How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

only begins after the last comma. Everything before that is an honest summary of the Christian creationist argument.

No, the whole comment is rather fallacious for one reason or another, but I know you were not actually trying to prove a point.

Where has it been documented that the Christian God specifically, and no other god, created life? Has this been observed and detected?

Only the Christian God has the necessary attributes for the job.

Again..and as usual, you appear to be arguing against your own theory.

Nope, I am arguing against yours, if you do not wish to defend it that’s fine with me.

A mutation must become fixed in the population by genetic drift if it is to be passed on or fixed in a population? That's news to me. More of your theory?

That’s not what I said at all, if you’re trying to explain any of the distinct genetic information and phenotypes we observe in organisms on earth with neutral mutations then those mutations would have had to given rise to those features and had become fixed through drift in those populations, and that’s not mathematically possible. So no matter whether you want to explain them through Natural Selection or through Neutral Molecular Evolution, either way you can’t. Perhaps you have a third mechanism?

Are you having trouble understanding what happens to allele frequency when one specific segment of a population becomes over-represented relative to the total population?

You’re committing equivocation again; we are not talking about the frequencies of alleles in a population we are talking about the origination of those new alleles to begin with.

Agreed....so, thanks for the laugh, I guess?

Yes, thank you for tossing out that little ridiculous hypothesis.

Finally, you get something right.

And those mathematical probabilities indicate your hypothesis is statistically impossible. Game over.

-and then fuck it up in the next breath. My position - as I have stated very simply is all that a mutation must be to be passed on or become fixed in a population is non-deleterious. Modern synthesis holds that while genetic drift is an inevitable consequence of the law of large numbers - of chance acting upon allele frequency...natural selection is a much more powerful and constant means of effecting change -this barring those instances of drift set in motion by population bottlenecks.

What a waste of time! You only brought up neutral mutations because I was pointing out that the evidence we observe does not support Natural Selection, and now you are admitting that Natural Selection was your best mechanism to begin with; so disingenuous.

Thus leading me to conclude that you have absolutely no clue what you're on about - whatsoever.

What I said was completely accurate, I am far more educated on this material than you’ll ever be. You just do not understand your own theory as evidenced by all of the time you wasted trying to defend neutral theory; so small time.

Because they're outliers.
Only some rocks have this problem. Not most... some... a few. Not statistically relevant.

Accept when they try to date rocks of known age, all of the sudden the outliers become the norm.

But, on this particular location, the layers are not stacked up vertically, but rather horizontally. Care to guess why that is?

I’d have to see what you are referring to, I’d assume through some sort of upheaval. Near where I live you can see large bent but unbroken bands of strata, how are they unbroken if they were each deposited separately and solidified over millions of years but were then bent by seismic forces later? It looks to me like they were bent while they were still soft and solidified afterwards.

HAHA, someone messed up a quote...

Dang! I did didn’t I?

So you're saying I can't argue that Harry Potter is wrong because my science adheres to the assumption that presume HP to be wrong (magic doesn't exist). So I'm assuming that HP books are wrong in order to argue that the HP books are wrong, therefore wrong about the existence of magic.

Yes, you’re not allowed to use your assumption that magic does not exist in order to argue for the very thing you are assuming to be true (that magic does not exist).

jWhere am I going with this? To the fact that OF COURSE a book that was written without proper verification of facts is never taken into account when researching something in a scientific way. And if that research leads to a conclusion that clashes with whatever is in the book, then science doesn't care.... the book is wrong! Harry potter is wrong, there's no magic; Dracula is wrong, there are no vampires; Star Trek is wrong, there was no Eugenics war in the late 20th century; etc...etc...etc...

None of those books claim to be infallible, so comparing them to scripture is fallacious. When a source that claims to be infallible disagrees with what we already know is fallible (science) we have to go about things far differently.

If you really want to prove science wrong and your book true, then provide your creator for science to scrutinize.

This has nothing to do with proving science wrong, science does not hold a position it’s merely a tool and creationists can use that tool perfectly without contradicting scripture.

This assuming that science's assumptions are wrong just so your book could be true... is not sustainable... hence Why do people laugh at creationists?

