Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Em, yes. If anyone is serious enough to take my post literally, well methinks you ought to get your head examined!
I do not believe in the Viking's account of how the world began or the Genesis account, I accept Evolution. My post was only meant to be satirical. Duh! :rolleyes:
I created it in order to show something very important. That is, there is just as much chance that the world was formed according the Norse account as to Genesis. I cannot disprove either account but that does not mean they are true. There are a million things we can't disprove but humans through centuries have rejected most of the gods, stories that society has ever believed in.
The problem lies here. JC and many other Creation scientists are caught in between what to believe in to fit in-line with modern theories (and presumeably modern intelligence). We have a choice, either accept FULLY the acount of Geneis or don't accept it at all. If there is one thing that does not work, it is attempting to create a middle line between an old myth and modern science. These pseudo-Creation scientists come up with a dozen or more explanations with their middle line theory where little or no evidence exists to support their statements. I posed a question once "If God created the world from two people - a man and a woman - then how come we now have a world full of different races and ethnics?" Somebody replied back "Oh God gave Adam and Eve special DNA to support a variety of different races to their decendants who could spread to different lands." Prove it? Where in the BIBLE does it say that? It doesn't. Thus, this theory is mute.
Here is my view: Either accept the Genesis account as fully accurate and true without a flaw, or don't bother and view it is symbolic or whatever. Don't try to creat some pseudo-ID because it just doesn't work as a scientific theory.
P.S. Tolerance on both opinions is paramount also. I accept Evolution as valid but reject Creationism. I still respect the that some people still accept such an account as truth.
CASE CLOSED!!!
0 -
Oh and what makes in funny is that you thought I was being serious!J C wrote:Indeed you should take your own advice – and reject the macro-Evolution hypothesis because it is not only unproven, but it is actually scientifically DISPROVEN!!! Reject the Evolution account? As if! :rolleyes: And since when has Genesis ever been PROVEN?! It hasn't! If Evolution has been "DISPROVEN" as you seem to think, then how come so many scientists accept it as valid? How come it makes sense? As yes, there is evidence for Evolution, sorry. If it was disproven as you put it then it wouldn't be still accepted as a scientific theory anymore would it? The fact is nobody has managed to disprove Evolution yet. Or I should say found evidence that points away from it.
What's next, you'll be disproving the 'Theory Of Continental Drift'? Or claiming that this world is only 12,000 years old? :rolleyes:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Careful - last time I told him that, he said the chances of life appearing was equivalent to getting a royal flush every time.Wicknight wrote:If you shuffle a pack of cards you will end up with a 8 x 10^67 possible permutations. I think we will agree that is a pretty big fecking number. But you still have a shuffled deck in front of you, ready to go. The odds of that combination appearing are astronomical, but you still wouldn't claim that they were ordered that way on purpose by some higher intelligence. That is just they way they fell.
0 -
Wicknight
I mean the only way you have to Flood happening is with lions feeding off sea plankton for 10 years or completely rotten meat.
To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee “they could live on – but it would taste like ‘sugar’”!!!!:)
Also, please do bear in mind the fact that thousand-year-old frozen Woolly Mammoth meat is quite edible today (for a Lion, at least).
The fact that Noah’s Ark came to rest close to the ‘Snow Line’ on Mount Ararat – means that there could have been plenty of FRESH ‘blast frozen’ Flood Kill on the slopes of Ararat and in the surrounding mountains for the Lions to eat!!!!
Wicknight
It seems funny you would attack something like carbon dating because in a very small number of instances mistakes in the dating system have appeared (5%) and that you would then assume all carbon dating must be faulty
I actually believe that Radio-Carbon Dating IS the most accurate radiometric dating method – and it is reasonably accurate for dating organic matter with ages up to a few thousand years.
My reservations are primarily in relation to radiometric ROCK dating – where very serious dating discrepancies have occurred with MANY rock samples of known recent ages!!!
Wicknight
but you would accept something like the idea that seeds could have survived in salt water for close to a year
Some seeds could easily survive for a year in salt water – while others certainly wouldn’t.
The ones that wouldn’t either became extinct, survived on flotsam or were carried by Noah in the Ark.
There wouldn’t have been any seed 'storage issues' on the Ark – a handful of each seed type is all that was needed!!
Wicknight
Hoyle was never a "former evolutionist" He attacked the theory of evolution from the get go.
Not so – Hoyle like most scientists of his time, was originally an Evolutionist of sorts – but he rapidly abandoned Evolution when he discovered the overwhelming odds against undirected processes producing any aspect of life.
