Tristen

Having debated many Christians who are long-age advocates, they have found a range of varied and imaginative ways to reconcile long-ages with scripture. The argument in your opening post assumes they have rejected the authority of scripture. Whilst I do not want to presume to speak for them, I think I can say with confidence that they would consider this a misrepresentation of their position. That means, by implication, that most of your argument does not apply to them. For example, your first question: "What would give a God who did NOT create us in His image; who just watched us evolve over billions of years, the right to judge us? " However, the Christian who believes in long-ages would claim that the Bible indeed teaches that we are created in God's "image". Therefore, this "question" does not apply to their position. "After all, if a lion kills a hyena and takes his prey without consequence, what stops me from killing you and taking your stereo? If we are merely evolved apes, then the predominant law is survival of the fittest." This is an argument about the existence and origins of morality. But a Bible believer considers morality to be a true, eternal, Bible-based standard. Therefore, this is a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the position of those Christians who subscribe to long-ages. Nevertheless, the existence and origin of morality is a perfectly valid point to raise with a non-believer. The appropriate question for the (long-age believing) Christian would be: "How do you reconcile the plain reading of Genesis with your long-age stance?". The answer to that question will take you down a different path of argument then the one you have presented here. In my experience, the argument will then become about appropriate methods of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) and their implications for sound doctrine. I won't go through the rest of your OP, but if you re-read it, the overall argument suggests an inherent disrespect and disregard for scripture - which the long-age believing Christian would contest.

Hey RV, I would suggest that the question needs to be refined to reflect the difference between, a) Christian believers who feel obligated to the secular narrative of history, and b) non-believers who accept the secular narrative of history. From my reading of your opening post, the questions and arguments you present blur the two positions - leaving you open to accusations of misrepresenting one group or the other. In this forum, you are more likely to encounter the Christian believers who feel obligated to the secular narrative of history. They will claim, with some validity, that many of the arguments you have provided do not accurately reflect (and therefore do not apply to) their position. There are valid questions for both groups, however, the aspect of your post directed at to non-believers might be better suited to the "Worthy Pavilion" section of the forum where the non-believers have more engagement.

Hey @farouk, "Carbon dating" is the 'runt of the litter' radiometric dating method. It has some benefits, and more drawbacks, when compared to other methods. Due to the ratio of carbon isotopes being in a constant state of flux, and locally varied, there is far more uncertainty in the original isotope ratio assumption for this method. But in favor of "carbon dating": for things of relatively young ages (a few thousand years old), we can sometimes find a local artifact of actual "known-age" that we can use as a true standard against which we can calibrate the "carbon dating" results. Such properly independent standards are not available for older samples, or to other methods at all.

