Changes

I've looked at BLAST searches[http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?CMD=Get&VIEW_RESULTS=FromRes&RID=101BF0E5016&UNIQ_OBJ_NAME=A_SearchResults_1Su2lc_7m7_DKgLafS42tj_GTR6V_wTb5m&QUERY_INDEX=0] and examined claims that humans are related to chimps. What they don't mention is that apes aren't the only species with similar chromosome counts and high DNA percentage similarities to humans, so too do rodents, cattle, bats, and rabbits.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count] It's also a known fallacy to assume that because species have similarity in DNA they must be evolved from each other - it's called "correlation does not imply causation". I've read a lot of Brent Dalrymple's book, "The Age of the Earth"[http://books.google.com/books?id=a7S3zaLBrkgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false], and have quoted from it to prove that radiometric decay can be influenced by external factors, and that numerous prior dating attempts failed by too-simplistically assuming constant, gradual processes (pages 25-69). In fact, a fallacy I see made is they assume the orbiting shield of electrons preventing substantial decay of the isotope nuclei did not itself evolve over time, because if so, the decay rate could've been altered in the past by the catastrophes (like a Flood) we now know to have occurred from the geologic record. Dendrochronology has substantial flaws and is subject to interpretation, as came out during the ClimateGate scandal. A number of the emails (which I've read[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/] - [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/1998-climategate-email-problem-of.html][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/dendrochronologists-get-spanked-by-guy.html][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/mann-actually-eliminate-records-with.html][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-damning.html][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/warmist-ed-cook-all-reinforces-my.html]) showed the dating method was shoddy and criticism was being suppressed. Like other methods, even if such bias wasn't occurring, it would rely on atmospheric levels remaining constant (even though we now know Oxygen levels were 50% higher in Earth's past and the atmosphere was thicker[http://conservapedia.com/Canopy_theory]) and the decaying content not being altered by outside forces, remaining a closed system. To assume massive catastrophes like they hypothesize about, meteor showers, ice ages, etc. (and they never seem to consider a Global Flood despite its reference in cultural histories worldwide), and then refuse to consider such catastrophes could not throw off the decay rates, seems a really obvious flaw in reasoning. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:25, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

I've looked at BLAST searches[http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?CMD=Get&VIEW_RESULTS=FromRes&RID=101BF0E5016&UNIQ_OBJ_NAME=A_SearchResults_1Su2lc_7m7_DKgLafS42tj_GTR6V_wTb5m&QUERY_INDEX=0] and examined claims that humans are related to chimps. What they don't mention is that apes aren't the only species with similar chromosome counts and high DNA percentage similarities to humans, so too do rodents, cattle, bats, and rabbits.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count] It's also a known fallacy to assume that because species have similarity in DNA they must be evolved from each other - it's called "correlation does not imply causation". I've read a lot of Brent Dalrymple's book, "The Age of the Earth"[http://books.google.com/books?id=a7S3zaLBrkgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false], and have quoted from it to prove that radiometric decay can be influenced by external factors, and that numerous prior dating attempts failed by too-simplistically assuming constant, gradual processes (pages 25-69). In fact, a fallacy I see made is they assume the orbiting shield of electrons preventing substantial decay of the isotope nuclei did not itself evolve over time, because if so, the decay rate could've been altered in the past by the catastrophes (like a Flood) we now know to have occurred from the geologic record. Dendrochronology has substantial flaws and is subject to interpretation, as came out during the ClimateGate scandal. A number of the emails (which I've read[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/] - [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/1998-climategate-email-problem-of.html][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/dendrochronologists-get-spanked-by-guy.html][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/mann-actually-eliminate-records-with.html][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-damning.html][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/warmist-ed-cook-all-reinforces-my.html]) showed the dating method was shoddy and criticism was being suppressed. Like other methods, even if such bias wasn't occurring, it would rely on atmospheric levels remaining constant (even though we now know Oxygen levels were 50% higher in Earth's past and the atmosphere was thicker[http://conservapedia.com/Canopy_theory]) and the decaying content not being altered by outside forces, remaining a closed system. To assume massive catastrophes like they hypothesize about, meteor showers, ice ages, etc. (and they never seem to consider a Global Flood despite its reference in cultural histories worldwide), and then refuse to consider such catastrophes could not throw off the decay rates, seems a really obvious flaw in reasoning. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 10:25, 25 July 2012 (EDT)