What is the most 'cutting edge' fact for creation? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 3-16)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c3yTfaf4Kw
How about testing the silver bullet qualities of my two major contributions:
Creation vs Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html
Creation vs Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html
So far I have seen neither use, nor open on your side misuse, nor refutation of these two arguments as to why they would be bad arguments to use.
C'mon. Daniel was a prophet, but part of the time he was a detective too. He gave silver bullet quality disproof of Bel and the Dragon being gods.
Proving a thing beyond reasonable doubt is of course NOT a guarantee that Evolutionists won't come up with a very implausible just so story.
For these two it hasn't happened yet. PZM tried as to Chromosome numbers. I gave a refutation.
From here:
Creation vs Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html
You click here:
Creation vs Evolution : Karyogrammata
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html
Then here:
Creation vs Evolution : Karyogrammata
a linea : Chromosome Numbers
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#chromosomenumbers
Scroll to the Summing Up
[A few lines below where you arrive.]
Human bones within T Rex, evolutionists would have no really impossible trouble saying one tiny population of T Rex somehow survived the Cretaceous / Palaeocene boundary and ... that is basically the scenario of Tarzan's voyages in Opar, which were written by the heavily evolutionist (and I think racialist too) Edgar Rice Burroughs.
A pretty bad example for "devastating" as far as logic goes.
Luke 16 ... well, the rich man's brothers who were Pharisees or something like that (have Moses and the prophets but do not believe them) did see Lazarus rise and refuse to believe and did see Jesus rise, or at least the soldiers whom he had passed by while rising, and the empty grave, and they refused to believe.
That does not mean Resurrection is not a fool proof argument for Christ's divinity. Only that some are worse than fools.
Look at people denying the Resurrection:
somehwere else : from Mark Shea to Joseph Atwill
(1:st of, up to present, 3 essays, see links on site)
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2014/04/from-mark-shea-to-joseph-atwill.html
Or at Calvinists denying Real Presence, despite Our Lord's clear words.
Saw that thing about papers removed without a word to the authors.
May have been done by hacking to a diagram of mine which showed impossibility of centromere fission according to PZM's view, because when I looked at the Karyogrammata link, I couldn't find that diagram.
I think I did one.
It seems there is no diagram on karyogrammata for the impossibility of chromosome fission resulting in chromosomes of the usual shape, arms both below and above the centromere, each arm ending outwards from centromere in a telomere.
It has probably disappeared because I was comparing it with one picture taken from the web from PZM's post. That was done with attribution, it was a reasonable portion for the sake of refutation, so he has had no legitimate cause for complaint. That does not mean he cannot have told some hacker without juridic skills of the needed level that I was breaking his copyright and then that hacker removed it.
Unless of course CMI or AiG were jealous at my scoop or worried the argument should be used and refuted before they had time to - very slowly, like millions of years - test and perhaps approve it.
Well, here is another comparison of two diagrams, one of which resumes that of PZM and the other one (purely my own) adds telomere signs to it and shows the weakness of PZM's thought:
Fission de chromosomes, diagramme de PZM corrigé et refuté
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/09/fission-de-chromosomes-diagramme-de-pzm.html
Even if it is in French, you will know how to read the diagram, I hope.
Oh, the culprit could of course also be like Darwin Catholic or else some Russian, or some Orthodox Modernists of other nations, eager to jealously guard and safeguard justifications for their Evolution compromise since back in the Communist era.
How wise was Our Lord when he refused to talk when blindfolded and asked to prophecy who had hit him!
17:02 - sorry, I heard that too or rather read of the general order of things gettng buried in the flood BUT the problem is where on earth do you find that?
You can find fossil layers on top of fossil layers from different periods. But usually the same fossils, like in Yacoraite, Argentina, I think.
You can even find fossils from different periods with two different kinds of fossils. Cretaceous Ceratopsians below, Palaeocene (or Miocene or whatever) marine fauna above, I think there is one exact place in Mexico for. As a Flood geologist I would say the Ceratopsians got buried, then marine fauna swept in a few days later, and then that got buried in mud too.
BUT usually world wide, if you dig straight down anywhere, you get same biotope as long as there is a clear biotope with identifiable fossils.
Ask out where it is different any spot on earth - including England, Scotland and Ireland where the excavations started on a big scale.
Where do you find Ordovician fish or Trilobites below, Dinos in the Middle and Sabre Toothed Togers on top?
As far as I know, there is no such place. Anywhere.
Karoo group, sure, it has a lot of periods. But each one beside rather on top of others.
This is what I found. Now, don't plagiarise this from me because you do not like a Catholic said it, and then have Freemasons delete or sabotage my blogs again.
Simply link to my material, if you want to resume it, tell where you are resuming it from:
Creation vs Evolution : How do fossils superimpose?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-do-fossils-superpose.html
And if you don't like to make this a direct publicity for Catholicism, simply say you have reserves about my theology while recommending my argument.
That can be done. You have done it with Chesterton, for instance.
[They do not seem to be taking that approach, I had to log in to see my own comments! Thankful in some way they left it like that so I could copy them, but one can hardly refer to our relation as cordial.]
Ah yes, Sanford might have got some of the facts from some of the not so logical evolutionary biologists and geneticists wrong there.
Meaning it gives, especially to non-Christians, pretty gruesome as well as inaccurate advice.
For instance mutation rates can have risen due to modern environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment