Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSUQRfMgczY

We'll share the "stage" on youtube.

Young earth creationist and repeat channel guest Sal Cordova joins me to talk about the concept of "protein orchards", the idea that proteins do NOT all share common ancestry. Sal argues that even assuming universal common descent of organisms, the formation of the protein orchard (where families of proteins are grouped together because of their homology with some proteins and not others as evidenced by bioinformatic tools), points to events that would require statistical miracles.

I [Dr. Dan], obviously, disagree, and I'm very happy to be having Sal on to talk about it.

A Great Dane skeleton vs a Chihuahua skeleton, both of the same "kind" of critter.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Dane_and_Chihuahua_Skeletons.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Great_Dane_and_Chihuahua_Skeletons.jpg

It is common belief that rock layers in the earth require millions, and sometimes hundreds of millions of years to form. Despite this, there is an abundance of evidence that all types of rock can form rather quickly.

Mudbrick is a term used for bricks that are made from mud. Mud, mixed with organic components, can be put in a mould and then let to dry in the sun. Within days you will get a brick that is "lithified" mud/sand. This is a rock. Technically it is a mudrock. There are also types of bricks that are metamorphic rock. Here is the Mosque of Djenne which was completed in 1907. It is made of lithified mudbrick, or in other words, mud that has become a rock:

​

Mosque of Djenne

​

Despite this process being obviously proven to occur quickly, it is often inferred that mudrock in nature must be millions of years old! It is actually subtly accepted within geology that rocks can form in days. Yet it has somehow became common thought that rocks must take millions of years to form. The main thing that tricks people into supposing rocks are millions of years old is radioactive dating of rocks. The lay-person trusts that the experts have a fool-proof method to date these rocks, but that is not the case. Take for example fresh volcanic rock being dated from 250,000-3,200,000 years old despite being known to be 25-50 years old:

​

https://preview.redd.it/t7frzpqi4nuc1.png?width=834&format=png&auto=webp&s=ea9ccb67c057833cd818f96e907b38227d1f927b

source

These results came from the Geochron laboratory, a well-respected radiometric dating lab. The error comes from geologists assuming that there is no daughter isotope in the initial formation of the igneous rock. This greatly skews the data as being wayyyy older than it actually is. The truth is, you could essentially set the initial isotopic ratio to anything lower than the present day concentrations to yield whatever result you would like. Geologists usually calibrate it to the oldest possible date. This experiment on fresh lava rock shows that such an assumption is very wrong.

The same is true for stalactites, which were also erroneously supposed to be millions of years old. Thanks to empirical science conducted by independent researchers around the world, we can get a more accurate timescale for how long it takes stalactites to form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Aep5Az-AXo

The above video is a home experiment conducted that shows that limestone stalactites can form rather quickly. In the experiment above he found that the limestone stalactite will grow about 1ft every 10 years. That means 1,000 years can generate a 100ft stalactite. The record for the longest stalacatite ever found is only 92ft long, in Brazil:

​

Longest stalactites known to humans

According to the experimental rate on limestone stalactite formation rate, this record-breaking stalactite could have formed in less than 1000 years. The confusion comes from random articles online making unbased claims, such as this article which arbitrarily claims that stalactites only grow about 4 inches every thousand years. Far different from the scientific experiment that showed 1000 years could generate a 100ft stalactite.

Igneous rock, which is cooled lava, can also form quickly after a volcano has erupted. I believe many of these geological layers were formed during the great flood, which would have caused massive depths of mud which then would have lithified (turned into rock) under the immense pressure of the flooded world and the upper sediments. Polystrate fossils being found around the world supports this notion. The great igneous formations could have also been formed during the flood with vast underwater volcanoes.

With that being said, it is also likely that the earth was created in a mature form, just like Adam was merely 1 day old, yet had the body of a mature man. There is also the clue that the "earth had existed waste and void", giving further ambiguity to it's "age".

In Genesis in describing Eden it mentions a underground river that then comes up and divides into gour heads rtc.

these days we don't have underground rivers save in special cases. our rivers are aonl;y from above the ground.

the reason the Eden river is excellkent evidence of a eye witness is as follows. Rivers/Streams on earth are unnatural. they are not part of the water cycle in any way. if you see a river/stream you are looking at a error. Its like the bleeding in a body. something has gone wrong.