“So for a short amount of time (hours or days) magma is at a temperature where Lead could enter a Zircon. Wonderful. And where is your proposed source of *radiogenic* Lead isotopes close to all Zircons during that short time of formation, that just so happens to inject enough radiogenic lead to date the rock as very old, but also in agreement with other forms of radiometric dating?” Firstly, broad sweeping statements about the method being “in agreement with other forms of radiometric dating” have to be at-least evidenced before being presented as truisms. I would, however, start to take note of how often you use this argument – i.e. that we should trust the methods because they agree with each other. You don’t like the idea that they a calibrated against each other – but that is the logic behind this argument. In an experimental sense, one would be required to test the experimental conditions against an independent “standard” designed to give a “known-accurate” result. However, your argument here proposes using unknowns as pseudo-standards to compare against each other. I will also provide evidence that the supposed “agreement” is artificially generated by only accepting results that are in “agreement” (and rejecting/dismissing those results that disagree) – that is, another pathway of self-calibration. Secondly, how do you know how much time it took the “magma” to both cool and form? - And even if the “time of formation” was “short”, it still means, as a matter of logic, that I have every right to distrust the assumption that all lead in the “zircon” is derived from Uranium trapped in the “zircon” at “formation” – which is the whole point of bringing this up. Thirdly, does uranium only decay into “*radiogenic* Lead isotopes” after being trapped inside “zircons”? Why wouldn’t there be also be “*radiogenic* Lead isotopes” outside of the “zircons” (along with other isotopes in the U-Pb decay chain - that readily move into, and out of, “zircons” independently of temperature)? “And we haven’t even mentioned the potential of Uranium gain (or loss). No, because Uranium loss once the rock is formed is almost impossible, save for a metamorphic event” And by “almost impossible”, you mean, at-least logically possible; and therefore, something that cannot be automatically, objectively ruled out; due to our inability to go back in time and make the requisite observations – a.k.a. an unverifiable assumption that directly impacts the veracity of the proposed conclusion. “Uranium is extremely heavy and immotile (all isotopes) - and therefore cannot move unless the rock melts” You of course must mean, Uranium has not been observed to be very motile in zircons. What happened to the properly hedged language you were using in the first response? Furthermore, are all the isotopes in the decay chain between uranium and lead equally “immotile” – such that they also can (supposedly) never be exchanged with the external environment of the zircon? “That's why not even the most ardent creationist suggests Uranium leaching as a probable explanation for old age dates in rocks” I am not proposing a “probable explanation”. I am proposing a possible “explanation” contributing to the supposed “old age dates in rocks” More accurately, I am proposing that the method makes several unverifiable assumptions that directly impact the ability of the method to produce valid ‘ages’. Some assumptions may have different probabilities of being true than others. That doesn’t affect my argument at all – which is that the method, and the veracity of its results, stands wholly, and entirely, on the truth of its associated assumptions – which we cannot verify. And since the truth of these assumptions is not established in observation, no one is rationally obligated to accept the conclusions based on the method. “If you wish to posit a hypothesis however about how and why this may happen, you may do so here” Is that really the game you want to play? Your statement here is empty posturing, and not how science (scientific reasoning) works. Or - does your definition of science prohibit me from scrutinizing claims - pointing out legitimate logical weaknesses - until I have an alternate solution to propose? The requirement for an alternate explanation is not a tenet of critical reasoning. I have every scientific right to point out logical weaknesses of any proposed method – regardless of whether or not I have a valid solution to the problem. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: It’s a bad sign that you would resort to dishonest rhetoricisms so early in our discussion. I can only presume in absence of any actual hypothesis from you. All I have is insinuation, not explanation or prediction.” This is dishonest posturing. You have taken my response to a particular comment, and are pretending it applies to something else. This ironically reinforces my original concern that you have already decided to play games (to ‘win’ whatever it is you think is at stake), rather than engage in sincere conversation. “None of which logically addresses the potential movement of lead out of (or in to) the zircon Radiogenic lead cannot move into a Zircon, even during a metamorphic event, unless it exists in higher concentration outside the Zircon than within.” It doesn’t occur to you that, even in this statement, you are conceding that there are known circumstances that would facilitate the movement of “Radiogenic lead” into zircons. Remembering that my argument is that we cannot trust these dating methods to generate valid ‘ages’ because they are too fundamentally, logically reliant upon too many assumptions. Therefore, when you provide a possible circumstance where the assumption could be wrong, it logically supports my argument - that unverifiable assumptions are required to trust the method. It doesn’t matter to my argument how unlikely you presume the proposed circumstance to be. “I have never heard of this being the case (although I challenge you to present a case study of this)” Your confirmation bias is fascinating. In the one statement, I am “challenged” to provide a “case study” for suggesting something remains a mere logical possibility. But you are happy to present absolutist scientific claims without any hint of a “case study”. “Lead moving out of a zircon will (a) give a younger date than the true date (hardly a boon for biblical literalists)” This is another example of confirmation bias. Your claim here presupposes that the method is otherwise credulous – i.e. that the other assumptions associated with the method are true. You have also misunderstood the young earth creationist (YEC) position. Firstly, “biblical literalist” is a mischaracterization. YEC simply read the scriptures for what they say – interpreted within their own context. Since Genesis is written as historical narrative (and would be understood as such by any objective reader), that is how YEC choose to interpret it. Second, YEC do not consider the proposed dating methods to be trustworthy at all, and therefore do not consider the results of the method to be “dates” at all. Older or “younger” than expected; it makes no difference to the YEC position. “(b) be a metamorphic event that can and will be detected using other methods of radiometric dating” These “other methods” also have the logical weakness of utilizing interpretation based on unverifiable assumptions. The conclusions you propose here are not observations of what you are claiming. “(c) will put U-Pb dating at variance with other methods, with younger ages reported” Once again, your claim here exemplifies bias – that is, your claim is only correct when one presupposes that the method is otherwise perfectly credible. The following quotes are taken from a paper that used potassium-argon and argon-argon dating to determine an age of diamonds to be ~6 billion years old. This age was arbitrarily rejected as being “unreasonable” based purely on the fact that “U-Pb dating” methods had previously determined the age of the earth to be ~4.6 billion years old. “A group of 10 cubic diamonds from Zaire has been foundI to contain correlated concentrations of 40Ar and K which, interpreted as a whole-rock K-Ar isochron with the usual assumptions, yield the unreasonable age of 6.0 Gyr. The same age has also been determined2 by 40Ar_39Ar analysis of four additional diamonds from the same group.” … “If the 40Ar was produced in situ, that is, the diamonds really are 6.0 Gyr old, it is difficult to advance an unspectacular hypothesis. Discounting overturn of the overwhelming evidence for a 4.6 Gyr age for the Solar System, these diamonds, or at least parts of them, would have to be presolar grains that were never mixed with the bulk of Earth materials.” (https://www.nature.com/articles/334607a0.pdf) This one paper has several implications for our conversation: - It demonstrates that “isochron” dating can be just as easily questioned and rejected, as any other dating method – i.e. when the generated “age” disagrees with what the author presupposes to be “reasonable” – and even when the results from differing methods are in agreement. - It demonstrates that in a real scientific context, we are permitted to question the “assumptions” of dating methods. - It demonstrates an example of “U-Pb dating at variance with other methods” – thereby dispelling the rhetorical myth that dating methods produce broad, consistent agreement with each other. - It demonstrates how dating methods are calibrated against each other – with discrepant “ages” simply being rejected and discarded if they disagree with supposedly “known ages” (generated by “other methods”); keeping in-mind that the only reason given for rejecting the “ages” as “unreasonable”, is that the generated “ages” disagreed with pre-existing “evidence for a 4.6 Gyr age for the Solar System”. - This paper also considers the possibility of “excess” or “inherited argon” as an explanation for the unexpected results. “I'm not sure about your understand of geology” It would be nice if we could just stick to rational arguments. “but heavy metals don't tend to leak our of solid rocks” It may, or may not, currently be an observed tendency of “heavy metals” to “leak out of solid rocks”, but the dating method relies fundamentally on this being an absolute truth over unimaginable magnitudes of unobserved time. It is one of several major assumptions that the method needs to be true in order to justify acceptance of the generated ‘dates’. That is, this a necessary assumption of stupendous magnitude – and a logical requirement for trusting in the method. “Nor do I understand where you think all the high-concentration rare heavy metal isotopes that are moving into these rocks to give artifically high dates are coming from?” And I don’t “understand” why you think these can only magically appear inside a formed zircon – i.e. if they didn’t already exist in the preformed environment. And, you haven’t yet evidenced that such an exchange can only happen in some supposedly pseudo-osmotic process. And, they are only “dates” at all if the method (and all its foundational assumptions) are otherwise true. My side of the argument doesn’t claim the “dates” to be “artificially high”, but fundamentally untrustworthy (not “dates” at all). Characterizing them as “artificially high dates” is a biased misrepresentation of my position. And, we have thus far ignored the known propensities for other isotopes in the U-Pb decay chain to freely move about zircons. [AND – we have yet to discuss the known propensity for lead to redistribute and concentrate in areas of crystals; AS WELL AS the known tendency of older crystals to release lead through wear over time] “They are very, very rare in nature, and by their very definition are all radiogenic!” Did the uranium not exist before it appeared inside the newly formed zircon? Or if uranium did exist before being trapped inside a zircon, was it not decaying into “radiogenic” materials until it entered the zircon? “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: You haven’t presented evidence for this supposed agreement. I would happily do so if you asked. There are literally thousands of cases where multiple independent dating methods have been in agreement. Would you like some links?” Apart from the posturing, your response here demonstrates the purely rhetorical nature of your claim. That is, you are trying to bluster your way through the conversation by making broad, sweeping statements about the supposed copious evidence supporting your position. I am not claiming that the methods rarely agree. However, you are claiming that the methods generate “overwhelming” agreement. And that is what needs to be evidenced. Trudging through the papers individually would not only NOT support your claim, but would expose your argument to falsification by any single example of disagreement for each method. To address the general nature of your claim, (i.e. of “overwhelming” agreement), you would have to provide a meta-analysis demonstrating this pooled data of ubiquitous “agreement”. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: ultimately, you are assuming a naturalistic origin of these zircons. Who but God knows how much lead would be present in a newly created zircon?”. Agreed, God could just have seeded a bunch of rocks with exactly the right amount of radiogenic lead, argon, strontium and other elements to look really old.” Suggesting that the “rocks” were individually “seeded” to make them “look really old” is another Strawman. Furthermore, it is only your bias towards the long-age narrative that causes you to think the “rocks” “look really old”. You only think they “look really old” because you feel an obligation to accept the ‘dating’ methods as reliable. When I examine a rock, all I see is a rock. Each rock can be examined further to reveal certain ratios of isotopes within. OK – those are the facts. But then you feed that data into a highly-presumptive algorithm that proports to be able to generate ‘ages’ for the “rocks” in the absence of direct observations, standards or objective controls (i.e. experimentation). Well – that’s where I start to question the process (as would traditionally be my scientific right). And then you try to imply that I am somehow intellectually obligated to accept these methods over the straight-forward reading of Genesis. And you’ve lost me. The “rocks” only “look really old” to you, because that is the paradigm governing your interpretation of the data. “But again, this comes down the "God dunnit" argument. Impossible to disprove, but as I said I have theological reasons for disagreeing.” Assuming you are Christian, and respect scripture, this actually “comes down to” how and when “God dunnit”. Because if one is Christian, and respects scripture, “God dunnit” is incorporated into the paradigm; regardless of the long-age/young-age conclusion. The Christian paradigm explicitly permits consideration of supernatural causes. The Scientific Method is only designed to test claims about the current, natural universe (since that is all we can experiment upon). Therefore, all supernatural claims, and all claims about the unobserved past (including rock ‘ages’), are logically “impossible” to falsify – being beyond the scope of the Scientific Method. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: You are therefore conceding that the movement of lead between the inside and outside of the zircon can undermine the accuracy of the supposed age assigned to the rock by this method. I such sources of radiogenic lead existed (they don't)” Therefore, you are now making the absolutist claim that it is impossible for “radiogenic lead” to have ever existed outside of a zircon? That doesn’t seem like a sensible claim. But, at the same time, you are “conceding” (without any provocation from me) that under certain circumstances, this is actually a possibility. But then you tell me that you are certain it has never happened. It is not my argument to tell you what happened to any particular rock, but to point out that the method you think is infallible actually relies fundamentally on a range of assumptions – i.e. conditions that cannot be verified – any one of which completely invalidates the method if untrue. And yet you are asking me to roll-over on the plain reading of scripture because of some perceived obligation to this method. “and such metamorphic events occured and were undetectable (they're not)” Another absolutist claim without any evidence. You were the one who raised the hypothetical circumstance that permitted lead exchange with zircons. That mere possibility demonstrates my point – that the method necessarily assumes no such lead exchange occurred over stupendous amount of time. You therefore trapped yourself into making absolutist (and therefore unscientific) claims about non-observations. “I think if you want any assumption in somewhere as big as nature to be "universal", outside of fundamental constants, you'll have a hard time. That is why it's so useful to have multiple methods that check assumptions, detect metamorphic events, etc. Demanding that assumptions are always correct everywhere, even when we can test if they are wrong, is entirely unreasonable.” Statements like this demonstrate a lack of objectivity. You are in a conversation with someone who disagrees with you. It is therefore not good enough for you to simply state, “Everything agrees with me, and if you don’t agree with me, you are being unreasonable”. Do you think I should concede the debate, just because you say so? Should I ignore the conventional requirement for pesky arguments and evidence – since you have made broad, sweeping, unevidenced claims about the correctness of your position? “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: Remembering, scientifically speaking, I only have to show limited data that the method is untrustworthy – i.e. examples where the supposed ‘ages’ derived from these methods were rejected in the absence of testable explanations. Depends on the type of evidence. It is always possible to find an exception that proves the rule.” This feels like you are trying to pre-invalidate any evidence I might provide as an “exception”. However, in a scientific context, anomalous, repeated results require testable explanations. Otherwise, how can we differentiate between the “exception” and the “rule” – i.e. how can we differentiate false positives from true positives? And if we can’t make that determination experimentally, then all we are doing is choosing to accept what we already agree with (which is both biased and unscientific). Which is to say - if you claim I should accept the method as accurate based on the standard of “agreement”, then I only need one example of disagreement to falsify your argument (i.e. to breach your proposed standard). Any attempt on your part to wave my example away as an “exception” contributes nothing of rational substance to the debate. Such an argument would simply be another rhetorical attempt to dodge the implication of such evidence. “For example, if we do enough radiometric dating of enough rocks, we will find a rock one day where two methods both happen to yield the same incorrect date. This is not a theory, it is a statistical fact. But it wouldn't call into question the wider method.” Ummm – examples of the method not working as expected would 100% justify questioning “the wider method” – especially if there are multiple examples of the method producing unexpected results. In no other discipline of science would we get to wave away unexpected results as a ‘whoopsy’ – and then carry on as if the results had no implication for the “wider method”. “So I will await your evidence I suppose!” My next “evidence” is one of the landmark papers determining the age of the earth to be ~4.5 billion years old (https://www.nature.com/articles/321766a0.pdf ). In this paper, 140 zircons from the same conglomerate were tested using U-Pb and Th-Pb dating methods. Initially, only 17 were considered to give old enough ‘ages’ to be worthy of further consideration. 