People laugh because they cannot refute their arguments and laughing at something you cannot refute is a natural coping mechanism, it’s fallacious though.

Short lived isotopes are isotopes with a short half-life, like carbon-14. Which oppose long lived isotopes like Uranium-234.

Yes I am well aware of what they are, but some short-lived isotopes are merely theorized to have naturally existed even though we have never observed them to have existed in nature, so it was unclear which you were referring to.

The flood of water, you mean?! BUHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Yes, water is the number one cause of contamination within supposed closed systems; I am shocked you were unaware of that.

No, radiometric dating has been consistent and yields results compatible with independent dating methodologies. I have no reason to doubt it.

Except for when it contradicts independent dating methodologies such as the lunar recession rate right? So it’s always consistent except for the numerous times when it’s not.

All it says is that the Earth and moon were formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago.

But according to the Laws of Physics that’s not possible, so either the Laws of Physics are wrong or radiometric dating is, I’ll side with the Laws of Physics on this one.

It's possible... of course... but to claim that those conditions happened practically homogeneously throughout the Earth seems a stretch...
Are any of those conditions a flood?!

No, they most likely occurred during the formation of the Earth during creation week leading to billions of years’ worth of decay (at today’s rates) within a matter of hours. Observable Helium retention rates support this hypothesis.

It was that faulty K-Ar method with excessive 40Ar that yielded such results.

Yup, even though you previously stated all of the methods yield consistent results we now appear to have a faulty method. The reason they claim there is excess argon is because they missed the targeted age so badly, it’s an Ad Hoc Hypothesis in order to save their method. The problem is that without a known target, there is no way to determine if excesses exist or not. The method is now useless. Thanks for providing the article by the way.

Fair enough. Found that study Analysis of Dinosaur Bone Cells Confirms Ancient Protein Preservation. It only proves they found proteins which are found in DNA, but it's a step in the right direction...

No in 2012 they actually found in tact DNA (greater than 170 base pairs), the problem was that nobody had ever tried looking for it because they knew such matter could not last that long and they knew the bones were that old. It’s just another example of how the power of the evolutionary paradigm actually hampers our scientific discoveries.

“The data thus far seem to support the theory that these structures can be preserved over time,” Schweitzer says. “Hopefully these findings will give us greater insight into the processes of evolutionary change.”

Mary’s still got to get published, she can’t rock the boat too much. We know DNA cannot last that long, all of the empirical studies measuring its rates of decay demonstrate that.

The scientists studying this don't jump the gun and state young Earth... instead, they state proteins can withstand for longer than we thought... let's try to discover what conditions lead to such marvelously long preservation.

Yes, even though if you had claimed in the 1980s (as creationists did) that it was feasible to find dinosaur DNA you would have been laughed out of the room. People know what the proper implications of this finding are; they just want to keep their jobs.

Yes... unlike you, I don't spend much time over creationist propaganda.

It’s not a creationist idea; it’s been a problem within the secular community for decades.

(wait, are you accepting that the Earth and Sun are that old?):

Nope, the faint young-sun paradox is only a problem for those that believe the Sun is that old, not for the Creation model.

Underwater.Volcanic.Vents.
They provide all the heat required to melt water locally, soup like "nutrients", etc... Kind of like what's suspected to happen in Europa.

Yes, but now you have a different problem, in all of the laboratory experiments seeking to demonstrate amino acids can be formed from early earth environments the catalyst (heat) has to be quickly removed in order to prevent it from destroying the newly created amino acids, but in deep sea vents that are keeping the water at liquid form this could not happen and the heat from the vents would destroy the newly formed amino acid chains and thus no life.

Perhaps you don't know what "independent" means.
A completely different method of dating. Not at all related to radiometric. That's why the link I posted "has nothing to do with radiometric dating". It's about neutrino rate dating of the sun... Something you don't find in your creationist books, I assume... or you'd have some snarky comeback.

That’s what you were trying to do? You think the fact that they believe the Sun is 5 billion years old supports the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? That seems to be quite a non-sequitur, even if the Sun were that old it does not support the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.