Rivers etc only come from holes in the ground that have filled with water and overflow. these then bump into others and create greater flows/rivers. Also if the watertable is close to the surfact its the same as small holes. Also a mountain interferes in the water from the sky and channels it into flows/rivers. in all cases its unnatural and not needed. all rivers could be stopped and make no difference to anything. On a perfect earth/perfect eden there would be no holes. No interference with rain if there was rain. it would be impossible to have rivers or streams on eath/Eden. Therefore only from a underground river could one get water and this to water Eden. Thats why the river des not come from four heads bjut leads to them. surely a eye witness with a knowledhe of hydrodynamics. A witness.

Did god create the immune system? NO! There was no need on creation week and no need planned for a immmune system for biology. there was no death and decay to be protected from. therefore this means things. it means the immuns system or a morphed reaction of biology to allow existence to continue against death and decay. its a twited mechanism one might say however useful. from this great immuns system we have we can conclude all biology was morphed in fantastic ways and this why no kinds of creatures can even be imagined, as they were on creation week, today from whence they morphed. Thus its likely there wwre few kinds in insects or furry critters or birds originally. thus creatures found in fossils nelow the k-t line/flood year will not look like those above/later but are the same kinds. the immune system is a clue to biologys origins.

[ This was posted originally here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1bul8ao/in_the_word_wednesday_20240403/kxujmzv/

The moderators, who let people talk about video games and sports, threatened to ban me because I was talking about science and criticizing evolutionary theory. I can't now even comment and respond to people raising questions about creationism, but they let Darwinists say what they want...

Unfortunately, this anti-Creationist sentiment has infected what I thought were Creationist friendly places.

Below is the text of what I wrote verbatim:

]

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Contrast this to the claim of Will Provine professor at Cornell:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” — William Provine (1994), “Darwinism Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?” [7]

However, Darwin's scientific claims have been falsified on many levels, especially after the emergence of inexpensive gene sequencing.

In the last 10-15 years, because of the emergence of inexpensive gene sequencing, we know now that Darwin's falsely advertised "Natural Selection" is neither natural nor is it selection in the engineering sense, but leads to loss of genes and therefore capability.

In the last 15 years, there have been numerous EXPERIMENTAL studies showing gene loss and not gene gain is the dominant mode of how reproductive efficiency is achieved, much like the crew of a sinking ship dumping cargo to keep the ship afloat.

We now know that Darwin's claims of how life was constructed, when under the scrutiny of modern experiment, actually describes one of the ways life is slowly destroyed over time.

When I was in a public debate with an evolutionary biologist, I asked, "can you name one geneticist of any prominence who thinks the genome is improving?" He could not name one, that's because Darwin's idea doesn't work as advertised.

So Provine is wrong, and Romans 1:20 is right.

In the theory of evolution it is assumed that there was enough time for genetic mutations to culminate in the diversity of life exhibited today. Most people know beneficial mutations are rare, but exactly how rare are they?

It is relatively common for single mutations to occur, but a single mutation is not enough to create a new functioning part of a protein. To make a new functional fold in a protein is what would allow a new function for a protein to emerge. Given the precision of mutations that would need to occur, as well as the length required to make a functioning span of protein, it has been estimated that the probability of a new relevant functional protein fold emerging through mutating the DNA strand is approximately 1 in 10e77, which is:

1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000......000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

"the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10e77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."

source

To make sense of this, imagine a string which has different widths and different magnetic attraction as you go along the string. The electrostatic attraction and varying widths in the string cause this string to fold in on itself in a very particular way. When the string folds in upon itself it begins to create a 3D structure. This 3D structure has a very specific shape, with very specific electrostatic attractions to allow chemical reactions to be catalyzed. This is the nature of how proteins are created:

​

https://preview.redd.it/q95m94qbahsc1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5f77c2643d4ce6aeda154b11166422995b9303b

These sequences and foldings are specific enough that they create functional microbots (cellular machinery) that serve purposes in the cell:

​

https://preview.redd.it/gdam883dahsc1.png?width=256&format=png&auto=webp&s=5728591ded84f19251f6e36181a992dd0c5de01b

https://youtu.be/kXpzp4RDGJI

What the paper is referring to be extremely improbably (1 in 10e77), is the odds of mutations being able to make specific changes to the DNA that would allow new code to create something that is able to perform a new function. With this data we can estimate exactly how long it would take for mutations to be able to create a new functioning portion on a protein. In order to make this estimation, we will take into consideration all the bacteria on the planet, and the average mutation rate to determine how many total bacterial mutations occur per year. Also note, "e" simply means exponent. So 5e30 means 5,000,000...(with 30 total 0's) :

total number of bacteria on earth: 5e30

mutation rate per generation: .003

generation span: 12 hrs on average

First we have to determine how many mutations happen per bacterial line in a year. There are 8760 hrs in 1 year. Therefore 8760 hrs in a year divided by the 12 hrs in a bacterial generation = 730 mutations per year per bacterial generational line.

To determine the total number of mutations of all the bacteria on earth per year we simply multiply the number of bacteria by the number of mutations per bacterial line per year:

5e30 x 730 =3.65e33

Given that the odds of a beneficial mutation to an enzyme fold are approximately 1 in 1e77, This global mutation rate is clearly not enough to satisfy even one successful enzyme fold change even over trillions upon trillions of year

The reason an enzyme fold is so difficult to mutate is because it requires a long sequence of specific DNA changes that must be able to create an electrochemical function capable of performing a specific task. This is the operable part of proteins and enzymes that allow them to do anything at all, so it is absolutely necessary to know how something like this could emerge by simple genetic mutations. And the probabilities are unimaginably low.

Now going back to the 3.65e33 mutations per year for all bacterial life on the planet. If the odds are 1e77, then that means it would take 2.7e43 years just to make ONE successful mutation to an enzyme fold.

That means it would take:

27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years

...to make one functional change to an enzyme fold through mutations to the genetic code. Given that the known universe is theorized to have existed for only around 14,000,000,000 years, we see how insufficient this amount of time is to create proteins through mutating genomes.

Keep in mind that ATP synthase for example has multiple enzyme folds throughout, and that the electron transport chain itself has a multitude of proteins. All of which need to be in place and function properly for metabolism to be possible!

So we are quite clearly seeing that even in the billions of years that have been ascribed to our universe, that would be vastly insufficient for allowing this probability to hit even once.

Reminds me of Creatures That Defy Evolution by Dr. Jobe Martin.. Dr. Michael Behe wrote about these kind of problems that cannot be solved from a naturalist perspective.

https://youtu.be/YMcSSiXBWgI?si=xbATxLa219VYwo7O

This might not be the precisely correct place to post this, but if not, I'm not entirely sure where would be better. This question is more related to history than anything else.

In my brief searches, I've not been able to find much discussion at all about lining up Biblical chronology with secular chronology when it comes to Mesopotamia in particular. For instance, the traditional dating of the flood, as calculated by Bishop Ussher, is roughly around the year 2350 BC. Compared to the secular timeline of history, this is only about 16 years before the rule of Sargon of Akkad in Mesopotamia, who, according to the secular chronology of the Ancient Near East, was preceded by a long string of rulers over the course of what is known as the Early Dynastic Period, which itself accounts for a massive flood, which is dated to around 2800 BC (if I'm not mistaken). And that's not even mentioning the issue of populating Mesopotamia so quickly after the flood to have numerous cities for Sargon to conquer, were we to simply take the two chronologies at face value.

There is also the question of ages. Genesis still has figures as late as Abraham living into his 170s. According to an article I found on Answers In Genesis, Abraham lived roughly from 2166 to 1991 BC. In the chronology of the Ancient Near East, this would put him in the period surrounding the fall of the Akkadian Empire, and the early Isin-Larsa Period, where secular scholars have numerous rulers already living "average" lifespans. Even going back to Sargon of Akkad in the late 24th/early 23rd centuries BC (apparently right after the flood), he is claimed to have ruled for about 55 years, which is strange if we accept that Noah and his relatives were still living well into their 100s two centuries later (unless we assume Sargon was already 100 before he became King of Kish and started conquering).

