Comet 3I/ATLAS is not expected to get very close to Earth; the closest it will come is approximately 1.8 astronomical units (about 170 million miles or 270 million kilometers)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3I_ATLAS_animation3.gif
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (66)
sorted by:
It's true that what we understand about star/ planet formation is still very much in a hypothesis phase, but it's not pure spitballing -- we do have quite a bit of data on star formation.
But just because numbers of interstellar objects aren't exactly what one particular model predicted doesn't mean that you roll back to a YEC model that doesn't actually make any predictions.
His point about numbers of interstellars is... well, pointless. They're really hard to see. Heck, it's only recently we're even seeing some of the stuff that's in our own solar system.
Long story short this guy is talking out of his ass and you're eating it up because he's saying (without real evidence) that it supports your view of a young earth.
" Why the Standard Definition Masks the Lack of Functional Innovation
.. defining evolution as changes in allele frequencies oversimplifies the concept and ignores the need for new functional genetic information. It critiques common examples of genetic change—gain, selection, and loss—as insufficient to explain creative biological innovation, favoring a design-based interpretation instead.
One of the most commonly cited definitions of evolution in modern biology is simple: “Evolution is a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time.”
(Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (3rd ed., 2013), p. 5) Textbooks echo this idea widely: “Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.” (Campbell Biology, 11th ed., Urry et al., Pearson, 2017, p. 488) At first glance, this seems harmless—perhaps even intuitive. Populations change over time, and those changes involve genetics. What’s the problem? The problem is this: such definitions are tautological. They define evolution as “change,” and then treat all change as proof of evolution. They collapse a deep explanatory question into a mere operational description. And most importantly, they mask the actual nature of those changes—whether the change adds new biological functions (actual evolution), merely shifts existing traits (design), or degrades what already exists (design). 2. Three Categories of Genetic Change The standard definition obscures a crucial distinction: not all allele frequency changes are created equal. We must ask: what kind of change is taking place? Genetic variation can be divided into three broad categories: 2.1 Supposed Gain-of-Function Mutations (i.e. evolution) These would be truly evolutionary in the Darwinian sense—mutations that add new, specified functional information to the genome. If evolution is to build from bacteria to Beethoven, it must do this countless times. However, no clear examples exist of this in observed microbial evolution. Several case studies often cited as gain-of-function collapse under scrutiny: Nylonase (Flavobacterium): Arises from a frameshift mutation of a pre-existing gene. Function is crude and inefficient. (Source: Negoro, S. (2000). Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology) Rifampin Resistance (Mycobacterium tuberculosis): Point mutation in rpoB alters binding site for antibiotic. Results in degraded specificity and reduced fitness. (Source: Telenti et al., Lancet, 1993) Penicillin Resistance (Staphylococcus aureus): Production of β-lactamase, usually through gene acquisition (not mutation). Mutations that do occur only increase expression. (Source: Livermore, D. M., Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 1995) Tetracycline Resistance (E. coli): Caused by overexpression of efflux pumps or loss of repressor function—none of which introduce new functions. (Source: Levy, S. B., Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1992) Vancomycin Resistance (Enterococcus): Resistance arises from horizontal gene transfer of the vanA cluster. No novel mutation involved. (Source: Arthur & Courvalin, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1993) In summary, no known mutation in these examples introduces a truly novel function. All involve degradation, overexpression, or acquisition of pre-existing information—not innovation. So let me translate this – there is currently NO CLEAR DNA EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVOLUTION. 2.2 Selection Among Existing Variation In some cases, allele frequencies shift due to selection pressures favoring certain pre-existing traits. For example, an organism may already carry alleles better suited to high temperatures or antibiotic exposure. The environment then selects these alleles. This is genuine adaptation, but not evolution in the creative sense. It merely shuffles or amplifies existing options. No new functionality is introduced into the genome. It’s like picking your warmest coat on a cold day—you haven’t invented anything new, just chosen from what you already had. 2.3 Loss-of-Function Mutations By far the most common mutations are loss-of-function mutations. These may confer short-term advantages by disabling or breaking existing systems—especially under artificial laboratory pressures. Examples include blocking membrane channels