Coitus Interruptus... Flirty Turtles, Fossils and the Flood

[6days]

Here's a tip....their work isn't "interpretation", it's application.

Nope... Similar homology, genes and functions is the evidence. Biblical creationists and atheistic evolutionists use the same evidence performing science . Evolutionists have a long history of false conclusions because they believe in the wrong history.

Also, you didn't answer: Which part of what I said about Lightner was the personal attack? Where I noted that she's a retired veterinarian? That she's a creationist? That she hasn't done work in comparative genomics?

It was answered Jose. Check the definition I gave you.

 

[6days]

All this is predicated on the 'belief' that the nine pairs of turtles were actually in the process of mating which is impossible to prove. It is not remarkable to find turtles of opposite sex together. Two of the nine pairs are not touching each other and some of the others are not aligned correctly. Best guesses are fine if we are prepared to leave it at that; but apparently that doesn't sell very well and the evolutionary paradigm must be protected at all cost.

For all we know they were tripping over each other trying to get away from the silt that was quickly enveloping them. If anything, finding so many male and female pairs should simply tell us that they were all overtaken in one event during turtle mating season.

Yes...rapidly preserved in sediment.

 

[6days]

Then God said...these seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came. .... So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.....Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind
We would expect a good designer of anything (including created kinds) to use similar designs, performing similar functions, in similar models.

But that isn't what we see.

You don't accept God's Word, so you reject the evidence. We do see similar designs, similar genes, similar functions ( eyes, arms, fingers etc). We see similar features such as eyes that are uniquely designed to fit needs of each creature.

Evidence is interpreted according to which history you choose to believe a) God's Word, or b)man's opinions.

And this is your problem. you make a thread about evidence, pretending it supports your interpretation. But when confronted you revert to the "I believe God's word says X therefore I'm right". Why bother with evidence at all?

Simple.... Because when a person claims to be a Christian, I believe the best evidence is the Word of our creator. The physical evidence from the world around us is secondary. Evidence from science will always support the One who created science.

 

[George Affleck]

... the best evidence is the Word of our creator. The physical evidence from the world around us is secondary. Evidence from science will always support the One who created science.

So true 6days

This has been the problem since the beginning. Satan tried to make Eve doubt what God plainly said. And it has been that way ever since.

When we do 'that which is right in our own eyes" we will always get it wrong because we have inherited from Adam the disability of not recognizing truth and not being able to interpret what we see on our own.

 

[Alate_One]

You don't accept God's Word, so you reject the evidence. We do see similar designs, similar genes, similar functions ( eyes, arms, fingers etc). We see similar features such as eyes that are uniquely designed to fit needs of each creature.

I don't see any evidence of a God as engineer, tinkering each creature to fit some perfect model. This idea isn't one found in the Bible. In Genesis, God speaks and the earth brings forth living things. You want God to operate in a way He does not.

YECs love to make up all kinds of scenarios which have no place in the Bible. You have such a high view of science that modern science and the Bible MUST be 100% in agreement. This is the YEC downfall.

Simple.... Because when a person claims to be a Christian, I believe the best evidence is the Word of our creator. The physical evidence from the world around us is secondary. Evidence from science will always support the One who created science.

The Bible wasn't written to teach us science. You have a wrong headed view of scripture, science and God to think that God must write accurate science when communicating theological truths.

The natural world is God's creation, it only makes sense that creation teaches us about the details of creation, not scripture which teaches us about the relationship between God and humanity.

 

[Stripe]

I don't see any evidence of a God as engineer, tinkering each creature to fit some perfect model. This idea isn't one found in the Bible. In Genesis, God speaks and the earth brings forth living things. You want God to operate in a way He does not. YECs love to make up all kinds of scenarios which have no place in the Bible. You have such a high view of science that modern science and the Bible MUST be 100% in agreement. This is the YEC downfall. The Bible wasn't written to teach us science. You have a wrong headed view of scripture, science and God to think that God must write accurate science when communicating theological truths. The natural world is God's creation, it only makes sense that creation teaches us about the details of creation, not scripture which teaches us about the relationship between God and humanity.

Darwinists will seize upon anything to talk about to avoid examining the evidence.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You don't accept God's Word, so you reject the evidence. ....

Based on your earlier comment, wouldn't it be more honest to say that he rejects your interpretation of the same evidence?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Darwinists will seize upon anything to talk about to avoid examining the evidence.

Based on one of 6-days comments, the argument here is not over the evidence, it is an argument of regarding interpretation of that evidence. So your comment is disingenuous. Evolutionary scientists are not avoiding examining the evidence, they are disagreeing with your interpretation of said evidence,

Please make even a token effort at accurately representing your opponents position. It would give you some much needed credibility.

 

[Alate_One]

Darwinists will seize upon anything to talk about to avoid examining the evidence.

I've given many examples of specific evidence in this thread and asked questions of both of you. The only discussion has been vague generalities from you and 6days which do not address my questions or the specific evidence I've presented.

So I think you're pulling another Stripe classic, accuse your opponent of the very thing you are doing.

 

[Stripe]

Alate bobs and weaves

Alate bobs and weaves

I've given many examples of specific evidence in this thread and asked questions of both of you. The only discussion has been vague generalities from you and 6days which do not address my questions or the specific evidence I've presented. So I think you're pulling another Stripe classic, accuse your opponent of the very thing you are doing.

