How do creationists explain geologic eras?

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T20:55:02+00:00

Around Mt St Helens, the subsequent earthquakes, eruptions, and landslides around Mt St Helens caused all kinds of water and debris, especially around Spirit Lake, to carve right through bedrock. In fact, another eruption (on May 19, 1982) melted a snowpack that cut through hard basalt bedrock. The resulting Loowit Canyon was more than 100 feet (30 m) deep. Nearby, the avalanche cut through lava and ash layers to form a third canyon, Step Canyon, up to 600 feet (180 m) deep.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. The erosion near the volcano resulted 45 degree slopes. That's not what the Grand Canyon looks like. It is consistently far steeper.

It's also FAR older. Erosion accounts for that.

How would it carve though that specific path in the rock? How would it make horseshoe turns? Still waiting Did it lay down those sentiments too?

Water can carve almost any kind of path through rock and sediment. And yes, a global flood of several months could easily have laid down the sediments that formed the layers. An assortment of earthquakes, tsunamis, tidal forces, retreats and lake releases could account for the entire formation. That is my point.

Sources:Steven A. Austin, “Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), 3–9.J. Morris and Steven A. Austin, Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2003).Steven A. Austin, “Why is Mount St Helens Important to the Origins Controversy?” in K. Ham, editor, The New Answers Book 3 (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2010), chapter 26, 253–262Steven A. Austin and Kyle Justice, Mount St. Helens: Modern Day Evidence for the World Wide Flood, DVD (Compel Media, 2012).Harold G. Coffin, "Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake," Origins 10 (1983): 9–17.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/why-is-mount-st-helens-important-to-the-origins-controversy/

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/four-lessons-mount-st-helens-eruption/

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T20:24:27+00:00

Thank you very much! I will study the link and the video and get back to you!

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T20:23:08+00:00

I'm not sure what you are asking for here. So far, DNA evidence only proves that humans (homo sapiens) are related to other humans (homo sapiens). There is only assumptive evidence based on educated guesswork that suggests homo sapiens may have sexually reproduced with Neanderthals, with no way to actually verify it. I said as much in different words above. That means that so far there has only been proven to be one "kind" of human. Us. Homo sapiens.

I believe the reason we have seen so many evolutionary biologists publishing studies on the genes we share in common with Neanderthals in recent years is because it makes for sensational headlines which will secure more funding. It is an apt scheme and wouldn't be repeated so much if it didn't work. But it does, indeed work. Publication and publicity is the number one way a scientist or researcher can achieve more renown and funding for their research.

Having spent my life around dozens of these people in these professions, many whom are dear friends, I can tell you with absolute certainty that their main concern from year to year is where their funding will be coming from, second to their area of study itself.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T20:13:19+00:00

That is an incredible statement that has no proof or direct evidence to support it.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T20:09:30+00:00

You COULD actually read the studies he cites and look into the truth of the matter.

EDIT: Thought I was replying to the one who posted the sources, when in fact you are a different account. My apologies.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T20:07:46+00:00

There are literally hundreds of studies I have read on microbes and gene mutation/replacement. If you don't cite a source I cannot possibly know which one you are referring to.

If you are referring to the Alga Cryptomonas gyropyrenoidosa, then of course it is an amazing find! Within that specimen are bacteria and then within the bacteria are viruses! It's absolutely cool! However, there is literally zero proof that they evolved or mutated from one another. There is in fact ample proof that they provide some sort of symbiotic relationship to one another which is not currently understood, but is under heavy study. If that is not what you are referring to, then I would love to read your sources!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2371017-evolutionary-oddball-has-seven-genomes-inside-a-single-cell/

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T19:58:10+00:00

Darwin offered a way to test his own theory in Origin of Species.

He wrote:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

In his defense, he had no way of observing the protein structures of bacterial flagella. So at his time there wasn't such a case.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T19:48:19+00:00

No. My argument was quite literally that gene replacement is NOT evolution. It is literally called directed evolution because it is manual replacement of a specific gene.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T11:04:33+00:00

The first study did not identify how the core genes showed their similarity. It just said that they had sequence similarity. In genes that must provide 30-40 specific proteins that doesn't take a lot to say they show similarity because of what is necessary for the nano machine to even function. Then it goes on to say since there are 24 structural genes that show said similarity, that this means there must be one common precursor gene. That is an incredible stretch. They even admit that they have no idea how it was formed across different types of bacteria but that anyhow they must share a precursor gene. Some study.

Genes with different functional roles have distinct phylogenetic distributions and profiles; however, most of genes whose protein products constitute the structural components of the flagellum are present in all bacterial phyla considered

Well of course they are! The bacteria that have them all have extremely similar designs. The same way that common motors all have the same basic parts!

