Author Topic: The relatively new science of DNA..  (Read 799 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
The relatively new science of DNA..
« on: March 06, 2023, 02:27:33 AM »
  The relatively new science of DNA..is ripping Darwin a new one!  https://answersingenesis.org/bios/nathaniel-jeanson/
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Dixie-Dude

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatiuvely new science of DNA..
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2023, 08:13:59 AM »
Wow, we need to buy the book "Traced"
Opelika Portal

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatiuvely new science of DNA..
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2023, 09:40:10 AM »
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline darkgael

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • The readiness is all. 4049 posts from the “old” gb
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2023, 02:01:09 AM »
  The relatively new science of DNA..is ripping Darwin a new one!  https://answersingenesis.org/bios/nathaniel-jeanson/
IG: With all due respect, Darwin had no knowledge of DNA or of any of the many factors discovered since Darwin wrote about natural selection and which lead to the current synthesis regarding evolution. The information regarding Dr. Johnson is an appeal to authority. He has impressive credentials. Ultimately, though, his premises, whatever they are, run afoul of testable proof. Much of what Dr. Johnson offers in his summary of ideas about tracing DNA lines back to Noah and his sons may read well but are largely irrelevant.

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2023, 02:18:30 AM »
Agreed, Darwin had little to draw from..   As late as my early school days, when the cell was diagramed, all it showed was the cell with it's nucleus..
  When asked what the rest of the cell was composed of, the answer was "protoplasm"..

  Perhaps 'science' should also consider the newest revelations..  Dr Jeanson could present his conclusion to secular minded contemporaries, and they would likely not even review his work.

  Peer pressure can have it's stultifying effects amongst them also.
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline darkgael

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • The readiness is all. 4049 posts from the “old” gb
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2023, 02:34:21 AM »
Quote
Peer pressure can have it's stultifying effects amongst them also.

That statement implies that any lack of attention is the result of pressure from the academic/scientific community. That is too easy a judgement to make. The stronger possibility is that his peers recognize bad science. The modern synthesis concerning origins/evolution/ etc. is perhaps the most documented theory in all of science; anyone who seeks to criticize it had better come loaded with data. In his summary of ideas, at least, Dr. Johnson fails to do this.

Offline darkgael

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • The readiness is all. 4049 posts from the “old” gb
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2023, 02:40:15 AM »
IG: question…………
Quote
Agreed, Darwin had little to draw from

Why, then, did you write the comment about “ripping a new one” since Darwin is not involved?

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2023, 03:37:55 AM »
IG: question…………
Quote
Agreed, Darwin had little to draw from

Why, then, did you write the comment about “ripping a new one” since Darwin is not involved?

  ...Because Darwin's theory lives on.
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Dixie-Dude

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2023, 04:26:28 AM »
Today people take Darwin's THEORIES as fact and teach it as so.  DNA testing is currently going on all over the world.  As told, native Americans came from Central Asia only about 2,000 years ago.  Not 10-15,000 years ago.  DNA testing shows where people originated.  I had my DNA tested, most, over 90% came from northwestern England near Scottland.  This goes along with my family history records going back to their entry into Virginia in the early 1700's, then back to this area of England.  So DNA proves my family history was right. 

DNA proves all sub-Saharan Africans come from Cush which is modern day Ethiopia.  Lines up with biblical lineage.  Same with Europeans, Asians and such, as the more people get tested, the more it lines up with the Bible. 

DNA testing says all modern people came from one woman about 8,000 years ago.  Noah's wife.  Also that they came from somewhere in the Middle East and spread out from there.  Also, fossils prove there was a large die-off of humans around the last Ice Age.  (Flood, Freezing, Earth going into seasons, Earth knocked into a wobble causing seasons)  Before the flood, the Bible says a mist watered the earth (heavy dew) and it never rained before the flood. 

Just look at the Grand Canyon.  If it took millions of years to form, wind erosion would have wore it down to just hills.  A lot of water washed through there to form it.  Look at where coal and oil deposits are formed.  Trees washed up against mountains sunk and formed coal or oil.  Like coal is found west of the Appalachians, not east of them.  Trees washed up from the mid-west, sunk and settled there to form coal.  Mt. Saint Helens proved how fast coal formed from trees washed down the mountain and sunk under water and landslides.  The went back a few year later and dug them up and they were already forming coal.  Not millions of years, but hundreds of days. 

How much to you need to prove the earth is not that old.  I could go on.
Opelika Portal

Offline darkgael

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • The readiness is all. 4049 posts from the “old” gb
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2023, 10:20:07 AM »
Quote
DNA testing says all modern people came from one woma
about 8,000 years ago.  Noah's wife.
How can that be known? Did she leave her autograph.
Quote
geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago
Coal only west of the Appalachians?? Really? Are all those mine shafts that litter the Wyoming and Hunlock Valleys in Northeast PA fake? Carbon County is so named for a good reason.
You should reread about Spirit Lake and what was actually found there. It surely was not coal.
Quote
All that is needed is burial and slight heating to transform the Spirit Lake peat into coal. Thus, at Spirit Lake, we may have seen the first stage in the formation of coal.
That is an interesting point. All that is needed is heat and pressure. And time.
I have not seen or held Spirit Lake peat. I have used various forms of peat for heating and cookling. I have used both bituminous and anthracite coal. The coals are wildly different that the peat. They are stone. Peat is not. None of us will be around in the time, short or long that it will take coal to be mined at the site of Spirit Lake. I doubt it will be fast.