Wicknight
He (Sir Fred Hoyle) was also a bit nuts and his theories lied more in the science fiction books he wrote than grounded in science.
Why are macro-Evolutionists so quick to diagnose mental illness in anybody who doesn’t agree with their latter day version of the Philosopher’s Stone – the notion that muck can spontaneously evolve into Man (rather than Gold)??!!!:eek:
Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the most outstanding Astronomers of his generation – a fact attested to by his appointment as Director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University!!! :cool:
Wicknight
Also you don't accept Hoyle either JC, so I find it hilarious that you quote him? Hoyle believed life fell to Earth on comets billions of years ago. Is that in the Bible
I don’t agree with EVERYTHING that Sir Fred Hoyle speculated about. Panspermia, for example, only moves the problem of producing life to somewhere else in the Universe without explaining how it arose, in the first place.
However, I do admire him as a first rate scientist who didn’t flinch in the face of adversity – and said what he believed to be true even when he knew it could result in ridicule!!!
Wicknight
Abogensis has been observed in a laboratory as a natural process JC.
Oh really, I must have missed that – who got the Nobel Prize for this piece of 'ground-breaking' work?
Wicknight
This is been observed, its established, get over it
Yes indeed, the INVALIDITY of macro-Evolution HAS been established as has the overwhelming evidence FOR Intelligent design.
So unfortunately, you are the one that needs to “get over it”!!!!:eek:
Originally Posted by JC
The “swapping of DNA” and indeed the mutation of every bacterium can obviously produce new permutations – but the NUMBER OF SUCH PERMUTATIONS can NEVER exceed the number of individual bacteria produced
Scofflaw
Are you serious? Are you really serious? Do you actually think this is how the maths works?
Can I clarify what I said as follows:-
The TOTAL NUMBER of permutations EXPRESSED cannot exceed the TOTAL NUMBER of bacteria that ever lived – which is a number less than 10e +60 which is a billionth billionth billionth billionth billionth billionth billionth of the number of permutations (10e+130) required to produce a specific useful 100 chain AA Protein.
You are confusing the number of permutations REQUIRED to be generated to successfully produce the specific Protein (10e +130) with the number of permutations that ACTUALLY could be produced, as measured by the total number of bacteria that EVER could have lived over a theoretical 20 billion year timeframe (10e +60).
UU
Here is my view: Either accept the Genesis account as fully accurate and true without a flaw, or don't bother and view it is symbolic or whatever.
I AGREEE!!!
That is EXACTLY the Creationist Position.
The Theistic Evolutionists are ‘into’ a symbolic Genesis!!!
UU
P.S. Tolerance on both opinions is paramount also. I accept Evolution as valid but reject Creationism. I still respect that some people still accept such an account as truth.
I AGREE !!!
As Ali-G would say “I tolerance with you, man”!!!:D
“Respect”!!!:)
I DO fully respect the many excellent scientists who are Evolutionists.
Just like their Creationist colleagues, they have been responsible for the many amazing scientific breakthroughs, that have created an unparalleled quality of life for all of us in the 21st Century.
I also have great respect for Charles Darwin. I have found Darwin’s writings to be thoughtful and firmly based on observations – in other words the work of a first rate scientist, who was working at the ‘cutting edge’ of Victorian Science.
Darwin himself was actually quite modest and tentative in his claims about Evolution. For example, he acknowledged that the lack of transitions in the fossil record was an obvious and serious objection AGAINST his "theory". His explanation, that the fossil record was very incomplete was quite reasonable at the time, and he predicted that as greater numbers of fossils were discovered that the intermediate links would show up.
Today however, there are many more fossils unearthed - but the links are still MISSING and Darwin’s acknowledged objection to his own theory still remains.
Darwin probably wouldn’t accept macro-Evolution if he were alive today – I think that he would be an ID Proponent!!!:D
I genuinely think that the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is ‘on it’s last legs’ – but that in no way makes me intolerant of macro-Evolutionists – I was once one myself, after all!!!!
Micro-Evolution remains a valid scientific theory – and the vast volumes of scientific literature on it’s many aspects continues to provide invaluable insights into a wide range of important practical issues from controlling infectious diseases to food production and wildlife management.
The invalidity of macro-Evolution will have little practical effect on the day to day lives of most scientists – but it will make it a little bit more difficult to become “an intellectually fulfilled atheist”!!!:)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
No it isn't JC .. :rolleyes:J C wrote:Also, please do bear in mind the fact that thousand-year-old frozen Woolly Mammoth meat is quite edible today (for a Lion, at least).