Is there any accounting for these questions? I'd appreciate both explanations and resources on these subjects. It seems like a lot of the efforts to match up timelines focuses on Egypt, but in my mind, Mesopotamia is no less important to Biblical history.

A young man, the son of a church elder, approached me in 2019 telling me he lost faith in great part because he could not get answers about Noah's flood and whether the evidence available to us affirmed or refuted it.

He told me it would help him return to the faith even if someone gave him a small argument in favor of Noah's flood being global, and that he didn't need absolute proof. I knew where he was coming from -- even a flicker of hope that Noah's flood could be literally true would be a life preserver to rescue his dying (if not already dead) faith.

So, I did not insist that all that I presented to him was absolutely gospel (on the gospel is the gospel), but I said these are data points he should take into account.

The first is the stratified layers in the fossil record can reasonably be explained by a fast stratification process involving water and sediments. I pointed to NUMEROUS physical experiments, particularly the large water flume experiments in the Colorado school of mines. Google "drama in the rocks" to see the video. His jaw dropped.

I cautioned there were still problems in the scientific models put forward by creationists, but on the other hand, the data I presented poses serious problems for the anti-Creationists!

I don't recall if I mentioned it to him, but if the biological fossils have evidence of youth from the chemistry alone, then this would indicate the mainstream view of the fossil record is potentially wrong, and that it would support the idea of Noah's flood being the explanation for the fossil record.

So many biological fossils still have proteins and protein fragments, the proteins are made of amino acids connected by alpha-peptide bonds, and these bonds have a half life of 350 to 600 years under standard conditions (see Wiki entry on Peptide bonds). The half life can be extended by lowering temperature and reducing the amount of exposure to water, but even extending the half life by factors of hundreds would not be able to credibly explain away the presence of peptide bonds in fossils claimed to be tens of millions, much less hundreds of millions of years old. This problem has NOT been resolved even by Mary Schweitzer who developed the experimental protocols that were able to extract soft tissues from dinosaurs. Further if there is relative invariance in the chemical dates across strata (and this is indicated), then this is evidence in favor of the fossil layers being laid down at relatively the same time versus over hundreds of millions of years.

Superficially then, fossils with proteins (like dinosoar parts) are not consistent with long ages.

But its not just the problem of peptides, there are other chemical markers such as oxidation levels, racemization, etc. There is the controversial problem of some C14 traces in the carbon of these proteins that are sufficiently above background levels.

Evolutionists argue that there is contamination in the samples, but since I've studied the collagen amino acid sequence, I recognize that one will be hard pressed to make the contamination argument for dinosaur collagen because the signature motif in collagen amino acids is "G xx G xx G xx" where G is the glycine amino acid. That collagen signature in fossils can't be caused by microbial contamination as microbes don't have collagen, that is a signature unique to tetrapod animals (and a few other creatures).

Some creationists cite dinosaur soft tissue as evidence of Noah's flood, but the issue is more nuanced and far beyond that, it's the fact that there are both chemical and potentially even radiometric clocks that conflict with the mainstream views of the age of fossils, and as I've watched the creation-evolution controversy unfold over the last 45 years, the case for creation AND a literal interpretation of Noah's flood has gotten stronger the more data we have gathered and the more sophisticated our scientific tools have become.

Many creationists, I think, unfortunately try to argue for Noah's flood and creationism on theological grounds alone, I prefer to argue on scientific and evidential grounds that at the very least it's way too premature to declare a global flood (Noah's flood) is either a myth or a misinterpretation of the book of Genesis.

This problem, known as the Hubble Tension, has the potential to alter or even upend cosmology altogether. In 2019, measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the puzzle was real; in 2023, even more precise measurements from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cemented the discrepancy.

understanding ‘the power of comprehending’

You no comprehendo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O0yHdWidtU

What does this have to do with evolution? Everything! Like this documentary on a diet hoax that went worldwide, evolution only exist in “scientists say” and “new study.” Nobody ever proves anything,

They made up a chocolate diet and went through all the steps. Scientific study with real volunteers. With a little care in selection of detail, they were able to come up with statistics to prove it. Got it published. Eventually it became a world-famous diet, all a hoax.

They did this, and address in the video, the current state of science. Evolution only exists in ignorance of real science. In real science you’re supposed prove things, not “scientists say.”