to prevent antibiotic uptake, disrupting metabolic genes, or deactivating regulatory systems. “The great majority of beneficial mutations are loss-of-function mutations… They adapt an organism by breaking or blunting a pre-existing system.” (Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves, 2019, p. 182) “Most real mutations are deleterious, and only a very few beneficial mutations represent a gain of new functional information.” (John Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 2005, p. 23) 3. The Design Hypothesis Explains the Data Design theory predicts exactly what we see: Genomes were originally rich in functional, specified information. Over time, mutations tend to degrade that information or repurpose existing parts. Natural selection fine-tunes what is already there—but it does not create new, integrated systems. Far from supporting evolution, the data points toward degeneration over time—a slow erosion of original function. This explains why beneficial mutations are overwhelmingly destructive and why observed changes never add genuine complexity. “Evolution has become in many respects a theory driven by its definitions. It is one thing to say that species change; it is another to define that change as evolution.” (— David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin, 2009, p. 16) 4. Conclusion Yes, allele frequencies change. But unless we ask what kind of change, we are only playing with semantics. The standard definition of evolution—“change in allele frequencies”—is an operational metric, not an explanatory mechanism. When all change is labeled “evolution,” the term loses explanatory power. Most importantly, the types of changes we observe—selection among existing traits and loss-of-function mutations—do not support Darwin’s vision of ever-increasing complexity. They support a design-centered model of descent with degradation, not ascent with innovation"
Which means that trilobites must be the highest, purest forms of life and we're all just degraded trilobites.
Instant creation... sorted into layers with each layer having a different and unique set of fossils in it, to trick man into thinking that it was formed over time.
Everything about the instant creation hypothesis hinges on a single Hebrew word "bara" which only ever refers to creation in one place; elsewhere it refers to clearing and deforesting. Further, the B in Hebrew is often proclitic, adding "with pleasure" to the rest of the word -- making the correct way to see the word as "b'ra'a" which would mean "look down with pleasure on" consistent with the rest of the account in which each phase God sees that it is good.
Heck, if you go back and retranslate the whole account of creation without recognizing it and inserting your own beliefs, the whole thing looks more like a story of a bunch of shining people (yes, plural) coming down from a high mountain to reshape the lowlands and assemble creatures.
I'm not subscribing to that translation, but what I'm saying is that your own understanding of the Bible does not come from a plain reading of the Bible at all, but rather from a bunch of assumptions that you've inserted into it.
The origin of the idea of creation ex-nihilo is in a debate between a follower of Plato and a Christian. I don't know why the Christians cared so much about having the approval of the philosophers, but they screwed so much with their beliefs just to get approval that Paul wrote a lot to tell them to stop (and when Paul wasn't there to stop them anymore, guess what they turned the religion into?). Anyway, creation ex-nihilo was invented on the spot because the Greek argued that resurrection couldn't be a good thing because the flesh is corrupt, so the Christian made up on the spot that God will just make new flesh because he just creates everything from nothing. Creation ex-nihilo was never taught before then. They'd rather make up new doctrine in the absence of their apostles than deny the Greek premise of physical matter being inherently icky.
Thanks for contributing!
That's a pretty fair point. I grant that sometimes I do speak boldly to get people's attention so that the actual facts can be digested more readily, but I don't say thing without cause and I back out my occasional errors. The fact is that because of the weak observational evidence, everyone is speaking hot air to the issue, so I'm just getting in that fray. (Add: If you want to compare predictions made by YEC/OEC models, we can certainly lay those out comparatively.)
I appreciate u/GuywholikesDjtof2024 chiming in with some hard data (less so that some of it appears unchecked AI), and I would certainly affirm Behe and Berlinski in that list as some of the brightest in their fields.
No, trilobites only became "index fossils" (circular arguments) because they were discovered so early, but we now realize that the Cambrian explosion involved virtually every body plan in existence appearing in the same geologic period (Darwin's Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer). So trilobytes are pretty complicated in themselves but all complicated life forms appeared in the same period ("stratum" they call it as we laugh). Would you like to hear about why Klee diagrams prove incontrovertibly that each DNA barcode refers to a different kind of lifeform that is genetically separate from all others?