Nope. This thread is about turtles frozen in rock. That's the evidence. There are necessary conditions to bring about this feature: notably water, sediment and cement.

You've studiously avoided discussion over these fundamental concepts, and describing them as "vague generalizations" shows your desperation.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope. This thread is about turtles frozen in rock. That's the evidence. There are necessary conditions to bring about this feature: notably water, sediment and cement.

You've studiously avoided discussion over these fundamental concepts, and describing them as "vague generalizations" shows your desperation.

How does your insistence on discussing the process of fossilization address the topic of the OP regarding that the turtles were fossilized in a reproductive act? Nobody is arguing that the turtles were fossilized, we are discussing how was it possible that they were killed quickly enough to keep them from separating before being buried in sediment in a fresh water volcanic lake. That is the evidence being discussed.

 

[6days]

I don't see any evidence of a God as engineer

I do.

In Genesis, God speaks and the earth brings forth living things.

Sure...lets read it.
Gen. 1:20 Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.
23 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. ...
31And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.

You want God to operate in a way He does not.

I believe His Word.

... creation teaches us about the details of creation, not scripture ...

That is the basis of heretical teaching from theistic evolutionists at Biologos.

 

[6days]

How does your insistence on discussing the process of fossilization address the topic of the OP regarding that the turtles were fossilized in a reproductive act? Nobody is arguing that the turtles were fossilized, we are discussing how was it possible that they were killed quickly enough to keep them from separating before being buried in sediment in a fresh water volcanic lake. That is the evidence being discussed.

Not how they were "killed quickly enough"... But how they were buried in sediment and preserved. it fits the flood model, and evidence of the global flood and rapid burial is found throughout the world.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not how they were "killed quickly enough"... But how they were buried in sediment and preserved. it fits the flood model, and evidence of the global flood and rapid burial is found throughout the world.

Don't you think that the turbulence caused by rapidly dumping huge amounts of silt would cause the animals to be dispersed? Tons of rapidly moving dirt is dumped into the water and forces the water out of its way. Its called a land slide tsunami. Why was this sediment deposited in sufficient quantity yet slowly enough to not to disturb the mating turtles?

 

[Stripe]

Idiot Cabinethead

Idiot Cabinethead

How does your insistence on discussing the process of fossilization address the topic of the OP regarding that the turtles were fossilized in a reproductive act? Nobody is arguing that the turtles were fossilized, we are discussing how was it possible that they were killed quickly enough to keep them from separating before being buried in sediment in a fresh water volcanic lake. That is the evidence being discussed.

You're too stupid to talk to.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You're too stupid to talk to.

Maybe. But I can't help but notice that your response did not answer my question. Did not even attempt to.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

6days, if nothing else you are very, very entertaining. First you denied that comparative genomics is based in evolutionary theory, even though books written by geneticists who work in the field directly state that it is.

Then you denied that the paper and SIFTER model it describes was based on evolutionary theory, even though the geneticists clearly say so in the paper, even to the point of putting it in the name of the model.

Now you're denying that they applied the model? So I guess they just developed that model and.......stopped? Then I wonder just what they're talking about when they write...

Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5′-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family​

Huh. That sure sounds like they applied their model to the data and generated results. And how did that go?

Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature.​

How about that? Out here in the non-creationist world it looks like they developed a model based on evolutionary relatedness between taxa, applied that model to genetic data, and the result was prediction of genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy.

But since you're employing the 3 year old tactic of "deny, deny, deny...no matter what", I guess none of that matters. It's like when you catch a toddler with his hand in the cookie jar and all he knows how to do is "deny, deny, deny...no matter what".

"Were you getting a cookie?

Nope.

"I saw you reaching in the cookie jar."

Nope.

"Yes I did."

Nope.

Of course with little kids it's kinda cute. But seeing you just "deny, deny, deny...no matter what" here? It's both sad and entertaining.

It was answered Jose. Check the definition I gave you.

Yeah, "ad hominem" involves a personal attack. So what was the personal attack I made against Lightner? Where I noted that she's a retired veterinarian? That she's a creationist? That she hasn't done work in comparative genomics?

 

[Tyrathca]

You're too stupid to talk to.

Evidence remember? Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence.

lain:

 

[Alate_One]

Nope. This thread is about turtles frozen in rock. That's the evidence. There are necessary conditions to bring about this feature: notably water, sediment and cement.

You're making that assertion. "water, sediment and cement" is a vague assertion at best, NOT evidence. The evidence is the site itself - from the evidence a volcanic lake and the layers in which the turtles were found, what type of turtles they are (all the same type) what position they were in.

I've pointed this out multiple times but you're incapable of discussing the topic at hand. You keep reverting to your tired assertions which are always the same no matter what fossils we're talking about.

You've studiously avoided discussion over these fundamental concepts, and describing them as "vague generalizations" shows your desperation.

They are vague. Define "cement" and explain why this has any bearing on the discussion other than your say-so. I haven't seen any geology textbooks or sites assert these three things in reference to fossilization.

 

[Alate_One]

You're too stupid to talk to.

Calling someone stupid is generally a sign you've lost the argument. Especially when the "stupid person" is making a good point.