Saturday, July 4, 2015

Human genome not 98-99% similar to Chimps

I have learned from reading evolutionist papers that nothing destroys a good evolutionist argument like reading the original paper does and this fact has once again been proven true.  I have just finished reading the original paper on which the 98-99% myth is based and not only does in never claim that human and chimp genomes are 98-99% similar but the actual figure one get from this paper is significantly lower.

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

First thing to not is that the paper did not deal with similarities but differences. The  reporting by evolutionists reversed percent difference to percent similarity, most likely because 99% similar has greater propaganda value than 1% percent different.  The number actual figure on which the 98-99% similarity is based on substitutions and is actually a 1.23% difference.

Example of a substitution


Now there is another type of difference the paper described that exceed the percentage of differences from substitutions and they are called insertions and deletions adding an additional 3% difference to the two genomes.

Example of an insertion and deletion

From here it only takes a little math to see the true result. 3% + 1.23% = 4.23%. This means that base on the original paper on which the  98-99% similarity  is based, the actual figure is a 4.23% difference which produces a 95.77% similarity from the vary paper that is used to claim a 98-99% similarity.

Now while is still quite close it represents a 2-4 X increase in differences purported by the 98-99% similarity claim. It also needs to be remembered that this study did not include a significant portion the two genomes that can not be matched, meaning that these portions of have a much larger difference than the areas used in this study. The Result is that 98-99% similarity is proven to be a myth by the same paper claimed to have discovered the similarity.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

The Bible and what it is

The Bible is loved by Christians as the word of God, but it is also hated by those to whom it brings conviction of their sin. The importance of what the Bible is can not be understated. It is the most well preserved piece of  ancient literature there is, but since the Bible is the word of God it it the most important piece of  literature in existence, and it is ignored at the peril of your soul.

The Bible tells the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden and about God's plan to bring about the redemption for mankind by the death, burial and resurrection Jesus Christ. Romans 3:23 says that all men have sinned and deserve the penalty for their sin of  spiritual death in hell. As a result every one of us needs redemption and Jesus has payment of the penalty for all our sins by of His death on cross means that God can offer us eternal life with Him as a the free gift. (Romans 6:23) Accepting God's free gift of salvation is by believing on Jesus and His redemptive work of dying on the cross and raising from the dead (Romans 10:9,10) and repenting of your sins. (Acts 20:21)  After this, it is simply a matter of asking the Lord to come into your heart and save you. (Romans 10:13)  Accept God's gift of salvation by believing the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Radiometric dating - Erroneous Radiometric dates.

As stated before rocks are not dated by plugging them in to an ACME dating machine. Dating labs do not measure time but measure isotopes ratios. Are these ratios the result of radioactive decay over time or other processes that have taken place in the rock? 

Uinkaret Plateau
Ages of Rocks in Millions of Years

K-Ar Rb-Sr Rb-Sr Isochron Pb-Pb Isochron
0.01 1230 - 1310 1300 - 1380 2390 - 2810 
1.0 - 1.4 1260 - 1380    
2.63 1310 - 1370    
3.6 1320 - 1440    
3.67 1360 - 1420    

Some times different methods used on the same rock, produce different ages. Further more the same method can produce different ages on different parts of the same rock. Some times these are close but other times they are vary different.

Anomalous dates

 Some times radiometric dating produces impossible results.

Uranium-Thorium-Lead Method
Ages in Billions of Years

Apollo Sample # Low High Age Inconsistencies 
extremes in billions 
of Years
14310 5.3 11.2   5.9
14053 5.4 28.1 22.7
15426 4.6 16.2 11.6
66095 5.6 14.1   8.5

Some soil from the Moon has been dated as more than a billion older than the uniformitarian age for the Moon. It was explained by processes of heating and cooling soil had been through.

Some rocks dated older than the
4.5 billion year evolutionary age for Earth.

Description Method "Date" in 
billion years.
Diamonds from magma  K-Ar Isochron 6.0 +- 0.3 
Rock  Rb-Sr Isochron 8.75 
Rock  Rb-Sr 8.3
Rock  Re-Os 11

Recent or young  volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":

Name Location Real Date K-Ar date
Kilauea Iki basalt Hawaii AD 1959 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt Sicily May 1964 0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake 
Highlands obsidian
Glass Mountains, 
<500 years 12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt Hawaii AD 1800-1801 22.8±16.5 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt Pacific Ocean <1 Ma  690±7 Ma
Olivine basalt  Nathan Hills,Victoria 
Land, Antarctica
<0.3 Ma 18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in 
volcanic bomb
Mt Erebus, 
1984 0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt  Hawaii <200 years 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt,  Hawaii <1,000 years 42.9±4.2 Ma; 
30.3±3.3 Ma
Sea mount basalt Near East Pacific Rise <2.5 Ma 580±10 Ma; 
700±150 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt  Pacific Ocean <0.6 Ma 24.2±1.0 Ma

  Examples of  negative ages

Name Date Ar-Ar age
Glass Mountain  AD 1579 - 1839 -130,000 
-30,000 years
Mt. Mihara AD 1961 - 70,000  years
Sakurajima AD 1946 -200,000 years

G.B. Dalrymple, "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters,6 (1969): pp. 47-55.

Some rocks have been measured with negative radiometric ages, in some case in terms of millions of years. Isochron dating can also produce negative ages, by producing a negative slope. K-Ar and Ar-Ar can result in negative ages when atmospheric argon is considered. So if these are real dates then you can hold a rock in your hand that wont form for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years yet.

Now in all fairness Ar-Ar dating can get the right age for a sample of known age, but it can also date samples as way too old, but without a known date there is no way of knowing when it is too old. One key factor is the fact that Ar-Ar dating need a standard of "known" age. If standard is of historically known age, such as would likely be used for testing Ar-Ar dating on sample of known age, then one would be more likely to get the correct age. For allegedly older samples K-Ar is used to "date" the standard and as such it still has the same problems as K-Ar dating.

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Radiometric dating - The assumptions of Radiometric dating

Some of the basic Dating Methods are as follows:
  • Samarium - Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
  • Rhenium - Osmium (Re-Os)
  • Uranium / Thorium - Lead. ( U/Th-Pb)
  • Ribidium - Strontium (Rb-Sr)
  • Potassium - Argon (K-Ar)
  • Argon - Argon (Ar-Ar)
  • Lutetium - Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
All these methods rely on the changing ratio of  parent or daughter isotopes in a closed system. Now such a closed system does not really exists, but open system affects can't be determined easily, so it is hoped that they about balance out. These methods all have the same basic assumptions.
  1. Constant decay rate.
  2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope.
  3. Known amounts of daughter isotope at start.
Realizing the difficulty of dealing with assumptions #2 and #3 above Isochron Dating was developed in an attempt to solve this problem. According to theory the sample starts out with daughter isotopes ratio with other isotopes of the same element at a constant value, but with the parent isotope is arbitrary. As a result is forms a strait horizontal line on a graph. As parent decays to daughter, the ratios change and the straight line remains but becomes angled. The slope of the line equals the number of half-lives of the parent isotope has passed sense solidification.

A shift  from contamination can take place in all of the data points, but such contamination does not affect all data points equally, so it can cause the data points to shift off the true Isochron completely. Given this when one looks at an Isochron plot how can one really tell where the true Isochron line should be. Sufficient contamination can produce any Isochron pattern regardless of the true Isochron. It is even possible to get a negative slope, this would be equivalent to a negative or future date.

When you look at actual isochron plots such as the ones at above link, there seems to be room for subjectivity. Some are better than others but there is often room for multiple plot lines. Even uniformitarian geologists recognize the existence of false isochron. So how do they distinguish good data from bad? The answer is where the sample fits in the Geologic Column.

The unique key assumption of Isochron dating is that the affect of contamination does on the Isochron can be determined. However the quality of an Isochron is still judged by where the sample fits in the Geologic Column. Also like all forms of radiometric dating it assumes that nuclear decay rates are constant, an assumption which will later be shown false.

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Radiometric dating - The theory behind Radiometric dating.

The theory behind radiometric dating is actually quite simple.  Every Atom of a given element has the same number of protons, but there are varieties in the number if neutrons. These varieties are called isotopes. Some of these isotopes decay (parent isotope) into other isotopes of other elements (daughter isotope). The time is takes for half of a sample of a given isotope to decay is called its half life. The half life of a given isotope can be as small a fractions of a second to billions of years. Some as far as we know are stable and do not decay.

Measurements of the half lives show that in general they are constant though there have been some reports of small variations. It is these half lives that form the theoretical bases of
radiometric dating. The basic idea is that if you have x amount of the parent isotope and y amount of the daughter isotope that given a constant half life you can calculate how much time parent isotope would have to decay to produce the measured amount of the daughter isotope.

Next the assumptions of Radiometric dating

Monday, September 8, 2014

Evidence Claimed of a Forming Planet

Astrophysicists have claim that they found evidence of of planet forming around a star with the unimaginative name of HD100546. It is located 335 light years from Earth and has a diameter 2.5 times larger than that of the sun.  HD100546 is also  30 times brighter than the Sun. As is often the case with such claims the facts do not live up to the claim being made.  Now no actual observation of a planetary body of any kind has actually been made let alone one that can objectively be considered to forming. what has actually be been observed is a excess carbon monoxide emission  source who's velocity and position seems vary in a manner that indicates that it orbiting around the star.

The claim of a forming planet is nothing  more than the hypothesis that the emission is a result of a circumplanetary disk of gas orbiting a gas giant about three time the size of Jupiter. A similar claim had been made before form around this star in the form of a faint blob of gas at about the distance of Pluto from the sun. Even with this large star are according to planet formation theory, a planet should not be forming that far out however this could simply be a Jupiter size planet with some gas and dust around it.  

The star have a disk of dust and gas orbiting it, but the logic behind the claim of forming planets is the assumption that planets and stat actually form from dust and gas in space. The theory generally referred to as the Nebula Hypothesis is a purely atheistic theory of the origin of stars and planets, that was specifically designed to explain the existence of stars and planets apart from God. The theory that has problems requiring repeated patching to protect it from reality. The reasoning behind this claim is that planets form discs of dust and gas around star, so finding evidence for planets inside a disc of dust and gas around a star gets interpreted as forming planets.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

The longer version contain the math used to calculate the results, to watch it click on the following link. 
Lunar recession and the Age of the Earth

Measurements of the distance to moon made using retro-reflectors left on the moon by Apollo astronauts has shown the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.82 cm per year. Measurements using atomic clocks have shown that an day is Earth are getting longer at a rate of 1.7 milliseconds per day per century.  
Now it turn out that these two phenomenons are related to each other by way of the tidal forces between the Earth and the Moon. It has been know for decades that when these figures are plugged into the laws of physics that they show that the Earth moon system can not be more than about1.25 billion years old.

Such calculations are largely dismissed by those claiming that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. They also point to paleontological data as evidence that the moon is receding and it is receding at a rate compatible with 4.5 billion years. These claims not only ignore alternative interpretations of the fossils and rocks in question but they usually use only one or two data points when multiple data point are used the scattering in the data is not what would be expected if it were really a result of the slowing of the Earth rotation.
It also turns out that when any model using a 4.5 billion year old earth-moon system is plugged into the same laws of physic they never produce the current Earth-Moon system with out significant tweaking and then the always come in below the paleontological data. This includes the currently accepted “Giant Collision Hypothesis of the Origin of the Moon.”
Furthermore when the same paleontological data is plugged into the same laws of physics it produces a maximum age for the Earth-moon system of about 2.067 billion years. Tweaking this model to make it reach 4.5 billion years requires putting an impossibly small delay time in high tide of less than 24 seconds.
There is simply no way of reconciling a 4.5 billion year old Earth-moon system with the laws of physics and the paleontological data claimed as evidence for the same. They simply do not and can not be made to match up. All of this makes a very strong case that earth-moon system can not be 4.5 billion years old.