16 of these were considered to not be reliable (i.e. either too young, or had undergone lead-loss). The remaining single grain was tested 7 times. Only one of those 7 measurements was considered significant – the single measurement that generated an ‘age’ for the zircon of ~4.3billion years old. That is, using the same method, different parts of the same zircon generated different ‘ages’ for that zircon. Therefore, 139 of 140 zircons from the same conglomerate were disregarded as meaningless. And of the seven measurements on the single remaining zircon, 6 were disregarded as meaningless. And what was the explanation for considering all this data unreliable?: “The 207Pb2o6Pb ages that exceed 3,900 Myr belong to a much older population which may have had a single original age close to 4,300 Myr and have undergone early as well as recent Pb loss, or it may be a mixed-age population that formed during discrete events over an extended time period from 4,100 to 4,300 Myr ago.” “The five analysed areas within grain 86, which shows the highest minimum ages, exhibit small but real differences in radiogenic 207Pb206Pb that can only have been generated by internal redistribution or loss of radiogenic Pb relative to U at some early time” “another conceivable explanation involves an early gain of Pb (or loss of U) followed by recent Pb loss, which would have the effect of increasing the 207 Pb 206 Pb age of the zircons” These are the most obvious implications for our conversation: - Of at-least 162 measurements, only 1 was reported as a true ‘age’ minimum. That means 161 measurements were rejected from consideration as either irrelevant, or compromised, because they did not fulfill expectations (including 6 measurements using the same method on the very same zircon). Therefore, 1) Based on these results alone, any assertions about widespread agreement between methods is absurd. The method doesn’t even agree with itself much of the time – even when the identical method is used multiple times of the very same sample (producing non-overlapping ‘ages’ for the same zircon), and 2) The narrowing of so much data to a single supposedly-true result further demonstrates how the methods are calibrated against each other – given how the results were explicitly narrowed to be in the ballpark of previously reported data. - The primary explanation considered for the overwhelmingly anomalous results is movement of uranium and lead isotopes within and out of the zircon. When I make such a suggestion, it warrants an insinuation about how much I “understand geology”. But these are the guys who literally invented the machine that takes the measurements. Did they also not “understand” that “heavy metals don't tend to leak our of solid rocks” or that “Uranium loss once the rock is formed is almost impossible” or that “Uranium is extremely heavy and immotile (all isotopes)”. Again, your rhetorical bluster is reduced to naught. It is, self-evidently, perfectly acceptable speculate about the possibility of “internal redistribution or loss” of uranium and lead in zircons. - Another potential explanation offered for the anomalous results is that the samples were from “mixed-age” rocks. But if we accept the possibility that the samples were from a “mixed-age” population – producing a result approaching concordance, then we must accept that any supposed isochron can also result from “mixed-age” samples – which the paper inadvertently demonstrates. “but we should believe the explanation that is plain, obvious, well evidenced, and staring us in the face” You are still trying to bluster your way through the conversation with broad sweeping statements, but without having to present anything by way of argument or evidence. Firstly, scientific reasoning (or critical reasoning) does not make allowances for simply believing anything. Scientific confidence can only be applied to the degree that something has been observed. Secondly, these are all completely subjective criteria. Who exactly determines what is “plain, obvious, well evidenced, and staring us in the face”? Or is that simply your bias speaking out again – telling you that the “explanation” you have deemed to be correct is also the one that is “plain, obvious, well evidenced, and staring us in the face”? “When you come up with a testable alternative, I'll happily review your hypothesis and its testable predictions.” And still more empty posturing. Scientific reasoning does not prohibit me from questioning your methods until I have an “alternative”. That is simply an attempt to dodge the implication of my arguments. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: If, as I propose, the methods are untrustworthy, then the data has no “natural” implication for the ‘age’ of the rocks. Actually, even in this case, you would *still* have something to explain. That is, why so often faulty methods of dating which could yield any date at all happen to agree within a margin of error.” My evidence has demonstrated that the methods can disagree with each other – and even themselves. My evidence has demonstrated internal, indirect calibration between the methods – with only results that agree with conventionally accepted ‘ages’ being accepted as “reasonable”, and anomalous results being rejected and discarded from consideration. Claims about agreement don’t mean much when only agreeable data is accepted, and disagreeable data is ignored. By contrast, you have not evidenced your general claim that agreement between the methods occurs uncannily, or statistically significantly, “often”. You just keep writing it – like if you write it enough times, I’ll start to believe it - like some kind of Jedi mind-trick. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: I’ve seen many studies showing newly formed rocks to be ‘dated’ as much older than their observed age - due to the presence of daughter isotopes. I can’t remember if any specifically addressed the lead content of zircons. I am therefore happy to look at this data if you have it. Please do. I would start at U-Pb if I were you - since Ar-40 doesn't exist in the atmosphere, and existing Sr-87 is actually a testable assumption of Rb-Sr dating (any the same holds for other isochron methods).” You missed the “if you have it” condition of my response. On the topic of “isochrons”, I recently found a paper showing that supposed “isochrons” can generate artificially high ‘ages’ due to diffusion from the rock of the stable isotope in the equation (published here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.13182/NT16-98 , full text here: https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1438205 ). So there is yet another avenue of logic showing the potential of the “isochron” method to violate the closed system assumption (one which I hadn’t previously considered). “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: I have definitely seen papers addressing excess argon in newly formed rocks. I look forward to reading them!” Sure – here are a few starters. - http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM43/AM43_433.pdf - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ichiro-Kaneoka/publication/248410634_Investigation_of_excess_argon_in_ultramafic_rocks_from_the_Kola_Peninsula_by_the_40Ar39Ar_method/links/5a0a91500f7e9bb949f98a29/Investigation-of-excess-argon-in-ultramafic-rocks-from-the-Kola-Peninsula-by-the-40Ar-39Ar-method.pdf - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JZ069i022p04895 “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: Furthermore, putative agreement doesn’t matter (has no logical implication) when the methods are internally calibrated against each other according to the expectations of the pre-existing paradigm. They aren't calibrated against each other.” Firstly, disagreeable results are much easier to find in the literature than your position implies. Secondly, I’ve shown several examples of where the ‘ages’ are either accepted, or reject, depending on whether they agree with the expectations derived from other dating methods. This is routine practice. Otherwise, how would one presume to distinguish a true ‘age’ from a false ‘age’? Your position here is logically self-defeating; since you yourself have argued that trust in the method is based on agreement between the methods – but then somehow deny the same rationale is being utilized to generate trust between the methods. Thirdly, there is no independent standard to test any of the methods against – i.e. nothing of known age. And fourthly, if disagreeable data is excluded from consideration (as I have demonstrated to be routine practice), that also renders claims of agreement meaningless. Finally, in my response to the next comment (below) I have started to provide evidence that decay rates are directly calibrated against other methods. “They are wholly independent, and only require known decay rates of each radioactive element to function.” How are those “decay rates” ascertained? And how accurate are they? - In this 1956 paper (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956PhRv..103.1045A/abstract ), rubidium decay rates are directly calibrated to U-Pb decay rates – to give a rubidium half-life of 50 billion years. - This same logic was applied in 1982 to calibrate the decay rate of rubidium to the U-Pb method – giving a radium half-life of 49.4 billion years (https://www.nature.com/articles/300414a0 ). - In 2011, the decay rate of rubidium was again calibrated to the U-Pb method, and the half-life of rubidium again adjusted to 49.76 billion years (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X10006990 ). The Implications of this evidence: - “Decay rates” have, over time, been routinely, directly calibrated against the results from other methods. This is not even controversial in the literature. This practice directly undermines the logical impact of claims about method-independence and broad agreement between the methods. - Whilst the supposed half-lives (“decay rates”) are generally agreed upon, they are by-no-means as settled as your argument suggests. They are ever subject to update and revision – regardless of whether or not the decay rates have moved over time. All this extra information adds to the inherent uncertainty of the method. Your impression of settled, wholly, independently-calibrated, consistent methods in overwhelming agreement, is a myth that is not reflected in the literature. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: And again, agreement doesn’t mean anything when disagreeing data is not considered (or even reported in many cases). Furthermore, there are many cases in the scientific literature where different methods used on the same sample disagree with each other These are two competing statements” They are not “competing statements”. I’ll rephrase. Even though the routine practice of ignoring (and often not reporting) disagreeable data biases the overall impression towards “agreement” between the methods, it is still very easy to find examples in the literature of disagreement. “different methods can disagree with each other, especially where a rock has a complex thermal history” This is a story (interpretation), not an observation. It is perfectly fine to try and explain disagreeable data. But here you are stating the proposed explanation as though it was fact – despite you knowing full-well that the proposed explanation was not observed. “and for example radiogenic lead has been leached and U-Pb gives an artificially low date” What??? Seriously??? When I mention the possibility of lead loss, you get to insinuate my lack of knowledge regarding “geology”. But when you need a way to explain away anomalous data, you are happy to jump right in on that same explanation. You are being neither fair-minded, nor consistent in your reasoning. “However, this is the exception and not the norm, and is readily detectable using other methods which can detect metamorphic events” This is a rhetorical exaggeration of how the method is applied. No method can directly “detect metamorphic events”. What happens in reality, is that data, which is anomalous in a certain direction from expectation, can be (and often is) interpreted as “metamorphic events”. There is no observation (or detection) of these putative “events”. You are again touting one possible explanation as a truism. “If you think you, I welcome your systematic review of the literature on radiometric dates using multiple methods.” And yet more empty posturing. I don’t need a “systematic review of the literature” to refute your argument of overwhelming agreement. I really just need one example of disagreement between the methods (though there are many, many such examples). Remembering that, for all your rhetoric and posturing, you have provided absolutely nothing by way of “evidence” supporting your extraordinary claims. Yet you have the audacity to suggest that I need a “systematic review of the literature on radiometric dates using multiple methods” to support my position. Again – if you are being sincere, this is confirmation bias on steroids. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: Given that they have been historically calibrated against each other, they are not “independent methods”. They haven't. If you have evidence otherwise, pray tell.” Perhaps next time you ask for “evidence”, I could be given an opportunity to provide such – before you start posturing. That would seem considerate. Anyways, I have provided three examples for rubidium being directly “calibrated” to the U-Pb method (above). I have about 5 more for rubidium in-pocket, but figured three should be enough for now - to demonstrate the point. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: And given that they all use the same set of general assumptions, They don't.” All radiometric dating methods make the assumption that, 1) measured decay rates are accurate and have remained constant since the formation of the rock, 2) that the rock element being measured has been a closed system such that all of the isotopes represent what was present in the rock at formation, and 3) that we know the quantities of isotopes when the rock was formed. Isochron dating complicates this last assumption somewhat – but the assumption is still in the process. “That's why it's so powerful to use several in conjuction - because they make different and independent assumptions that are uncorrelated to each other. You can always present evidence that they do though. Again, a table comparing the assumptions of U-Pb, K-Ar / Ar-Ar and Rb-Sr would be helpful. In other words, evidence.” Lol. “evidence”. You mean that thing that you have provided exactly none of – despite the extraordinary nature of your claims – but which you expect me to generate and provide “tables” and “systematic reviews” and “case studies” supporting my modest claims. “The question is, if the assumptions are false, why do dating methods so often agree?” My first response to this “question” would be for you to define more precisely how much you think these methods “agree”. You have stated in a previous post that you consider the agreement to be “overwhelming”. I disagree with that impression. And you certainly have not “evidenced” such. Whereas I have shown it is easy to find “evidence” of disagreeable data. But let’s assume (in the absence of “evidence”) some form of broad, general agreement. I would propose an equally valid counter “question”: ‘If the assumptions are correct, “why do dating methods so often” disagree?’ Some of the agreement can be explained by demonstrable self-calibration (both indirect and direct) between the methods; skewing the data towards agreement. Some of the disagreeable data can be explained by assumed compromised samples and/or process errors. The existence of all this uncertainty further demonstrates why no-one is intellectually obligated to trust the methods. “I dealt with false isochrons in my answer originally. They are possible. But half of all of them are negative, and their results is completely random. I addressed this already.” You have not “addressed” “false isochrons” whatsoever yet – at-least not in any logically meaningful manner. You have thus far agreed that sometimes the isochron method doesn’t work to expectations – and you therefore concluded that I should dismiss these disagreeable examples from further consideration. Ummm – No? (respectfully). The fact that the isochron method can produce “negative” ‘ages’, or otherwise non-compliant (or unreasonable) ‘ages’ is my point. It is strange to me that you could fail to recognize such an overt and obvious bias – as accepting the arbitrary dismissal of disagreeable evidence from consideration. But then to turn around and cry, ‘But look, they all agree’. What??? How can you not see the compromise in your own reasoning? “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: The fact that you think “certainty” is available to science exposes your confirmation bias Certainty has levels and limits, a nuance you seem to have missed my dear friend!” Actually, “certainty” is absolutist. The scientific word is ‘confidence’. “I can very easily test this, both hypothetically and actually. Do you wish to know why?” If you have an argument, I “wish” you could simply make your argument without having to posture first. “On 10/8/2023 at 6:36 PM, Tristen said: When God created two mature humans, was He tricking us about their childhood and adolescent history? Or were they simply created to purpose? If God created humans with BCG scars on their arms when they never had a childhood injection, or broken little toes when they'd never been stubbed, then I would call Him a liar.” Rather than answer the perfectly apt analogy, you choose to muddy the conversation with extra, unnecessary detail. The fundamental question is: ‘If God creates something in a matured form, then tells you when He created it, is God then a liar – given that the mature form might otherwise indicate a history of maturing?’. That is the nature of what you originally suggested.

Yes - Lol. The Bible tends to frown upon the other kind of "relative dating" (at least since Moses).

It can happen to any DNA, genes or not. Thought you knew. Are you posturing already? As a rule, I tend not to know things that are wrong. You have decided to feign superiority - even though you clearly misunderstand the concepts you are opining. Functional genes are protected from deleterious mutations by selective pressures. However, once a gene becomes inactivated, it is no longer protected by selective pressures - and therefore tends to acquire mutations at a higher rate than functional genes. Telomeres are not genes, and therefore not protected by selective pressures. With telomeres, it is the internal sequence structures that make them more robust against corruption. Therefore, the position of the sequence within a chromosome does not impact the mechanism that protects telomeres from mutations. Therefore, in a telomere fusion, one would expect to find thousands of tandem telomeric repeats, interspersed with relative few mutations distributed randomly throughout the fusion site. Instead, what we find is essentially random sequences, with a handful of putative telomeric monomers dispersed throughout the site - i.e. at the same rate they are found throughout the rest of the chromosome. It is dishonest to insinuate I suggested otherwise. Lol. Not "apparently". I directly told you - off the top of my head, I "can't" think of a characteristic found in birds that is missing in dinosaurs. I then explained why I'm not motivated to spend even a second looking for that information. You, posturing like you won a prize, is simply another dishonest misrepresentation of the conversation. This is yet more dishonesty. Anyone reading my previous post would see that I directly addressed this. You, however, have failed to address my comments, and simply repeated the rebutted claim. So you're thinking of YE creationism? So you did see my response - you just decided to dishonestly revert to a Tu Quoque fallacy. Essentially, the intellectual equivalent of, 'I know you are, but what am I'. So it's a layered Tu Quoque fallacy. This is yet another lie. Here you repeat a claim that I have already directly, and clearly, addressed in my previous post. Since you have demonstrated more interest in silly games, rather than any pretense of sincere debate, I have decided to not waste any more time here. Cheers, and God bless you.

Hello IgnatioDeLoyola. You said, “Zircons tested for U-Pb dating formed in igneous rocks. That is, rocks formed from Magma. These rocks are typically formed at between 900 - 1200 degrees celsius.” You have missed the point – which is, the experimental data demonstrates that there are temperatures at which lead is known to have the capacity to move in and out of zircons (~600-800oC). If, as you say, zircons “typically formed at between 900 - 1200 degrees celsius”, and we find them in rocks that are less than 100 “degrees celsius”, then the zircons have definitely transversed that range – and we can therefore not automatically trust that the present lead found inside the zircon is a direct reflection of the Uranium that was present when the rock formed. Even if the other assumptions of the dating methods hold true, any gain of lead would make the rocks appear older, and any loss of lead would make the rocks appear younger. And we haven’t even mentioned the potential of Uranium gain (or loss). And you appear to have skipped over my other points about how the scientific literature reveals several ways in which the lead measurements of samples can be skewed. “While it is technically possible that God grew all zircons in a lab at 600 degrees celsius in a bath of radiogenic lead, and I wasn't around back then to see it, I submit that that's quite unlikely.” This is a Strawman argument – whereby you are trying to misrepresent my position to make it sound ridiculous. Logic fallacies such as this are technically irrational – and therefore have no bearing on truth. It’s a bad sign that you would resort to dishonest rhetoricisms so early in our discussion. “Moreover, there are four isotopes of lead found in nature - 204, 206, 207 and 208. 204 is primordial lead - the other three are formed from specific radioactive decay processes (from U238, U235 and Th232). Therefore scientists are not simply measuring the amount of lead in a sample, but specifically the amount of radiogenic lead” None of which logically addresses the potential movement of lead out of (or in to) the zircon. In fact, if any isotope in the decay chain between uranium and lead can move in or out of zircons, then the ratios can not, with objective confidence, be trusted to reflect the age of the rocks. “Again, it is possible that God just so happened to artificially inject 600 degree Zircons with just the right amount of Pb206 to correspond to U238 and give a very old age” And another Strawman argument. “and this apparent age should just so happen to coincide with apparent isochron and Ar/Ar ages for said rock” You haven’t presented evidence for this supposed agreement. But if you like, I will happily discuss the broad history of scientific literature openly questioning the assumptions of the “Ar/Ar” dating method. “But there is no known natural process to explain this other than the rock being really old” This is a philosophical, rather than scientific, argument. Firstly, I want to give credit for your use of properly hedged language. Most people arguing your position fail to recognize the logical limits of what they are proposing. Secondly, I would point out that the Christian paradigm is not restricted to “natural” explanations. To quote my original post: “ultimately, you are assuming a naturalistic origin of these zircons. Who but God knows how much lead would be present in a newly created zircon?”. Finally, the lack of another “known natural process” does not address the inherent logical weaknesses of the dating method being discussed. “On 10/12/2022 at 9:01 AM, Tristen said: Zircons can also undergo recrystallization – allowing for the removal and/or acquisition of lead. They can indeed. And, given the paucity of Pb-206, 207 and 208 in nature and surrounding zircons in rocks, such a metamorphic event would leach more radiogenic lead than it would add, giving a lower age.” You are therefore conceding that the movement of lead between the inside and outside of the zircon can undermine the accuracy of the supposed age assigned to the rock by this method. I’m not arguing that the ‘ages’ are too high. I’m arguing that the dating methods are inherently, wholly untrustworthy – namely because that are founded on assumptions that are known (by observation) to be, at-least, non-universal. “Moreover, using Ar-Ar plateaus and isochron methods we could likely detect metamorphic events in a rock, or part of a rock. An Ar-Ar partial plateau would indicate such a metamorphic event for example, and a partial isochron / disturbed isochron also” Once again, I am happy to go through the scientific literature questioning the veracity of these methods. Remembering, scientifically speaking, I only have to show limited data that the method is untrustworthy – i.e. examples where the supposed ‘ages’ derived from these methods were rejected in the absence of testable explanations. “Again, there are not other natural explanations for these results other than an old rock undergoing a partial metamorphosis, or God directly interfering in nature and making it look this way.” You mean “not other [known] natural explanations”? How quickly you drifted from properly hedged language into rhetorical absolutes. On a matter of logic, the fact that there are no better “explanations” currently available does not entail that the currently preferred “explanation” is true. Furthermore, there are plenty of “natural” reasons to distrust the popular interpretation of this data. If, as I propose, the methods are untrustworthy, then the data has no “natural” implication for the ‘age’ of the rocks. “In radiometric dating, there most certainly are ways of testing our assumptions. For example: - Directly observing the formation of igneous rocks in nature, and what "new" zircons and other grains look like / their chemical composition. Do many of them contain significant amounts of lead? Do they date as old when they are in fact young?” I’ve seen many studies showing newly formed rocks to be ‘dated’ as much older than their observed age - due to the presence of daughter isotopes. I can’t remember if any specifically addressed the lead content of zircons. I am therefore happy to look at this data if you have it. One would still have to assume that this result could be generalized from a few results to all rock formation over all of the length of history supposed by the interpreter – a massive magnitude of assumption. Furthermore, this does not address the assumption that no lead has moved into, or out of, the tested zircon. “- Using self-checking methods like Ar-Ar or Rb-Sr -where the results obviously don't work / show signs if the assumptions are wrong.” I have definitely seen papers addressing excess argon in newly formed rocks. “- Dating using multiple methods on the same rock, and ensuring that the results are within a margin of error of each other (because it would be damned odd if all the different assumptions where wrong in exactly the same proportion in the same rock with totally different chemicals).” I’ve encountered papers where the same “methods” have been used on the “same rock” (even the “same” zircon) – giving statistically meaningless data. The authors simply choose the one data point that agrees with the presupposition (i.e. what they expected/wanted to find), and arbitrarily disregard the rest of the data that didn’t make sense to them. Therefore, any bluster about them all being in agreement is spurious – since they are self-calibrated within the same philosophical framework. That is, of course they all agree, if the disagreeing data is routinely excluded from the data set. “None of this raises our conclusions to the same epistemic level as literally travelling back billions of years and seeing all rocks actually form. But, when done over and over again (and such checking of assumptions has been done tens of thousands of times) it leads to a very high level of certainty.” This, again, is empty, rhetorical bluster. Or else, where can I find this overwhelming agreement reported in the scientific literature? Furthermore, putative agreement doesn’t matter (has no logical implication) when the methods are internally calibrated against each other according to the expectations of the pre-existing paradigm. And again, agreement doesn’t mean anything when disagreeing data is not considered (or even reported in many cases). Furthermore, there are many cases in the scientific literature where different methods used on the same sample disagree with each other. As well as several instances where even the same method used on the same sample provides inconsistent results (and we apparently get to just pick the one we like). Even within the same measurements of some methods, the alpha decay element commonly disagrees with the beta decay element. Broad, sweeping, unsupported statements about how they all agree with each other are meaningless to someone who has examined the literature and considered the logic behind the methods. “On 10/12/2022 at 9:01 AM, Tristen said: There is no independent way to verify that “they work”. But there is. Using several independent methods of radiometric dating does indeed check that they work.” Given that they have been historically calibrated against each other, they are not “independent methods”. And given that they all use the same set of general assumptions, there is no truly “independent” way of checking that they “work”. This would still be true even if they all always produced consistent results – which they don’t. “The probability that all could be wrong, in exactly the same direction and magnitude, completely independently, is extremely low” Your reasoning here is circular. Your conclusion only holds true if the initial assumptions are correct (and if the results all actually agreed all the time). “Again, the epistemic point holds - using 3 or 4 methods doesn't raise radiometric dating to the level of "observation" of age. But it does hugely increase our level of confidence in it as fact.” Since they are calibrated against each other, and since disagreeable data is routinely disregarded (and sometimes not even reported), and since we can still find many instances of disagreement commonly reported in scientific literature despite this bias (usually in older papers), and since these methods are all founded on the same set of unverifiable assumptions (all of which have been demonstrated to be non-universal) – any reported agreement between them only has meaning to those with a pre-existing confirmation bias. “The very existence of the isochron shows that the assumptions were correct” No it doesn’t. To reach your conclusion, one first has to assume the graphed line is an “isochron” to begin with (when the users know full-well that mixing lines, and who knows what else, mimic putative isochrons – which is the most typical explanation for an “isochron” that doesn’t make sense to them). “Isochron” dating therefore entails that an additional set of assumptions be incorporated into the methodology. The additional complexity required to generate a supposed “isochron” therefore adds to the assumption set of dating methods. Several assumptions are utilized to justify the supposed accuracy of one primary assumption. “If they were not, the chances of an isochron existing at random (with 4 or more points) would be essentially zero” Except, even according to those using the isochron method, there is no way to differentiate a true isochron from a mixing line – which looks exactly like an isochron – and is only proposed when the putative isochron doesn’t make sense. “BTW, before you say it, yes, false isochrons can exist (in very specific circumstances). But they are of entirely random slope - 50% give negative ages for example. Therefore (a) we know the number of false isochrons is exceedingly low from observation, and (b) they will essentially never line up in age with other methods of dating since they are effectively fully random” So what you are telling me is that I should simply ignore all the times that a constructed isochron doesn’t agree with the expected values – because they are not “isochrons” (obviously), but rather “false isochrons”? This flawed, internally-biased reasoning seems common to the proponents of these dating methods. That is, ‘If one would be kind enough to ignore all the data that disagrees with the expected results, then what we are left with clearly shows that the results all agree’. Ummm. OK. It is indeed quite difficult to argue against tautological reasoning. Ultimately, you don’t get to tell me that the existence of a “random” isochron is “essentially zero”, but then expect me to simply ignore the times when the method gives an evidently “false isochron”. “I am fully aware that your epistemic point still holds. It would be still be better, in any particular case, to go back a few billion years to actually see it happen. But that doesn't mean we can't be very, very certain that the earth is very, very old. We can be, and are” I am not “certain” about any scientific claim - let alone "very, very certain". The fact that you think “certainty” is available to science exposes your confirmation bias – i.e. facilitating your exaggerated confidence in claims - beyond what is logically possible by any method of science. “BTW - there are two final assumption: 1. That the rate of radiometric decay hasn't, at one point, sped up exponentially to make new samples appear old. But even this is testable, to an extent. Or at least, enough to thoroughly disprove the young-earth narrative.” And how exactly does one “test” what happened in the past without travelling to the past to perform the experiments and make the requisite observations? Whay are the experimental controls? Or are you simply testing the decay rates in the present, and preemptively applying the uniformitarian assumption that the past was the same? “2. That God hasn't deliberately made the earth "look" old, to test our faith. I have biblical and personal reasons for not believing this (and I could also philosophically invoke Occam's Razor) - but there is no scientific way to check whether we are all being tricked” This is another Strawman argument. When God created two mature humans, was He tricking us about their childhood and adolescent history? Or were they simply created to purpose? When God directly informs us how things happened, it’s not trickery on God’s part if you decide to interpret the data in a manner that disagrees with His provided information.