And the meat sweep away from the flood wouldn't have been frozen so it is a rather ridiculous point anyway.
The ocean would not have frozen. I mean I'm not even sure where to begin with that nonsense. For a start how would the Ark have floated if the ocean was frozen. More nonsenseJ C wrote:The fact that Noah’s Ark came to rest close to the ‘Snow Line’ on Mount Ararat – means that there could have been plenty of FRESH ‘blast frozen’
It didn't happen JC. The Flood didn't happen.
Lions can't live in mountainous areas. Along with like a hundred thousand other land creatures :rolleyes:J C wrote:Flood Kill on the slopes of Ararat and in the surrounding mountains for the Lions to eat!!!!
More nonsense.J C wrote:My reservations are primarily in relation to radiometric ROCK dating – where very serious dating discrepancies have occurred with MANY rock samples of known recent ages!!!
So you believe that because of these known discrepancies (5%), ALL radiometric rock dating must be incorrect?
Funny, given that it only takes one correct date over 10,000 years to show the Bible is wrong. Are you saying that every date that dates something over 10,000 years is a mistake? All over time, even ones that use two or more different radiometric dating and still give the same answer.
You like odds JC, tell me what are the odds that a mistake in one system would occur independently in another say 5 systems so the exact same result appears?
You have nothing to back that up. THat is just a guess. There is no evidence for that assumption and logic would dictate that it was not possible for Noah to carry seeds from every plant from here to Asia and America.J C wrote:Some seeds could easily survive for a year in salt water – while others certainly wouldn’t.
The ones that wouldn’t either became extinct, survived on flotsam or were carried by Noah in the Ark.
Also Noah has the slight problem that he lands in the Middle East, where 99% of plant life would not germinate. Did Noah personally carry all these seeds to different climates where they could be germinated?
See that is nonsense JC, yet you seem willing to come up with any nonsense explination to attempt to fit the Flood into reality.
Not to repopulate the entire Earth in a few decades.J C wrote:There wouldn’t have been any seed 'storage issues' on the Ark – a handful of each seed type is all that was needed!!
No he wasn't. Hoyle was a astromoner, never a biologist.J C wrote:Not so – Hoyle like most scientists of his time, was originally an Evolutionist of sorts
Like I said, he was an astronomer, not a biologist. It is clear from his writings that Hoyle didn't even undersand evolution very well (N/S isn't a undirected process).J C wrote:he discovered the overwhelming odds against undirected processes producing any aspect of life.
Hoyle, like ALL scientists of his generation, knew the universe was much much older than 10,000 years, and much bigger than 10,000 light years.J C wrote:Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the most outstanding Astronomers of his generation – a fact attested to by his appointment as Director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University!!! :cool:
So since you are such a fan of Sir Hoyle, and respect his work so well, will you now agree with him that the Earth older than 10,000 years.
Thought not ... :rolleyes:
Wow, what a surprise :rolleyes:J C wrote:I don’t agree with EVERYTHING that Sir Fred Hoyle speculated about.
If Hoyle was wrong about that, could he not also be wrong in his understanding of evolution?
Julius Rebek, Jr, Tjama Tjivikua and Pablo Ballester .. though it takes a few years to win the Nobel Prize, and I'm not sure they would give it for this since this is not something knew. All biologists know this is possible and would work like this, they have just done a model.J C wrote:Oh really, I must have missed that – who got the Nobel Prize for this piece of 'ground-breaking' work?
The only ones who think this is earth shattering (literally) are the Creationists would continue to claim it isn't possible for molecules to being to self-replicate and evolve naturally.J C wrote:Yes indeed, the INVALIDITY of macro-Evolution HAS been established as has the overwhelming evidence FOR Intelligent design.
Macro-evolution is micro-evolution (which you accept happens) but taking longer and with an increase in genetic material.
Increase in genetic information has been OBSERVED to take place in very rare mutations JC, with no harm to the life form (since most mutations have no harmful effects). We have seen it happen, in rapidly multiplying organisms such as bateria.
No Creationist has ever given an argument as to why it could not happen, they just keep clinging to the claiming it has never been observed, so we don't know it is happening.
Well it has now been observed to happen, mutations have been observed to increase the size and/or complexity genetic structures without destroying the organism.