That's the dogma because if it were true it'd have a little evidentiary value. But unfortunately, real field work shows that it isn't true, the index fossils are chaotically arranged, there are many polystrates bridging multiple layers and supposedly tens of millions of years, there are many complex fossils at the lowest "strata" that contradict the theory and are ignored, etc. However, hydraulics demonstrates that a chaotic but relatively sorted set of specimens is very consistent with catastrophism such as the 4.6kya event.
Fascinating, and I'll agree with you that bara also means creating clearings, and I'll also affirm that repointed it might mean "in pleasure" (no verb then). Unfortunately, your argument affirms both these meanings at the same time ("the correct way" and what it "looks more like" are schizophrenically opposed to each other). So it sounds like you found two in-language reinterpretations and uncritically accepted them both. Well then, you can accept ours too.
The problem with reading the text as not being creative is that neither its original audiences nor the rest of the Bible regarded it that way. For instance John 1:3 after paraphrasing Genesis adds "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made", which is pretty double-dogmatic on Genesis being about creation. I also showed separately that the first 5 verses of Genesis are clause for clause consistent with the first 24 hours of the BBT; so we're on track, now we just need to get the crazy dating of the rest of it fixed.
Honestly, you're right that calling it creatio ex nihilo is a later Greek concession and (John Gerstner) a literal reading would instead argue creatio ex Deo, creation out of God's own substance, consistent with the Athenian poets' view (two quoted in Acts 17:28). But this weakness of argument isn't in the Biblical text, but in tradition, and the text gives a constant witness, which was agreed upon by science until uniformitarian radiocarbon dating became the fiat standard and the millions and billions could be defended by assuming ridiculous uniformity (despite evidence of catastrophism!). Except that half of the C14 readings are generally thrown out because they give data contrary to the half the evolutionists like. Funny thing, Peter prophesied that in the last days people would assume uniformitarianism to justify atheism, namely the assumption that from creation everything goes on the same as always but forgetting historic and geologic testimony of catastrophism (2 Peter 3:3-6, a real shocker to uniformitarians).
Related, it's true that Christians faced gnostic denial of the physical, but the mainstream Christians didn't fight this so much with creatio ex nihilo as with affirming the resurrection (redemption) of the flesh (e.g. 2 Peter 3:14). This is clear in Daniel 12:2 and anticipated in details throughout the Old Testament that were assembled in their best form by Paul. So there was plenty of "material" about material redemption by the time Greek gnostics came along.
Are you interested in structuring a discussion so that truth can be divined about these things? I know Guy likes to play "Let's You and Him Fight", but I don't mind if the rules are clear and we both seek a common truth about binary yes-no propositions. Don't mind my occasional bluster because I'm pretty amiable about origins, but I do challenge the OEC to explain the many difficulties in the theory, and (to the extent possible) I seek to answer difficulties proposed in YEC.
I appreciate a good discussion, especially one in which actual knowledge is exchanged and in which the conclusion isn't "I'm right and you're ether evil or stupid," and in which honest representations of both sides can be had. Unfortunately Guy doesn't do a great job of any of the three 😕
Yeah I'm aware that no given theory has literally all the evidence, that i.e. Big Bang and Evolution don't have as definitive and obvious evidence as atheists like to claim, but the evidence is too great to simply discard them. And they're very far from slam dunks against the existence of God. If anything I find evidence for God in the theories. Not the maker of exceptions to law, but the provider of all law and complex ways they interact to do things we presently consider impossible.
I also consider that man is made in the image of God something to be considered in a way much deeper and more substantial than most Christians typically do, which their interpretation leaves one not with the idea that "image" or "children of God" are correct words, but more like the cringey way that crazy cat ladies claim their cats are like them or their cats are their children. No. Consider John's words, "Now we are the sons of God, but it does not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."
So when it comes to science, it's basically picking apart what the laws of God actually are and asking "why do we observe what we are observing?" and treating "because God made it that way" as a complete cop out until we find the underlying laws of God by which the phenomenon occurs -- and when it comes in conflict with scripture, the approach should not be "you must discard one or the other," but rather to seek answers about why they seem to conflict, without assuming that one or the other might be wrong.
For instance I recently heard an argument about the timeline of creation in seven days being compatible with a 4 billion year creation by considering relativity and the unique temporal perspective of God. I thought it was a fascinating argument. I'm not going to declare this the correct resolution, but I bring it up because it's a good example of actual reasoning to enable both perspectives to be true.