Agreed. That is why I would carefully characterize this example as a corruption (or loss) of information - regardless of any situational advantage. Yes - Natural Selection (environmental pressures) selected in favor of the fish (and their offspring) that lacked functioning eye genes. The very existence of molecular information/communication is astonishingly, monstrously incredulous in an undirected paradigm. The problem in threads like this is that we are mainly dealing with those who wholeheartedly accept the narrative generated using exclusively secular assumptions (namely, the assumption that no god played any role in the progress of natural history), but then, in a post hoc manner, they simply tag God onto the process as the Director of their preferred narrative. It complicates matters when we have to reconcile those who have a sincere allegiance to scripture, but also feel obligated to the secular narrative.

The paradigm being contested is Common Ancestry - which proposes that all life is related via a single shared ancestor, which itself stemmed from a putative, simple, first life form. This therefore entails that every gene that has ever existed, that wasn't in the first life, had to be generated and added to the gene pool of life over time. This is overly simplistic. These mechanisms do not generate new types of "cells" or genes. Certain genes in certain types of white blood cells generate gene recombinations (including directed mutations) to generate a massive variety of antigen binding sites that appear on the surface of the cells. These are very tightly regulated (including limiting the scope of mutation), and only occur within the confines of a narrow subset of genes. Furthermore, since they only occur in blood cells, they are never heritable. There is nothing in this system that can make new genes and pass them on to offspring.

“It means birds should be classified as dinosaurs” I’d firstly ask the question, ‘What do I care how you choose to classify things?’ Where in our conversation did I question the classification of "birds" or "dinosaurs"? If you’d like to broaden the definition of “dinosaurs” to include “birds” – ok then??? I think that’s ultimately counterproductive – since we’d now need to come up with other terms to classify the self-evident differences between the two groups. But I otherwise don’t see any consequence of this claim to anything I’ve said. That is, I don’t know why we are discussing this. Secondly, define for me what you mean by “birds” and define what you mean by “dinosaurs”. If those definitions are the same, then they can be “classified” the same. If the definitions are different, then they can be “classified” into different categories based on the differences. A few shared features between the groups are entirely irrelevant. I demonstrated this to be the case for all classifications. Classifications are based on shared sets of features within groups, not shared singular features between groups. I’d suggest there might be a broader classification that could incorporate both all “birds” and all “dinosaurs” – maybe a couple of steps up the Linnaean ladder towards ‘Kingdom’. Furthermore, maybe some “dinosaurs” can be legitimate classified as “birds”. But I don’t think a brontosaurus would fit any reasonable, sensible definition of a “bird”. But again, did I ever claim that some “dinosaurs” can’t be classified under the general classification of “birds”? I see no relevance of this topic to the conversation of this thread. “But do you think that there are several "kinds" of herons?” I answered this already. “Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information. Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?” I have clearly defined how I am using the term “information”. If a mutation corrupts a gene so that it no longer performs its function, then the “information” blueprint, describing how to make that functional gene, has been lost. If you are so eager to posture, based on a different (and therefore irrelevant) definition of “information”, then no, I have no interest in hearing (or seeing) that. It has no logical bearing on anything I’ve claimed. “So you're surprised that there were mutations that messed up those sequences.” No. I am, however, “surprised” that one can conclude the site to be telomeres; given the sequences that were generated and reported. “You do realize that once a sequence isn't functional, it will inevitably become changed by mutations, right? Why is that a surprise?” This is an oversimplistic view of what can happen to genes. But telomeres are not genes. The function of telomeres is based on the sequence itself – and not the products of transcription/translation. The sequence is designed to form protective structures at the ends of chromosomes. That is, the sequence is specifically purposed to be resistant to corruption. Telomeres should therefore be less mutated than other sequences (even if they are in the wrong location on the chromosome). “The key is that these inactivated telomeres and centromere are still precisely where they would be if there was a fusion. I don't think that's hard to understand.” The “key” is to “understand” that these sequences do not come close to resembling “telomeres”. It may have once been fair to hypothesize that these might be telomere fusion sights based on the chromosome staining data, but now that we have had a look at the actual sequence, that hypothesis should have been put to bed long ago. The “centromere” data is even weaker – and based on evidence that is common in portions of chromosomes that are unrelated to centromeres (which is why the focus is usually on telomeres). “You've assumed that a gene changes if it has been moved by a fusion or crossover. It hasn't. Still the same gene” In a chromosomal crossover, the resulting "gene" performs the "same" general function, but in a different way – because the combination of information used to build the "gene" is different to that used by either parent. “But the only way to get new alleles is by mutation” This is not true – it’s not even controversial. Chromosomal crossovers recombine information from both parents to generate a gene that is different to the one provided by either parent. If one was to assign that gene to an “allele”, there would now be three “alleles”; the paternal and maternal “alleles”, and the new “allele” which is a combination of both. “As you learned … ” You are posturing again, even though you are wrong. Anyone, including yourself, can readily check that chromosomal crossovers recombine the information from the parental genes to make a new variant of that gene. “On 9/23/2023 at 10:45 AM, Tristen said: I’d also note that not all translations insinuate multiple “kinds” of “herons”. The NKJV rather says, “the heron after its kind” (Leviticus 11:19). So "kinds" are just sort of a general thing, which changes from place to place in scripture. Sounds like building a house on quicksand, doesn't it?” It sounds to me like you have decided to be intentionally obtuse – given that your conclusions are unrelated to the comment you are quoting. Is the concept that God created groups of creatures separately really so difficult for you to understand? “geneticists hypothesized that the remains of those structures would be in specific spots on the chromosome and went to look there to see if the prediction was true. And it was.” Firstly, where was the exact site of the putative telomere fusion predicted before it was supposedly found. Secondly, It’s not “there”. The sequences at the supposed fusion site do not resemble telomeres. “You're apparently unhappy with the scientific method” I would be unhappy with any version of the “Scientific Method” that prohibited me from thinking for myself, and/or prohibits me from disagreeing with how one party interprets the facts. If that’s what you think constitutes the “Scientific Method”, then definitely count me out. Whereas the actual “Scientific Method” is skeptical; admonishing critical reasoning – which is the opposite of what you are proposing. “And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain. For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles” “Certain” about what? What does “T-rex heme” have to do with a proposed telomere fusion in humans? You are loosing track of the conversation. And ‘so what’ if a T-rex molecule is more similar to that found in birds, than reptiles? Did I ever argue that “modern reptiles” are more closely related to T-rex than to birds? Because, if you think about for just a second - that really doesn’t sound like something I would argue. This point therefore amounts to an argument with yourself – or some voice in your head. “On 9/23/2023 at 10:45 AM, Tristen said: I mean – just wow!!! One whole molecule that is similar. It’s like they’re twins. Just another prediction of evolutionary theory that was validated by evidence. They just keep on coming” Lol – Where exactly did anyone “predict” to that “T-rex heme” would be more similar to the heme of Birds than the heme found in “modern reptiles”? “Not too long ago, it was discovered that scutes (found only on archosaurs like birds, dinosaurs and crocodiles) could be induced to form feathers on birds.” All they figured out was the molecular pathway by which some scale-like structures (“scutes”) were already differentiating into feathers on some birds. There is nothing in this research that is of any logical significance or relevance to our discussion. “Obviously, one can't test it on dinosaurs, but someone wondered if you could get feather structures on crocodiles. Turns out, you can. And another prediction of evolutionary theory is confirmed. Would you like to see that?” I would like to “see” the research giving feathers to “crocodiles”. But I still don’t know who you are arguing with? “I get that you don't agree with Dr. Wise on paleontology” That is not an honest implication of what I’ve said. It seems that I might disagree with the good doctor regarding how to interpret Darwin’s lamentation over a lack of what he called “finely graded organic chains” of fossils. The real “Scientific Method” admonishes me to question scientific claims and to assess their arguments – regardless of the expertise of those making the claim. “But he is a paleontologist and I'm sure you can see why his call on this is more persuasive than yours” And I only respect the opinions of those who can see through the technically irrational Expertise fallacy, and prefer to consider arguments. It’s also Special Pleading (fallacy) since you only demand wholesale acceptance of a creationist’s Expertise when they agree with you. NEXT POST “Except that when you look at the phylogenies and cladograms, they are, self-evidently, not, in any sense, “finely graduated”. Nor are they similar enough to be linked together (in the sense that one might think of, say, a “chain”). Maybe “chain” links held together by long lengths of string where the other expected “chain” links should be (but are not). But as Dr. Wise shows, they are” But when we look at the facts for ourselves, we can see that "they are" not. “And the point is that we don't see these series of transitionals were there shouldn't be any” Wait – what??? When did that become “the point”? Who determined where they “shouldn’t be” – and by what criteria was this determined? As far as I can tell, this is irrelevant, meaningless, exaggerated bluster. “We only see transitionals where they were predicted.” This is yet more empty bluster. When examined, the examples we discussed in another thread were actually outside of the "predicted" range – even though the “predictions” were absurdly generous. You then have to apply some mental gymnastics to argue a case for 'close enough'. But that is not how predictions work. “They are, as Dr. Wise points out, very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory” “Very good evidence” is a subjective analysis – and therefore more useless bluster. NEXT POST “Let's see what they say.... ABSTRACT We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG),,-(CCCTAA),,3'. Sequences fln g this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2. (my emphasis) Doesn't sound very incredulous to me.” Yes – Lol. That is what they concluded. That is to say – what you quoted is indeed how they ultimately interpreted their data. So tell me - in your version of the Scientific Method, am I now obligated to agree with them, because they said it - or am I permitted to scrutinize their provided methods, data and rationale? Perhaps I’m being too harsh – viewing their work through the lens of modern methods. But (as previously discussed), I found their methods to be heavily biased, presumptive and unreliable; their data to be ambiguous (at-best); and their rationale to be absurdly generous towards the desired (presupposed) conclusion. Simply parroting their conclusion fails to address my criticisms in any relevant sense. No one is questioning that they concluded the site to be a “telomere-telomere fusion”. I’m contesting whether confidence in that particular conclusion is logically justified, given the quality of the provided methods and data.

