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 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", 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. 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 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) 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 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", 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. 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) 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)