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2023, 11:13:43 AM »
    Strange indeed... "Science" says as far as they are concerned, DNA is accurate enough to put a man in the electric
 chair or before a firing squad..but not good enough to cast ANY doubt upon Darwin..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline darkgael

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • The readiness is all. 4049 posts from the “old” gb
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2023, 12:30:06 PM »
    Strange indeed... "Science" says as far as they are concerned, DNA is accurate enough to put a man in the electric
 chair or before a firing squad..but not good enough to cast ANY doubt upon Darwin..
There is a fixation on Darwin. Darwin’s theories about natural selection have long ago been replaced by vast amounts of information that we're not available to Darwin and arenot part of his conclusions. Continuing to refer to Dsrwin’s theories as if they are current and timely is wrong. When you put Darwin and DNA in the same sentence, you are mixing different ideas.

Online Dixie-Dude

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2023, 12:39:46 PM »
Quote
DNA testing says all modern people came from one woma
about 8,000 years ago.  Noah's wife.
How can that be known? Did she leave her autograph.

This was recently released and I will try to find it, through DNA evidence.
Quote
geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago
  This has been updated to much less time.

Coal only west of the Appalachians?? Really? Are all those mine shafts that litter the Wyoming and Hunlock Valleys in Northeast PA fake? Carbon County is so named for a good reason.  This was an example of where trees from the plains states ended up, near mountain ranges.  Same with oil in the middle east, from trees that once grew in the Sahara.

You should reread about Spirit Lake and what was actually found there. It surely was not coal.
Quote
All that is needed is burial and slight heating to transform the Spirit Lake peat into coal. Thus, at Spirit Lake, we may have seen the first stage in the formation of coal.
That is an interesting point. All that is needed is heat and pressure. And time.  Less time than they figured.  Scientists were surprised. 
I have not seen or held Spirit Lake peat. I have used various forms of peat for heating and cookling. I have used both bituminous and anthracite coal. The coals are wildly different that the peat. They are stone. Peat is not. None of us will be around in the time, short or long that it will take coal to be mined at the site of Spirit Lake. I doubt it will be fast.
Opelika Portal

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2023, 12:43:18 PM »
    Strange indeed... "Science" says as far as they are concerned, DNA is accurate enough to put a man in the electric
 chair or before a firing squad..but not good enough to cast ANY doubt upon Darwin..
There is a fixation on Darwin. Darwin’s theories about natural selection have long ago been replaced by vast amounts of information that we're not available to Darwin and arenot part of his conclusions. Continuing to refer to Dsrwin’s theories as if they are current and timely is wrong. When you put Darwin and DNA in the same sentence, you are mixing different ideas.

  So, do they come to a different conclusion, or continue walking down Darwin's trail?
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline darkgael

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • The readiness is all. 4049 posts from the “old” gb
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2023, 01:50:06 PM »
Quote
do they come to a different conclusion, or continue walking down Darwin's trail?
Clever question. The “trail” has widened over the nearly 175 years since the Origin of Species; it has become a highway.  A great quote from a discussion about Darwin on another site is that
Quote
The point is that Darwin’s original theory filled a few books; the modern theory of evolution fills libraries, and continues to expand as we learn more and gain knowledge about the details. It is also multidisciplinary: when Darwin wrote his books, it was as a naturalist; today, the theory of evolution employs biochemists, biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, palaeontologists, statisticians, and many many more fields.

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2023, 04:18:20 PM »
Quote
do they come to a different conclusion, or continue walking down Darwin's trail?
Clever question. The “trail” has widened over the nearly 175 years since the Origin of Species; it has become a highway.  A great quote from a discussion about Darwin on another site is that
Quote
The point is that Darwin’s original theory filled a few books; the modern theory of evolution fills libraries, and continues to expand as we learn more and gain knowledge about the details. It is also multidisciplinary: when Darwin wrote his books, it was as a naturalist; today, the theory of evolution employs biochemists, biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, palaeontologists, statisticians, and many many more fields.

  All schooled and directed buy the same demagogic gurus..afraid to investigate other avenues.
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline darkgael

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • The readiness is all. 4049 posts from the “old” gb
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2023, 10:21:58 PM »
IG: you are doing it again, constructing a nameless, faceless power who controls those people that you don’t like.
What demagogic gurus are those?
Those “other avenues” have been investigated. They all follow the same trail to use your metaphor. They all fail for the same reason: they begin with a conclusion and then line up “facts” that support the foregone conclusion as opposed to testing data and drawing a conclusion from it.

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2023, 01:47:22 AM »
Man's BS theories, and Gods' Word clashing again.

This is a perfect example of 1st Timothy Chapter 1 Verses 1 through 10, (with emphasis on verses 4 & 10)

You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2023, 02:18:44 AM »
IG: you are doing it again, constructing a nameless, faceless power who controls those people that you don’t like.
What demagogic gurus are those?
Those “other avenues” have been investigated. They all follow the same trail to use your metaphor. They all fail for the same reason: they begin with a conclusion and then line up “facts” that support the foregone conclusion as opposed to testing data and drawing a conclusion from it.

  Those trails have not been investigated, simply because the PTB in "science" refuses to look at the evidence.

  "My mind is made up, don't trouble me with extraneous facts", seems to be the word with them.

  Here are some very credible scientists, who the clique will not even consider;
  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lennox%2C+behe%2C+steven

  Another ground breaking scientist..among many, whose work they also refuse to entertain.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y&t=30s

   Have you taken the time to consider their concepts, or are you just as resistant as the "old boy's club" ?
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline darkgael

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • The readiness is all. 4049 posts from the “old” gb
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2023, 07:47:18 AM »
Have I taken the time? Yes, IG, I have.

Online ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Gender: Male
Re: The relatively new science of DNA..
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2023, 03:02:10 PM »
Darwin might not have been schooled in
DNA chemistry, but he was definitely aware of animal husbandry,  horticulture,  the work of Mendel.
.
  Darwin published his book.."Origins"....  in 1859  Gregor Mendel didn't publish his works until 1866..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)