It is difficult to avoid using subjective language in these conversations. Your use of "improved" is interesting. If, for example, the gene for eyes was inactivated (by mutation) in a lineage of fish - those fish unable to make eyes would be at a strident disadvantage to the fish with eyes (generally speaking). However, if that mutation happened in a group of fish that lived in caves, where there is no light, and where eye infections are rampant (due to contact with the cave walls), those fish (who lost the information required to make eyes) would have a competitive advantage over fish with eyes - i.e. only in that specific environment. It could be argued that the cave fish loosing the capacity to make eyes represents a situational improvement. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the information to make eyes has been lost. No new information has been generated - as would be required many, many, many etc. times over to 'evolve' a complex multicellular creature from a 'simple', single-celled, primitive organism. Agreed - no mechanism has ever been observed that could make the types of genetic changes needed to give credibility to the Common Ancestry paradigm. I wasn't sure what you meant by this.

Sorry, I was just clarifying something that seemed to confuse a few people. I don't think "wasting sperm" is a serious issue to God. Both sperm and eggs are wasted routinely via normal, God-designed biological processes. The issue with Onan was that he intentionally failed his duty to his brother.

Embryos are an early stage of human development that happens after fertilization. Embryos are (diploid) humans - not just (haploid) sperm or eggs. They meet every reasonable criteria of a living human - which is why the question is being asked by pro-abortionists - they are trying to insinuate that even we anti-abortionists would treat them as non-human if put in this absurd position. But their logic doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

My first instinct would be to declare that the hypothetical scenario is placing me in the unfortunate position of choosing between two groups of living humans. Therefore, to me, the general dilemma is akin to saying, "There are two groups of 5-year-old children. You can only save one group. Which do you choose, and why?". The answer would not be related to the human dignity of either group. The fact that the hypothetical scenario articulates two distinct groups of living humans actually makes it easier to answer. It has already been discussed that if the choice was between a male and female, most would choose to save the female. Most people would save children over adults if given the aweful choice. Therefore, when the question is between distinct groups of living humans, there are always externalities to consider - which are not logically related to the human value of either group. That fact undermines the purpose of the scenario - which is to falsely suggest that choosing one group over the other means that the second group is somehow less human. Selecting to save a woman instead of a man does not logically entail that the man has less human value than the woman. Selecting to save a child instead of an adult does not logically entail that the adult has less human value than the child. In other words, we can make a valid decision without implying that one human has less human value than the other. And since that false implication is the purpose of the scenario, the logic is undone without having to give an answer. In terms of it's goal, the scenario stalls before it starts. However, if you wanted to give an answer, you could discuss the externalities that might influence your choice to save one group of humans over another. For example: What is the assigned purpose and probable destiny of the embryos? What is the likelihood that each embryo will achieve successful impregnation (assuming that is their purpose)? - Then you can compare those to the fact that the 5-year-olds have already overcome such obstacles to progress to early development, and that there are significant emotional and material resources that have been expended promoting the survival of each 5-year-old. What will the emotional and societal impact be on selecting one group over the other? It would be terrible to have to choose one human over another, but if we are placed in that unfortunate position, there are factors that can contribute to a valid decision - none of which deride the fundamental human dignity of either group.

I would disagree with his assessment. Mutations can be “advantageous”. Overwhelmingly, they are not – but in some rare cases, they are. So that is not the winning argument. A better argument is that, regardless of advantage, non-neutral mutations always “break” genes (i.e. destroys the information being communicated by the gene to the molecular machinery that reads the genes). Observed mutations do not make and add new genes to the genome, but rather corrupt old genes (and thereby remove their function). Any advantage is incidental – meaning, it just-so happens that, in certain specific contexts, having a functional gene is less "advantageous" than a non-functioning gene. Therefore, when a gene is broken (no longer functioning due to a mutation), the organism with the broken version of the gene may derive some advantage. Again, the real argument is about the information status of the gene. A mutation alone cannot generate novel, additive, functional, beneficial, adaptive, heritable genes. Rather, the gene (and therefore gene function) has been inactivated; the information telling our cells how to build a beneficial, functional protein has been lost. It certainly provides enough reasonable doubt to justify questioning the credulity of such a significant “jump” between creatures. Perhaps. The reality is that both sides operate under “bias”. It is, logically speaking, not possible to interpret a fact about the unobsreved past without applying pre-existing assumptions regarding the nature of reality. The usual difference is that, while creationists tend to acknowledge and understand the role of faith presupposition in influencing creationist conclusions, secularists like to pretend that they are objectively following the facts to their natural conclusions. It would be nice if we could start the conversation from that point. Unfortunately, the indoctrination has been layered on so thick, that we first have to wade through the weeds to get them to a point where they are even able to consider the possibility that creationists might have a valid argument.

I think we are talking about different things. I'm talking about a mechanism that makes new genes that have never existed before - and adds them to a genome. The mechanism you are describing does not change the DNA information contained in the genome of the "caterpillar" - it simply utilizes existing genes, but at different stages of "caterpillar" development.

