Science News Today atomic clocks test Einstein’s special relativity

science news today - SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down

science news today Hatches Closed on SpaceX Dragon 2

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

AGAGCTTATGTC
AGAGCATATGTC

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
AGAGCTTATGTC
AGAGCAGATCTATC

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.

The Bible and what it is

What is the Bible?

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.

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,  California	<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,  Antarctica	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.

--

Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Mission
Genesis Mission
Creation Science Talk

---

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

Radiometric dating - The assumptions of Radiometric dating

http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/methods.html

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.

--
Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Mission
Genesis Mission
Creation Science Talk

---

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