the phylogenetic trees referred to in talkorigins.

IN one breath you claim that mutations cannot introduce information

So show me a mutation that added information. Show me a mutation that was not negative. What makes a gene mutate? Environment?

and then in the next you want speciation after the flood that REQUIRES mutations, genes that provide new sructures....which is rather humorous if it weren't so....bizarre. In order to get 45 kinds of mammals to the different species today (which are reprodcutively isolated nd are considered different species) you would absolutely require a bunch of mutations.

What are the 45 kinds of mammals and 75 kinds of birds?

My point is that there is no way possible to get an exact date

Of course not....that is why the dates ae shown as 2bya instead of 1.567bya. The margin of error is the dating methods, does NOT allow an interpretation of Youngearth, it merely points to a method that provides a range. No scientist denies this.

Let's review this page you linked me. You can count out most of the astronomical data as it's built on Parallax Method and that light has always traveled at 186,000 miles per second. Definition is that the speed of light is a defined numerical value 299,792,458 miles per second in "vacuum". Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. This would make a star 6.4 billion light years away only 127,000 light years away. And that's using their parallax method of measuring. Let's look at parallax measuring. The formula is that if you have a known distance from A to B (where A to B is the base line of a triangle), then draw a line from A to C (where A to C is a line starting at the edge of the baseline to the object that's your end point). Now figure the angle of line AC to line AB where the middle of AB is a right angle. The problem is you need to have a long baseline to get accurate angles. If you baseline is 12 inches in Florida and your point is in Chicago, then the angles are so small that 0.0001 makes a huge difference in the result. So scientists figured out they could use the earth's position in Jan and the earth's position in June as a baseline. That would give us a baseline of 2 AU (Astronomical Unit or distance from the sun to the earth). That sounds like a good idea except when what you are measuring is 270,000 AU away. Now we're back to the tiny angles where 0.0001 makes a huge difference in the result of the equation. Now we can dismiss those date arrived with radiometric dating because you can't prove something using itself. I would say that we don't have any definite age for anything.

There is no need for mutations for wolf to dog. That's like saying that the poodle mutated into a miniature poodle. That's absurd.
There is no new information added for a small dog verses a large dog. It's not like they have wings now. Wings would be information added.

Evolutions believe that trees are part of our ancestry, so how is Mendel still not disproving evolution?

I don't what the 45 kinds of mammals and 75 kinds of birds, I never made that statement. I just believe what is written in the Bible. There was a flood that destroyed everything on the earth except for those in the ark. So to destroy everything it had to be global. And the Bible says Noah took 2 of every creeping thing and that breathed air thru nostrils and 7 of the clean kinds. I don't think it's rocket science to figure out that this is possible and especially when God is involved. Do not limit God to man made theory. God is not limited by man.

erawdrah wrote:I don't think it's rocket science to figure out that this is possible and especially when God is involved. Do not limit God to man made theory. God is not limited by man.

And you were doing so well ... until you said the above that is. That's when you graduated to a typical YEC flamethrower, congratulations. A friendly word of advice, please be careful what accusations you lob at people who disagree with you. I assure you some of them are just as strong believers in God's omnipotence as you are.

Byblos wrote:

erawdrah wrote:I don't think it's rocket science to figure out that this is possible and especially when God is involved. Do not limit God to man made theory. God is not limited by man.

And you were doing so well ... until you said the above that is. That's when you graduated to a typical YEC flamethrower, congratulations. A friendly word of advice, please be careful what accusations you lob at people who disagree with you. I assure you some of them are just as strong believers in God's omnipotence as you are.

I'm sorry you are correct. I should have said that and I apologize to Zoegirl and Gman. Please forgive me.

[

Evolutions believe that trees are part of our ancestry, so how is Mendel still not disproving evolution?

Because Mendel never dealt with mutations! OR long term changes. DOn't get me wrong, Mendel was an incredible scientist and Christian. But his work did not focus on HOW species change or even remotely tackled mutations or genome changes. He didn't even focus on population changes.

All Mendels work reveals is the method of heredity, not how it changes. He studied the pea plant alleles extremely well and showed their dominance and recessive qualities.

His work just doesn't shed any light at all on population changes over time or mutation rates.

I think it was ROBE who claimed the 45 kinds of mammals. Just out of curiosity though, do you believe that there were fewer species or only kinds and then some sortof speciation?

CAre to reference your critcism of the Parallax calculations?

I don't think it's rocket science to figure out that this is possible and especially when God is involved. Do not limit God to man made theory. God is not limited by man.

I think Byblos said it all and I appreciate your apology, but just for the record, this is not about LIMITING GOD, this is about WHAT He did not WHAT HE could DO. God can do anything.

erawdrah wrote:The dog post was for Gman. And yes a wolf did "morph" into a dog. They are of the same kind or specie or what ever you want to call it. This is not evolution, this is natural selection. My pointedly, this is un-natural selection because man did the selecting and developed the different breeds for his wants. Evolution (macro) is when a dog becomes a non-dog. This proves that there would ample time for dogs to diversify since the flood.

I'm sorry. I just can't believe a wolf morphed into a tiny chiwawa in less than 6 thousand years... I just can't wrap my mind around that and call it science. To me it's easier to understand the hebrew word "erets" and it's interpretation than try to understand morphing wolves..

erawdrah wrote:My point is that there is no way possible to get an exact date. Now I do believe that there is value in radiometric dating but don't tell me that radiometric dating is the cats meow and that it's never wrong. What other ways do you have to prove the age of the earth? There must be more than one. What do you feel backs up radiometric dating?

Many ways...

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

erawdrah wrote:

Byblos wrote:

erawdrah wrote:I don't think it's rocket science to figure out that this is possible and especially when God is involved. Do not limit God to man made theory. God is not limited by man.

And you were doing so well ... until you said the above that is. That's when you graduated to a typical YEC flamethrower, congratulations. A friendly word of advice, please be careful what accusations you lob at people who disagree with you. I assure you some of them are just as strong believers in God's omnipotence as you are.

I'm sorry you are correct. I should have said that and I apologize to Zoegirl and Gman. Please forgive me.

No problem.. I too believe that God can do anything He wants at any time He wants.. The problem is are we putting our man made interpretations into God's word? God is not limited by man.. True, but is man limiting God? I don't know...

According to science there are 289 species of Columbidae (pigeons & doves). This does not mean that Noah had to take 289 pairs of pigeons onto the Ark. He only had to take 3 pairs of Doves and a spare onto the Ark (7 Doves). Those 7 Doves might have been more than one species, I think over 4 thousand years is enough time to produce an extra 286 species.

Again according to science there are 102 species of Corvidae (crows, magpies & jays). Again Noah only had to take onto the Ark 3 breeding pairs of ravens (or close relative) and a spare. Those 7 Ravens might have been more than one species, again over 4 thousand years is enough time to produce an extra 99 species.

The current classication of animals has only been in use since the 18th century (Karl Von Linne started it) , over 4 thousand years after the flood.

When talking about creation and the Ark, God and the Bible primary view creatures by their kinds not species. One example is the plague of "frogs" in Egypt, they were probably toads according to modern classification.

Some people can accept major change within a species in a human lifetime but not minor change within a kind over a few thousand years?

On the other end of the scale there are only 2 (or 3) species of elephant alive today. Noah would have only put 2 (male and female) elephants onto the Ark. So only 2 or 3 species have resulted. Plenty of species did go extinct thousands of years ago like the mammoth, probably because Noah had only room for one species.

There may well be 1million species on the planet but when you start classification by kind and again only by those that need taking onto the Ark (no fish or whales) the numbers drop to the hundreds.

I would like to know the referece with regards to the number you provided. 45 kinds of mammals.

What were each of the kinds?

What I would like to know from any here that support the post flood specaition model is the reference you are using with regard to the numbers provided, especially with regard to a SPECIFIC model of which kinds resulted in which species. Everybody is bringing up the dog/wolves example, which is hardly helpful, as that would hardly reduce the number of species on the ark to any noticable degree.

For instance, this is the only model I could find.

Which shows that they consider that an ancestor to the cat, both big cat and small cats, would have been the one brought into the ark. This would CLEARLY involve large scale evolution with quite a number of mutations invovled. YOu have a general cat kind that diverges into the cheetah as well as the house cat AND the big cat....if that isn't evolution...

Another example that would need clarification. WOuld the horse "kind" then have diverged in to horse, zebra, donkey, and asses around the world?

Or would this be even broader and include other odd-toed ungluates?

All of these are quite large feats of speciation, on a grander scale than dogs and wolves. IF this picture is not representative, then please provide a specific MODEL that illustrates the mechanism through which this rapid postflood speciation could have happened. ALl of the sites I found were quite quite vague and unsatisfactory, and really quite irritating in their non-specifics.

//www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory-Reveali ... 269&sr=1-1



More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation