Changes

The following are just a few of the places on the web I've debated with Evolutionists over the past year or so. I find their arguments unconvincing.[http://www.okctalk.com/archive/index.php/t-26274.html?s=0984f982036edc8354844268b4875501][http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/93396-us-debate-evolution-between-scientists-and-religious-24.html#post1059330504][http://ra.tionalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Evidence_for_a_recent_creation] (period added to last link because of filter) See here[http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=14555&mpp=15&p=11] for an example at EVCForum.net where Dr. Adequate, a defender of Evolution, bragged that after 2 years no Creationists would accept his challenge to a debate. I presented my evidence, offered to debate him, and he promptly backed out and said I wasn't allowed to present evidence for my side. I've also discussed this on various science article comments as well. I understand the arguments for Evolution. I just disagree with them and think they're fallacious.[http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773][http://www.livescience.com/20701-americans-evolution-creationism.html][http://www.livescience.com/19425-earliest-human-fire.html] --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:27, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

The following are just a few of the places on the web I've debated with Evolutionists over the past year or so. I find their arguments unconvincing.[http://www.okctalk.com/archive/index.php/t-26274.html?s=0984f982036edc8354844268b4875501][http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/93396-us-debate-evolution-between-scientists-and-religious-24.html#post1059330504][http://ra.tionalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Evidence_for_a_recent_creation] (period added to last link because of filter) See here[http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=14555&mpp=15&p=11] for an example at EVCForum.net where Dr. Adequate, a defender of Evolution, bragged that after 2 years no Creationists would accept his challenge to a debate. I presented my evidence, offered to debate him, and he promptly backed out and said I wasn't allowed to present evidence for my side. I've also discussed this on various science article comments as well. I understand the arguments for Evolution. I just disagree with them and think they're fallacious.[http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773][http://www.livescience.com/20701-americans-evolution-creationism.html][http://www.livescience.com/19425-earliest-human-fire.html] --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:27, 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)

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.[https://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"[https://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)

:"they assume the orbiting shield of electrons preventing substantial decay of the isotope nuclei did not itself evolve over time"

:"they assume the orbiting shield of electrons preventing substantial decay of the isotope nuclei did not itself evolve over time"

::{{cquote|"Atoms of beryllium-7 decay by grabbing electrons from their surroundings. The electron is absorbed into the nucleus, where it combines with a proton to make a neutron, transforming the atom into a different element, lithium-7. The rate of this kind of decay depends on the chance of an electron straying into the nucleus and getting absorbed. So increasing the density of electrons surrounding the atomic nucleus can speed up the decay. The reverse is true for the types of decay that involve expelling a neutron: increasing the electron density around that type of atom slows the process down. At least, that is the idea. But the changes seen previously have been tiny. Now Tsutomu Ohtsuki of Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, and colleagues have boosted the effect by trapping beryllium-7 atoms in molecular cages. They report their results in Physical Review Letters1. The researchers induced a nuclear reaction to produce beryllium-7 atoms with a lot of energy, which were able to bash their way through the walls of cage-like carbon molecules called buckminsterfullerenes. Once the beryllium atoms are trapped, the carbon cage surrounds them with a dense cloud of electrons. This makes it more likely for an electron to get into the trapped atom's nucleus and induce decay. The researchers found that beryllium-7 encased in buckminsterfullerene has a half-life of about 52.5 days, compared with 53 days for pure beryllium-7. The half-life is the time it takes for half of the initial amount of material to decay."[http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/news040913-24.html]}}

::{{cquote|"Atoms of beryllium-7 decay by grabbing electrons from their surroundings. The electron is absorbed into the nucleus, where it combines with a proton to make a neutron, transforming the atom into a different element, lithium-7. The rate of this kind of decay depends on the chance of an electron straying into the nucleus and getting absorbed. So increasing the density of electrons surrounding the atomic nucleus can speed up the decay. The reverse is true for the types of decay that involve expelling a neutron: increasing the electron density around that type of atom slows the process down. At least, that is the idea. But the changes seen previously have been tiny. Now Tsutomu Ohtsuki of Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, and colleagues have boosted the effect by trapping beryllium-7 atoms in molecular cages. They report their results in Physical Review Letters1. The researchers induced a nuclear reaction to produce beryllium-7 atoms with a lot of energy, which were able to bash their way through the walls of cage-like carbon molecules called buckminsterfullerenes. Once the beryllium atoms are trapped, the carbon cage surrounds them with a dense cloud of electrons. This makes it more likely for an electron to get into the trapped atom's nucleus and induce decay. The researchers found that beryllium-7 encased in buckminsterfullerene has a half-life of about 52.5 days, compared with 53 days for pure beryllium-7. The half-life is the time it takes for half of the initial amount of material to decay."[http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/news040913-24.html]}}

::However, if volcanoes did indeed play a major role in mass extinctions, as new research has been indicating[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528142827.htm], then that would be likely to throw off your decay rates. Volcanoes essentially carbonize material, burning it and crisping it with effects similar to nuclear eruptions. And if the lava is mixed with water (which is likely per the previous link showing scientists now believe a huge underwater eruption occurred in Earth's past) then it might be affecting results across an even wider scale. You're talking about similar effects to the decay rate from such volcanism. Plus, lava results in multiple elements mixed together from deep within the Earth's surface, and could end up changing the amounts of isotopes.[http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html] It would of course throw off Carbon-14 dating because volcanism pretty much by definition is a carbonizing process. Other dating methods would also be affected. I don't see why you Evolutionists are so insistent the decay rates and initial daughter isotope levels remained unaltered over these vast time frames when you're now acknowledging the volcanic forces which are known to throw these rates off, did in fact occur - and helped wipe out life around the world simultaneously. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 23:36, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::However, if volcanoes did indeed play a major role in mass extinctions, as new research has been indicating[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528142827.htm], then that would be likely to throw off your decay rates. Volcanoes essentially carbonize material, burning it and crisping it with effects similar to nuclear eruptions. And if the lava is mixed with water (which is likely per the previous link showing scientists now believe a huge underwater eruption occurred in Earth's past) then it might be affecting results across an even wider scale. You're talking about similar effects to the decay rate from such volcanism. Plus, lava results in multiple elements mixed together from deep within the Earth's surface, and could end up changing the amounts of isotopes.[http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html] It would of course throw off Carbon-14 dating because volcanism pretty much by definition is a carbonizing process. Other dating methods would also be affected. I don't see why you Evolutionists are so insistent the decay rates and initial daughter isotope levels remained unaltered over these vast time frames when you're now acknowledging the volcanic forces which are known to throw these rates off, did in fact occur - and helped wipe out life around the world simultaneously. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 23:36, 25 July 2012 (EDT)