As well you and anyone who calls himself a scientist should.
I'm no fan of John Maynard Keynes, but I do like this quote from him: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
No, we already know how: instant Creation during Creation Week. Nothing would be pulling the planet material together. The only way for a planet to form is God making them. Natural formation, creation, of planets has never been observed, repeated, or tested.
Yes, Genesis.
And just because you see some holes somewhere in data relating to Earth's mantle doesn't make YEC false, don't roll back to OEE just because you can't explain the mantle radiation.
Actually it does. See here: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/unexpectedly-strong-argument-young-earth/ , https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2025/04/02/why-tower-babel-significant/ .
And also, we have a much more reliable record of History, the Bible. Bare logic itself neccessitates, madates, that the reliable History Record would override "best guesses".
It is funny how people will trust an assumption from dating that could be changed at any moment over the solid Record of the Bible that has been verified THOUSANDS of times. Old ages (all contraBiblical beliefs, really) has nowhere near this frequent "being proven right" rate and reputation.
And that is ALLLL that long ages is, a best (best for a materialist POV) guess.
Even the very definition of "bio. evolution" is EXTREMELY slippery and whenever I bring up the issue, the definition gets shuffled around, like a magic magician doing the Shell Game. It also doesn't help that people feel compelled to make it unfalsifiable by saying "oh EVERY ANIMAL EVER is evidence" "oh its super slow youll never see it" and stuff.
No. God created all the first creatures. Adam and eve sin. Now genes degrade. Then flood bottleneck. Now the condition of genes get worse. And it only gets worse from there.
We have never observed a different family-taxa evolve from existing family-taxa organisms, for the ~6K years we have been here.
Isn't it amazing how schools prop up Peppered Moths as evo proof, when all it is is natural selection? Until they looked at the moths DNA for gains, if no NOVEL FEATURE has been proven, it's not evo evidence at all.
The genes of those moths only degraded over time, not upgraded.
No, more that man rejects Genesis and wants to think he can determine origins and age APART from the Bible.
Atheists looove evo and gorillions of years. Because they don't need to believe the Bible to belive those beliefs, whilst still maintaining a sense of our origins and age, and a semblance of reason.
Meanwhile, believing Genesis is fully Bible reliant. The world actively hates and censors it. Unlike evo and deeptime which the world loves. The world loves its own. The world hates Jesus, the TRUTH, and the factual Account of our true origins. Atheistic worldview ideas do nothing to scare the worLd at all. So drop them.
the Bible.
Elsewhere. So, not in Genesis then. Thanks for confirming. Days are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, guess that means Jonah was in a whale for gorillions of years.
According to your worldview death and suffering and incompleteness were all throughout creation, before sin. That contradicts the Bible, though. And that is not "pleasure-some" at all.
No one believed "13.8 billion years" or "all life from some germs" or "germs from goo" until very recently. Well actually, the ancient pagans probably promoted the former two, while followers of God never promoted them.
Where?
"God couldn't create directly, He is so weak He needs helpers to cobble stuff together"
..... no wonder atheists are wholly unconvinced by compromise-with-atheists Christians.
The ahteistic worldview beliefs about the past sure don't.
Na.
Mabye because plato paid more attention to Scripture than you did.
The pagan myths all involve the gods creating from preexisting matter. Sound familiar??
If I believe Plato, then you believe pagans.
Self awareness levels in the marina trench. Compromising Christians, Genesis doubters, your ilk, all seek approval from the worLd and Big Science TM, which has proven itself to be a FRAUD, GRIFT, LIE, CHEAT, SCAM, ELITE-RUN, TYRANNY-BOOSTER more and more lately.
Since you believe in "new revelation being valid", God isnt giving us any new letters for us to stop believing YEC. So either YEC is true or new revelation is never gonna come.
Thanks for admitting that compromising one's Christian worldview is bad!!
No it wasn't. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible suggesting God made light (Day 1) out of existing matter. There is zero reason to assume He made things ex materia unless the Bible SPECIFIES that He did. Like when He made men from dust (and not from some disfigured monkey-like horrid mutant ugly creature), which was ex materia.
Nope, it's been around since before 300 AD. When was abiogenesis, Family-into-family evo, and long ages invented?