“So tell us how to distinguish dinosaurs from birds. What anatomical features are found in birds that are not found in dinosaurs? ” I’ve already spoken about distinct groups (or “kinds”) within “birds”. There’s no conceptual reason to broaden the discussion to include “dinosaurs”. Doing so would have no relevant consequence nor implication to the discussion. Likewise, we could ask: 'What “features” are unique to Psittaciformes that are not found in other birds?' Probably none. But that particular set of features is only found in Psittaciformes. That (along with the molecular data) is why they are classified together – distinct from other “birds”. The fact that some of these “features” are found singularly in other “birds” does not impact the classification – i.e. the recognized distinction between Psittaciformes and other “birds”. Similarly, maybe every “bird” feature can be found singularly in different creatures under the general label of “dinosaur”. So what? That doesn’t mean “dinosaurs” should be classified as “birds”. Or maybe some “dinosaurs” were “birds” – and therefore obviously had “bird” “features” – who cares? It has no logical relevance to the conversation. “Do you believe the Bible's statement that bats are birds?” I think I answered this from your previous post – before I saw this post. I’ll wait to see how you respond to that answer rather than repeating myself. “Do you think that herons comprise a number of kinds as the Bible says?” Sure – why not? I’m not familiar with the data, however, a quick search reveals there are over 70 species of “herons”. Is there a reason they couldn’t be further divided into groups that theoretically match up to the concept of “kinds”? I’d also note that not all translations insinuate multiple “kinds” of “herons”. The NKJV rather says, “the heron after its kind” (Leviticus 11:19). “On 9/16/2023 at 9:15 AM, Tristen said: The "transitional forms" issue is not a problem - because they don't exist in the sense that "Darwin" envisioned them - i.e. "a finely graduated organic chain". Well, let's ask a YE creationist who is familiar with the evidence on fossils” No thanks. I’m happy that Darwin’s wording is clear enough. I know what “finely graduated” means. And I know what a “chain” is supposed to look like. “Notice, Dr. Wise actually presents evidence for his finding.” The few that I am familiar with could not genuinely be described as "finely graduated" nor " chains". Even the papers reporting them describe them as being disparate in time and form. “Dr. Wise documents otherwise, and he actually has a doctorate in paleontology” Wow!!! You mean a real-life, honest-to-goodness, bona-fides "doctorate in paleontology" - and he is a creationist - AND he agrees with you! That as-good-as settles the matter. 😉 “What's more impressive than the huge number of transitionals and graduated organic chains of transitionals documented by Dr. Wise, is the fact that there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.” Except that when you look at the phylogenies and cladograms, they are, self-evidently, not, in any sense, “finely graduated”. Nor are they similar enough to be linked together (in the sense that one might think of, say, a “chain”). Maybe “chain” links held together by long lengths of string where the other expected “chain” links should be (but are not). “And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain. For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles” I mean – just wow!!! One whole molecule that is similar. It’s like they’re twins. And, I guess – lucky we were able to find some intact, 65 million years old dinosaur “heme”. “Can you name even one major trait in birds that is not found in dinosaurs?” No, I can’t. And I wouldn’t even bother looking it up – because that would be a meaningless, irrelevant factoid. NEXT POST “ By creationist belief, all felids are descended from one (sometimes two or three) pairs of "cat kind" on the Ark. Taking the extreme case, there would be at most, twelve alleles for each gene locus in those cats. Yet there are hundreds of alleles for those gene loci now. All of the rest had to have evolved by mutation and natural selection.” Your understanding of gene diversity is too simplistic. Genes are made up of tens-to-thousands of bases (nucleotide pairs). Chromosomal crossovers (exchanges of genetic material/bases between chromatids) during meiosis can recombine a gene to produce theoretically countless versions of that one gene. No “mutation” required. “If you're familiar with the mathematics of information, you know that every new mutation in a population increases information in that population. If you haven't looked at that, we an discuss a simple case to see how the numbers work.” That would be a meaningless, semantic conversation. I’m talking about the generation of completely novel, functional genes. When I’m using the word “information”, I’m talking about the ability of DNA to be transcribed, read and interpreted by ribosomes (or polymerases for TFs) to make a protein that performs a function in the organism carrying the said DNA. Therefore, “information” (as it pertains to this conversation) refers specifically to DNA that functions as communication between molecular entities. And therefore, in the context of this discussion, random additions of, or substitutions of ‘letters’ only qualifies as “information” if it communicates a functional element. Other concepts of “information” are not relevant to what is being discussed – and only serve to muddy and confuse the conversation. NEXT POST “On 9/16/2023 at 1:27 PM, Tristen said: I actually made this very point in the next sentence to the one you quoted. The modern creationist perspective has always suggested that the "Homo" Genus is comprised of descendants of Adam - and therefore fully human (with the noted exception of Homo habilis which is likely comprised of fragments from both ape and human fossils). Sounds unlikely, since the H. erectus fossils are almost exactly like H. sapiens in post cranial skeleton,and their skulls look far more like those of modern humans than they look like the skulls of other apes.” I can’t figure out where we are disagreeing on this. “This is the source of the confusion as to the meaning of "kind" in the Bible. It is used for living things in different ways, just as it is in English.” I think you are making things more confusing than they need to be. Firstly, as I read it, the use of “kind” in Leviticus 11:13-19 is consistent with the creationist conception of “kind”. You might have to show me specifically what you mean here. Secondly, for the sake of argument, let’s say you are right – that creationists have been presumptuous in borrowing the term “kinds” from the Bible. Are you really struggling to understand the concept – that God created different groups of living creatures independently of each other – which subsequently descended (sometimes speciated) into their modern forms? Crying “confusion” feels a bit like playing-dumb to stall the discussion. “The same evidence that shows common descent if individual "barmin" shows common descent of all known living things on Earth.” This conclusion is dependent on the starting assumptions of the interpreter. The phylogenetic studies show patterns of clumped, highly similar groups, separated by appreciable gaps in the data. - You are assuming that all similarity necessarily represents inheritance, and thereby relatedness. Therefore, any similarity between the groups is interpreted as “common descent”. - The creationist model only assumes relatedness, if the similarity is uncanny. But also considers disparities between groups to hold significance – meaning that the gaps in the data between groups could indicate delineations between created “kinds”. “I suppose it's always possible for scientists to all be lying about this. However... yunis_prakash_image_0.jpg.dae197e36b0bbfd9090e8b63144c2824.jpg So they aren't lying.” Who said they are “lying”? I certainly did not state, neither did I suggest, any such thing. “On 9/16/2023 at 1:27 PM, Tristen said: The second thing I find interesting is that, your best evidence is from an old, imprecise method. And yet, even there, the evidence is quite clear.” It is not “clear” or conclusive in any objective sense – because the method simply does not allow for such clarity. Any perceived clarity from this method is therefore filtered through the bias of your imagination. “As to why the telomere and old centromere sites are degenerated (but still recognizable as such) is that mutation is a common thing” The authors of the paper I provided expressed unequivocal surprise to find that the putative fusion site could be so thoroughly degraded. Therefore, the supposed rate of “mutation”, rendering the site so unrecognizable, was not considered to be “a common thing”. It was considered by the authors to be unusually excessive – even given their assumed, secular time frame. “PNAS October 15, 1991 88 (20) 9051-9055 Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.” I’ll put in the link so those who are interested don’t have to go looking for it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/pdf/pnas01070-0197.pdf This paper was more incredulous than I remembered. Given today’s sequencing methods, the sequencing method used here is absurdly unreliable. They started with over 1.4 million vector clones. They then probed those clones to find what they were looking for (thereby introducing immediate bias to the results). Of the 60 that past the first test, they then probed to further filter the pool to contain something else they were looking for (introducing yet more bias) – until they were left with two cosmid sequences that were still not 100% identical. Remember – we now have freely available, very robust sequences of everything we are talking about. So why do your chosen evidences use old, unreliable data? Anyways – when I looked at the sequence data, it took three or four times for me to realize what I was looking at – because I was looking for telomeric arrays – and the presented data does not look like telomeres. A telomere fusion site would consist of the DNA motif ‘TTAGGG’ occurring thousands of times, uninterrupted, in a row, followed by thousands of compliment sequences. In the provided data, there was a handful of these motifs, spread out amidst many, many more unrelated sequences - which were isolated, and presented, with no regards to reading frame, so that they also looked like they might once have been telomere motif. And the data spanned only roughly a hundred bases, straddled by non-telomeric sequences – when the telomeres themselves should have spanned at least 10,000 bases in a fusion site. The idea that this is “clear” evidence of a telomere fusion is confirmation bias on steroids (though I’d give you the benefit of assuming you didn’t look much past the abstract). To date, and to my knowledge, only the creationist paper uses data derived from modern, robust (next gen) sequencing techniques. Regardless, all the sequencing data (including the abovementioned paper) demonstrate that the telomere fusion site does not look like a telomere fusion site. “Genome Research July 2023, 33 (7) Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes” Ummm – this is actually the 2002 paper that I linked in my previous post – where they were surprised by how little the telomere fusion site resembled a telomere fusion site. “Would you be able to answer that question about any character in birds that does not exist in dinosaurs? I used to know of one, but recently, it was found in dinosaurs. What do you have?” I would not "be able to answer that question" because it is logically irrelevant (as discussed above). Perhaps you could wait till I have a chance to answer the first time you ask something – before you start posturing. “Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information. Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?” This claim relies on a definition of "information" that has no logical bearing on what is being discussed in this conversation. Maybe in the future, I could be given the opportunity to answer the first instance of a question before you start posturing. “BTW, have you decided whether birds and other dinosaurs are a single "kind" or different "kinds" and what genetic or anatomical evidence do you have for this decision?” Yet again, it would be nice if had the opportunity to answer the question, before you initiate the posturing phase of your argument.

There is nothing in the paper about stem cells being able to generate new genetic material.

Hi B, I read through the paper and couldn't figure out how you were applying this information to anything I wrote. EDIT: Even after you edited in a quote, I still don't know what you are saying.

'Once saved, always saved' is interesting as a matter of doctrine. But regardless, we each need to be assured that we are in the 'Now saved' category; working out our own salvation before God (Philippians 2:12). 2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

I think I'd have to hear the argument being put forward. Then I'd examine the supporting evidence for that argument. In the absence of an argument, I guess I would then be inclined to focus in on the different types of genetic changes required to make each model plausible. We commonly observe mutations that change existing genetic information (usually inactivating that information from being processed (transcribed/translated) or making something useless). Both creationist and secular models accept this kind of genetic change. However, what has never been observed, but what is required to make Common Ancestry plausible (including the supposed relationship between Apes and humans), is a mechanism that generates genetic material that is: - Novel: Genes that have never existed before in any assumed ancestor group. - Additive: Genetic information that exists on top of the information that was already there. Like adding an appendix to a book - without changing the information that was originally in the book. Mammals, for example, have more (not just different) genes than the microbes from which we supposedly evolved. - Functional: It has to either produce a protein (including the insertion of start and stop codons in the exact right places), or else act as some form of transcription control. - Beneficial: The function of the gene has to provide a competitive advantage to the organism. If the function is toxic (detrimental to the organism) or inert (a waste of energy to produce), then the organism will have a selective disadvantage. - Adaptive: Not only should the new gene have a generally positive function, but that function has to be specifically positive in the context of the organism's environment - affording the organism a competitive advantage over those lacking the new gene - and thereby promoting the new gene's survival and propagation. - Heritable: the new gene has to appear in the germ line cells - so that it will be passed on to offspring. And there's probably other criteria that I've forgotten. The point is, such a mechanism, fulfilling all these criteria, has never been observed - i.e. to produce the genes that exist in some creatures, that don't exist in others. Furthermore, this mechanism is required to generate every unique gene that has ever existed in every creature that has ever existed. Yet this mechanism hasn't been observed in nature once - despite all our molecular experimentation. Different "types" (a.k.a. different categories). I think you wording here is potentially confusing - since "a given species" also belongs to a particular "kind" (which they may, or may not share with other "species") As a matter of theory, the creationist model accepts that speciation (diverging into separate "species") can (and does) occur within "kinds". The tricky part is that both models operate on premises that are contrary to each other. We therefore cannot talk about "kinds" within the context of Common Ancestry - because that concept does not exist in that paradigm. For example, in a previous post you spoke in terms of debating the relationship "between kinds". But in recognizing the concept of "kinds" one must be operating in a paradigm in which there can be no relationship "between kinds" - by definition. This leads to a potentially self-defeating, logical inconsistency. Sometimes it is preferable to use model-independent language. For example, both models recognize that there are closely related groupings of organisms (as demonstrated by morphological, molecular and hybridization data). The debate revolves around the boundaries of each group, and whether or not one internally-related group is externally-related to another internally-related group. NEXT POST Even so - a mechanism for novel genetic information remains a sizable hurdle for the paradigm. There are many mechanisms by which a small number of genes can contribute to a variety of outcomes. Examples include: the many genes whose expressions are dependent on the expression of a specific precursor gene. There are gene crossover events - where the paternal chromosome exchanges genetic information with the maternal chromosome - producing an entirely new version of the gene to pass on to offspring. Gene splicing can produce different expressions of the same gene by rearranging the genetic information before making a protein. etc. etc. My go-to example for "high genetic diversity" is the history of domestic dog breeds. A couple of centuries ago, there was only a handful of domestic dog breeds. Now there are hundreds. All of the many and varied traits that distinguish modern dog breeds from each other existed in that original population of five-or-so breeds. The way we made pure dog breeds was to inbreed them, thereby breeding out the diversity of genes that existed in the ancestor dog - and leaving only the genes for the desired traits in the descendant breed. Since the ancestors were so highly genetically diverse, no information needed to be added to the dogs to produce such a variety in the descendants in such a short time. Both are valid argument strategies - so long as they are accomplished within the bounds of logic (which is unfortunately, increasingly rare).