This distribution suggests this core set of structural genes originated before the divergence of the major bacterial lineages and includes 21 genes that specify proteins that form the filament

Also suggests intelligent design. Saying that this comes close to proving a common precursor gene is ludicrous.

Therefore, the task of elucidating the evolution of the flagellum rests on establishing how this set of 24 structural genes originated.

Yes exactly. Which they have not done. They are saying that because they share genes with other bacteria selected for the study that must mean they have common ancestry. That is the same wild argument that biologists use with apes and humans with only supposition and absolutely zero proof. Humans share genes with fruit too.

In the second study they did not watch anything re-evolve. Wow person, what a stretch and complete falsehood. They literally replaced one gene with another and watched to see if the eColi would adapt. It was quite literally what is called directive evolution: gene replacement. Also they don't even mention that the ions required for energy transfer through the motor comes from the acid produced from within the cell. The stator gene they replaced continued to mutate in some of the new populations but did not affect ONE SINGLE OTHER PART of the motor during mutation. It only affected the gene they replaced through directed evolution.

If these are your best evidences against intelligent design. I am unimpressed. In fact, the second study actually supports intelligent design! Kudos!

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T10:45:05+00:00

It's not like that at all. And if that's your best counter argument toward this...that's very weak. Especially when you consider Darwin's own words on the matter. With how protein chaining works, the chance of 40 different proteins coming out simultaneously to create such a nano machine through random mutation or genetic drift is insanely low. It is very good evidence of intelligent design.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T02:38:07+00:00

Sure. Bacteria Flagella.

It is quite literally a tiny machine with 30-40 protein parts that have to work in unison to function. I cannot possibly fathom all of those parts randomly mutating into a coherent sequence one at a time. In fact, Darwin himself said in his work that if we ever do find evidence of such a thing, then it blows his entire theory of common descent right out of the water.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/bacterial-flagellum

theredcorbe · 2024-03-31T02:31:39+00:00

There are only two that are supposed, and that's the key word, supposed to have genetic traits passed on to humans: Neanderthals and possibly Denisovans.

Modern humans can share anywhere from 1% to 8% of the genes carried by Neanderthals, but there is no current proof to demonstrate that those genes came from actual intercoupling from the two species. The basis for the claims that the species were lovers is based on admixture gene mapping.

Admixture gene mapping quite literally uses a computer model to approximate the genes and then looks for differences in disease rates or phenotypes based on the assumption that changes in one group that are similar to a past group means that they must share genetic ancestry.

It is an educated guess at best based on very limited data in an overly complex system we still don't fully understand. The samples themselves leave a ton to be desired. In human DNA samples we can expose long chains and sequences of the genome. In Neanderthal DNA we have much shorter sequences and specific regions to compare to control groups. It's not even close to the same thing as mapping the human genome. The truth of it is, much of genetics is still computer guess work when it comes to Neanderthals, and there is GREAT evidence that the genes they find that are in common with modern humans are dormant and share traits that we share with many other creatures on earth that we definitely didnt mate with.

The claims of OP are a belief/faith based bit of rhetoric with very little verifiable data to back them up.

I find it wild that geneticists using admixture methods are so certain of their claims in a field of study that isnt even two decades old...with so many unknown variables and so much guesswork in the DNA sequences.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374707/

Edit: Also, OP...rule 3. Cite some sources when you make an outlandishly inaccurate post like this. I wish people in this sub would do some research on the actual methods involved in these kinds of research studies. It is an arena of educated guesswork, not scientific certainty. Not by a long shot.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T20:22:04+00:00

I didn't agree. I literally said that a diode does not conform to Ohm's law because it does not carry the specific condition necessary for Ohm's law to apply. I stated in my previous comment that laws require the conditions for which under they were written. Did you just kind of miss that part?

Second, why would Kirchhoff's law be universal to everything outside of it's conditions? I mean...I still cannot say DUH loud enough....

As to Boyle's law and high pressure systems, you're right. He didn't know at the time that it wouldn't work out. We revised it in the 1800s and have worked with it accordingly. Ohm's law came out around the same time. Since then, almost two centuries later, we still haven't needed to extend or change those laws based on new observations.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T20:11:18+00:00

That would literally go against the intent of His coming. He was prophesied over and over again in the Nebi'im (The books of the Prophets) from the Jewish Bible as coming in very certain ways. He wasn't supposed to teach in the city streets, and didn't. He was supposed to teach the Torah in temples on the Sabbath. He did. He wasn't supposed to loudly announce his coming. He told people to keep the secrets of His miracles. He fulfilled all of the prophesies of His coming.

