I asked Dr. Carter a question about the percentage difference between humans and chimps.
His talk said 13.6 percent; the cited paper said 6.4 percent, which has yet to be verified.
I asked how he got to that number from those papers.
I noted that were I to turn in a paper with inaccurate citations, I would have received an extremely poor grade for that lab.
He told me he would send me an e-mail with how he got to that value.
The e-mail I received had no citation to a paper with that value, nor a derivation.
He said he got it from "the other papers in the article," and noted that the chimp genome is longer than a human’s.
That is not science.
First, the only way he could have gotten that number is if he used less than 1 percent of the genome to extrapolate to it.
Sorry, but under 1 percent values, you don’t get to make assumptions about 100 percent.
Second, he also failed to recognize differences in genome are not simply determined by length.
Third, after checking the other papers mentioned in the original citation, I still couldn’t find his number.
He claimed radiometric dating doesn’t work.
Seeing as experiments in relativistic physics match to the predictions to many decimal places utilizing the half-life equations in radiometric dating, I fear he is wrong here as well.
If radiometric dating doesn’t work, then your GPS, which uses the same process as relativity, would never have been made.
He used evolutionist equations when making a supercomputer to make a model of how many generations it would take to get to the population of the earth today.
He throws out the number 283 generations – no citation, no proof, no way to check the method, just taking it on his word.
He claims this many generations takes more than 6,000 years (the age he claims for the earth) and because of that, evolution is wrong.
The claim is since the data does not fit his hypothesis, the data is wrong.
Science is not done this way. If the data does not match your hypothesis, your hypothesis is incorrect.
If anything, the model shows that evolutionist hypotheses are accurate because of the long time period.
There were numerous other "scientific discrepancies" as he called them, but I have little room to go into them.
I have yet to receive a response regarding these inconsistencies.
Carter claimed that people laughed at Newton, and Einstein, and Galileo, so he must also be right.
They also laughed at Cosby, Foxworthy and Monty Python – but that doesn’t make them scientifically sound.
Carter used a wonderful scientific vocabulary and showed some facts that were true.
However, blinded by science jargon, he put up facts and figures with little truth to them, no way to verify them (or if he did, they were not accurate and considered fraudulent in the scientific community), nor accuracy to the science actually used.
This man performed a wonderful show, and is an outstanding example of how the public will believe almost anything that has numbers and graphs in it with no scientific proof.
Eakins is a junior physics major.
6 comments
Genesis 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.Apemen ... "there are only three ways for the evolutionist to create one.
1.) Combine ape fossil bones with human fossilbones and declare the two to be one individual-a real “apeman.”
2.) Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike.
3.) Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.
Partial quote from:
Did humans really evolve from ape-like creatures?
by Dr. David N. Menton