I actually made this very point in the next sentence to the one you quoted. The modern creationist perspective has always suggested that the "Homo" Genus is comprised of descendants of Adam - and therefore fully human (with the noted exception of Homo habilis which is likely comprised of fragments from both ape and human fossils). NEXT POST That is correct. We cannot assume that a category in one classification system lines up directly with categories in another classification system. The categories exist for different purposes. There is no single "bird kind" in creationist thinking. This passage alludes to multiple "kinds" within the broader "bird" grouping. God created many "kinds" of "birds". More accurately, "bats" were grouped together with the other 'flying creatures' (Hb. 'oph'). Using the modern English word "bird" would be an appropriate translation of 'oph' most of the time (though it is also used of flying insects). However, given the inclusion of "bats" on the list, in this instance, the term "bird" is slightly over-specific on this occasion. I could not find this. Firstly, I disagree that your logic pans out. Genesis is clear that organisms were created by "kinds", to reproduce after their own "kinds". The fact that God later declares some of the "kinds" to be clean or unclean for human consumption does not logically undermine the concept of discreetly created "kinds". That is, the classification is not used in a purely "religious/functional" manner. And secondly, even if creationists were being presumptuous in the borrowing of "kinds" from the Bible, that would not logically undermine the concept derived from Genesis - i.e. that God made different groups of organisms independently of each other. NEXT POST I find a couple of things interesting about this response. The first thing I find interesting is that, in my advice to @Starise, I suggested asking for evidence to be provided. If we look at the image in your post, you did not provide any evidence, but rather a stylized representation of the evidence; an illustration of what the researchers claim to have found. I understand why this is done. In older, chromosome staining methods, it is near-impossible to get chromosomes to line up in the desired manner. And even if we get a clear, straight chromosome, it is not possible to determine from this method exactly what is exactly where in the chromosome. In other words, if you showed the actual photographs, the people you are trying to convince might be skeptical that it all lines up as neatly as you'd like. The second thing I find interesting is that, your best evidence is from an old, imprecise method. We live in a world where DNA sequencing is cheap. Sequencing tells us exactly what is exactly where in the chromosome. Not only that, but the sequencing has been done - and the data is freely available. My cynical guess is because the last time they had a good look at the sequence data (2002), they were surprised by how little it resembled a telomere fusion site - referring to the site as "degenerate telomeric arrays". This means, the supposed telomere fusion site had undergone such a high mutation rate since the alleged fusion, that the site no longer resembled a telomere fusion site - even asking, "why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate" (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full.pdf). The most recent sequence analysis I have found (2011) was from creationists (https://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2), who, unsurprisingly, also found that the supposed telomere fusion site does not look like a telomere fusion site. Therefore, given the more accurate sequence data, we are left with a fact that the putative telomere fusion site does not resemble a telomere fusion site. Interpretation 1: This is indeed a telomere fusion site, but it does not look like a telomere fusion site because it is so thoroughly mutated. Interpretation 2: The site does not look like a telomere fusion site because it is not a telomere fusion site. Either way, this is certainly not the strong, knockout-punch argument perceived by those defending the secular narrative.

Sorry, I didn't see your posts earlier. Both "birds" and "dinosaurs" are each comprised of multiple "kinds". As an example, Psittaciformes birds (parrots, budgerigars, lorikeets etc. etc.) represent many, and varied, "species" of "birds". Nevertheless, this Order of birds is readily distinguishable from other birds in both morphology and molecular analysis. It has been notoriously difficult to determine how they are (presumably) related to other birds. "Our various phylogenies produced no consistent placement of outgroups as sister to the parrots, reinforcing the idea that they have no close sister relationship with modern birds" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727385/pdf/msn160.pdf) Psittaciformes would therefore be considered a good candidate for a bird "kind". The "transitional forms" issue is not a problem - because they don't exist in the sense that "Darwin" envisioned them - i.e. "a finely graduated organic chain". Modern candidates for "transitional" fossils usually share a few notable features with an assumed ancestor, and a few notable features with an assumed descendant - and are therefore plopped in between them and labelled "transitional". But that is not what "Darwin" meant when he used the term. Yep - agreed. According to the paradigm, a creature either belongs to a particular "kind", or it belongs to another "kind", or we don't know to which "kind" it belongs. "Transitional" represents an interpretation of a fact - not the fact itself. Assigning creatures to "kinds" has the same logical limitations as, for example, assigning creatures to Families or Orders. We can not go back in time to determine how (or if) certain creatures are related. We can only make inferences about the past based on the available data. The ambiguity with the use of "species" is a different problem. I'm not readily familiar with the data - but anecdotally, yes. Certainly, the ability to hybridize species of cats (e.g. Ligers etc.) is a very strong indicator that they are related (and therefore belong to the same "kind"). I also have a vague memory of a suggestion that Sabre-tooth tigers may belong to a different "kind" from extant cats. I'll try and get to your other posts soon.

I hope you understand that I'm not trying to "catch" you out in anything. I sincerely believe that the best we can do in any debate, is to use terminology in a clear, consistent and logical manner. Whether or not a debate opponent can (or is even willing to) see through their indoctrination is beyond your control. The term "species" is (generally) used to group organisms that currently interbreed. The term "kind" is adopted from the Bible - to (specifically) group organisms that are related through their shared, created ancestors. "Kind" is therefore a broader category than "species" - that can (and frequently does) include more than one "species" per "kind". It's somewhat complicated because we are trying to compare the stages of unrelated classification systems with each other. The Linnaean classification system also has broader categories that can include multiple "species" (genus, family, order, class etc.). So conceptually, the idea of higher categories (related groups above extant breeding behavior) is something both systems share. Another complication is that "kinds" is specific to the Biblical paradigm. Therefore, those holding the secular narrative have an extra layer of indoctrination to overcome before they can even begin to give fair consideration to the logic of "kinds". We've already encountered that bias in this thread. But remember - the people you are debating with don't necessarily understand or accept the concept of "kinds". The first hurdle is to therefore clearly define what we mean by "kinds" (and to specify that what we mean by "kinds" is different to what we/they mean by "species"). I don't think you've "complicated it", but I think you have left some things ambiguous - that could be tightened using more precise terminology. If we start from an ancestor population with high genetic diversity - through genetic isolation of offspring, followed by Natural Selection (environmental pressures selecting both for and against the successful propagation of certain genes), leading to speciation (divergence of descendants into separate "species") over generations - so that the isolated group no longer interbreeds with the original group (or other related, speciated groups). Both sides of the debate subscribe to this pathway of progression. Only that, the secular narrative would include the addition of novel genetic information along the way. But that is unnecessary if we assume the ancestors possessed high genetic diversity. Yes. The fallacy is called Equivocation. I would guesstimate 99% of the scientific observations for "evolution", are in-fact, observations of Natural Selection driving changes to allele frequencies. Biblical creationism has never had any problem with Natural Selection driving changes to allele frequencies. Therefore, such evidence does not logically counter creationism. Yet, the frequent implication is that such evidence also supports other concepts under the umbrella of "evolution" (such as Common Ancestry - which does conflict with Biblical creationism). There is also the problem that many would rather "win" the debate, rather than use the debate to come to a better mutual understanding of the arguments - even if that means departing from logic and manners to show how rhetorically "clever" they supposedly are. It's simply a matter of logic (and critical reasoning) that there can be no "proof" in "the scientific realm" (apart from mathematical proofs - which are a different concept). One side of the debate certainly exaggerates confidence in their position far beyond what is justified by either the evidence, or by the methods utilized. Nevertheless, at the objective heart of the matter is the existence of the facts - and both sides interpreting the facts to support their own presuppositions. It is not logically possible to "falsify" any claim of the distant past - because there is no way to perform an experiment in the past which could determine what actually did, or did not, happen. So long as the facts can be made consistent with the model/story/paradigm/narrative, then the model is technically rational (equally so with any other model that is made consistent with the facts).

However, we have to be able to engage with the world - which has been heavily indoctrinated to falsely believe that the secular narrative is the only valid narrative. It's hard enough to get people to even consider both sides of the debate - Moreso if we use confused terminology. Most have been so heavily indoctrinated, that they won't even consider the possibility that those who disagree with them have a valid "understanding". Thus, those holding the creationist position will be routinely accused, in an Adhominaem manner (i.e. without any sincere consideration of arguments), of being 'anti-science', or 'ignoring evidence', or in some other sense, intellectually compromised. The "best narrative" is the truth. There is no other objective standard by which to determine what happened in the distant, unobservable past. Agreed - most people have been exclusively, overwhelmingly exposed to only one side of the argument (in schools & universities, books & documentaries, news stories etc. - even in science fiction - society is saturated with the secular narrative). And, to be fair, many creationists do a poor job of providing their children with a robust creationist paradigm. The secular side of the debate has been very successful, propaganda-wise - i.e. in convincing the world it has the only valid perspective. On another matter of terminology (sorry to be 'that guy'), I would avoid the use of "proof" in any scientific discussion. The term "proof" is absolutist, mathematical terminology (commonly misused of science to exaggerate claims beyond what is scientifically possible). That degree of absolute confidence does not legitimately apply to any scientific claim. As a matter of logic and critical reasoning, science can never claim certainty (or "proof") about anything. The Scientific Method produces precise, mathematical confidence (but never 100% confidence). Modelling methods (such as those used to investigate the past) can only produce anecdotal evidence. It would therefore be unreasonable for either side to expect "proof" from the opposing position. We have facts (observations and data), and we have evidence (facts which have been interpreted to support a particular claim - i.e. as 'evidence' of that claim). I would firstly assume they don't know what "gene splicing" means (perhaps they mean chromosomal fusion). I would secondly ask to examine their evidence and arguments for such a claim.