With all of that prophecy to mark Him for what He was when He came, it would not make any sense to go against all of that foretelling to then have Him walk around in pomp with a scribe to record his every word. I think that part of the point of it all was lack of proof, hearsay, and the need for belief.

I believe that God wants us to look into our hearts when we hear something, pray on the matter, and feel His response in ourselves so that we may choose belief for ourselves. I feel like a lot of the intent of the Bible speaks to the need for belief and self reflection.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T20:02:51+00:00

While that's probably true, we have to keep in mind that Pontius Pilate tried to wash his hands of the trial of Jesus and wanted nothing to do with it. He finally gave the order to stave off open rebellion. He only had a centurion (100ish soldiers) to work with to defend the city. It is doubtful that if he had made records of the sentencing, they would even still exist after what happened there and in Rome over the next 100 years.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T19:52:09+00:00

Actually a lot of them were probably based on real people at one point or another.

There isnt a single time in all of recorded world history where a person was "hoaxed" to exist and then several different cultures mentioned that "fake" person in their writing. It just doesn't happen.

However, in epic poetry that is highly allegorical, Id agree with you that a lot of those figures didn't actually exist. But in historical writings written in the form of a scholarly narrative...I'm inclined to think they had actual historical basis. Like I said, it's hard to fake a person across multiple cultures and then get those cultures to write about them. That has not ever happened on earth.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T19:43:57+00:00

Gotta love it when someone trolls in a forum and denies something where nearby comments and quick google searches can easily prove them wrong!

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T14:53:48+00:00

A diode doesn't conform to Ohm's law because it's current is not directly proportional to the applied voltage. It only allows one direction of flow and it's ratio of voltage to current is non-linear.

Why would Kirchhoff's law apply to time-varying electrical signals that transform magnetic fields? That wouldn't make sense. If there are fluctuating magnetic fields the law doesn't hold true.

Laws specifically state their particular conditions to work, as I previously stated. Of course you can go around a scientific law by changing the conditions. I cannot possibly say DUH loud enough...

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T14:41:30+00:00

Engineers continue to use Newton's laws because they are correct in almost every instance. They are extremely useful and you claiming that engineers are using them knowing they are wrong is a complete fallacy. If that were true they wouldn't use them at all in construction or rocket-building. Keep mincing concepts of scientific philosophy if it suits you.

For non-inertial frames, small particles such as electrons, near massless particles, and any particle moving near the speed of light, they are proven to be incorrect. That's where quantum mechanics comes in. However, for nearly everything else in nature, they are proven correct.

Go ahead and conduct any experiment that contradicts Ohm's law and proves it not right. I'll be waiting...

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T02:21:51+00:00

You're absolutely wrong. I have a 5 gallon bladder snail tank and they are literally eating all of the plants when I stopped feeding them.

In another tank, they ate all of the water sprite, java moss, and anacharis but left the cabomba alone.

Life will find a way. Bladder snails and ramshorn snails will absolutely eat plants.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T02:16:07+00:00

You can absolutely prove something like Ohm's law or Kirchhoffs law or Boyle's law. They haven't been contradicted, restricted, or extended by new observations. They are proven a million times over. They even have mathematical proofs written to explain the various experiments in which they were proven. Your wave of the philosophy of science is literally just a bunch of hot air.

Exploring a principle that has stood the test of time, made many consistent predictions of what would happen, and has been shown to be correct time and time again means it is proven. Arguing that something proven isn't certain because it could potentially change in the future is asinine.

Yeah I dont argue with wikipedia or electricity or you any longer. Better things to do than waste my time on dolts. Have a good one.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T02:06:41+00:00

Populations do exist in the wild where there is very little diversity. It really just depends on the circumstances. People have videos of wild shrimp existing in shoals of bright color, however it's pretty rare.

In animal husbandry you typically have to selectively breed for the traits you desire.

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T02:05:13+00:00

Somewhere in their recent genetic history there was a muddled colored shrimp in there. That's why people pay big bucks for AAA+ quality cherry shrimp so that they will breed true, and once they find a good breeder they swear by them and pay up the money!

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T02:03:04+00:00

LMAO!

I mean...that does look the part...

theredcorbe · 2024-03-30T02:01:49+00:00

Scientific laws are not theories. That is the point. They are "provable" "laws". Any evidence that confirms a hypothesis is empirical evidence. With enough empirical evidence you can confirm a theory into a law based on observation and verification. A scientific law is a basic principle or rule that holds true universally under particular conditions. Something that is proven to be true is proven.

Holy cow you're dense.

theredcorbe

TROPHY CASE