So, like I said, it happens. Get over it.J C wrote:The invalidity of macro-Evolution will have little practical effect on the day to day lives of most scientists – but it will make it a little bit more difficult to become “an intellectually fulfilled atheist”!!!:)
Considering now that you must admit that mutation can increase the genetic information in an organism without killing said organism (since this has been observed to actually happen) can you give one reason, just one, why macro-Evolution cannot happen yet micro-evolution can.0 -
Wicknight
1) As has been explained to you, the formation of the first complex biological structures such as proteins was not completely random, it was guided by natural selection. This has been pointed out to you a number of times JC, I fail to see how you have such a problem with this idea. The most likely case is that proteins formed from a series of merges of other less complex structures. This has been observed to still happen in modern biology.
And as I have previously explained, there are no “stages” where changes can be ‘locked in’ and ‘built upon’ on the supposed continuum between short chain peptides and longer chain proteins.
Useful proteins are NOT observed to be the result of small additions of Amino Acids to other useful proteins – they have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SEQUENCES to the other useful proteins. Molecular Biology has therefore PROVEN that the development of more complex life by small gradual improvements is IMPOSSIBLE.
So, we have a fossil record with enormous gaps between kinds, living creatures with enormous gaps between kinds and an array of useful proteins with enormous differences between each one of them!!!!
This situation DOESN’T indicate gradual evolution – but it is objectively consistent with Direct Creation.
Molecular Biology confirms that the gradual Evolution of useful biological structures is an impossibility. For example, the discovery of Critical Amino Acid Sequences means that a biologically active Peptide becomes totally useless when ANY changes are made to it’s sequence – thereby effectively making it a ‘prisoner’ of it’s own sequence. Even if it could blindly 'search around' in it’s immediate Amino Acid ‘combinatorial space’ (using mutations, recombination and N S) it is unlikely to EVER ‘discover’ another useful Peptide chain by undirected processes such is the vastness of the 'combinatorial space' and the observed rarity and specificity of the sequences for useful Peptides.
There is no simple stepped advantage between one useful Peptide and another one – so undirected processes cannot follow some ‘yellow brick road’ of increasing utility to reach the next biologically useful Peptide. The possible number of intermediates are literally ‘astronomical’ and because the intermediates are ALL equally USELESS, they can offer no signal of progress or 'advantage' towards the next useful Polypeptide for Natural Selection to ‘follow’ or select.
It is analogous to a useful Peptide bobbing about in an ocean of useless Polypeptides, trying to blindly locate another useful Peptide on the far side of the ocean. It is literally like trying to find a 'needle in a haystack’ the size of the Earth while blindfolded.
It is also like trying to blindly 'crack' open a Safe – you have to try every possible combination. You could be within one digit of the right combination and would never 'know' it or you might have none of the digits. Either way, the result is phenotypically identical (i.e. biologically useless) – and so Natural Selection CANNOT help, when faced with quadrillions of equally useless intermediaries with NONE of them conferring any advantage.
Because macro-Evolution does not have any observable evidence for it’s existence it is scientifically invalid. Evidence for Natural Selection is often introduced in support of macro-Evolution – and indeed both terms are often (incorrectly) interchangeably used by Evolutionists.
The two concepts ARE actually completely separate phenomena and should not be interchangeably deployed. Macro-Evolution is a decidedly ‘uphill’ postulate while Natural Selection is a ‘downhill or ‘sideways’ process.
Macro-Evolution attempts (but fails) to explain how primordial chemicals evolved into advanced life forms such as Man. It has NO repeatably observable evidence for the sketchy mechanisms it advances to explain how this supposedly occurred – and so it is stuck at the speculation stage in the scientific process.
Wicknight
2) Even if there were than number of permutations you assume only one is the "correct" permutation. If you shuffle a pack of cards you will end up with a 8 x 10^67 possible permutations. I think we will agree that is a pretty big fecking number. But you still have a shuffled deck in front of you, ready to go. The odds of that combination appearing are astronomical, but you still wouldn't claim that they were ordered that way on purpose by some higher intelligence. That is just they way they fell.
You are correct that a pack of cards remains a pack of cards irrespective of how they are shuffled.
However, we observe functional effects in living systems - and we observe that even tiny changes in the Amino Acid sequence can eliminate functionality. Biologically active proteins are also observed to be highly specific and therefore impossible to produce using undirected processes.
What the maths (of 10e +130) is MEASURING is something that we know intuitively – that complex, tightly specified machines are the result of Intelligent Design – and the more complex and tightly specified, the more intelligence and effort that is required to design them.
What the gigantic figures for even small 100 amino acid proteins are indicating, is that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.
To go to the other extreme, if you came across something as basic as a steel nail you would immediately identify it as an artefact of the appliance of Intelligence. The nail exhibits tight specificity by having a formed head and a sharpened point as well as a cylindrical smooth wire linking both ends. In addition it is made of steel, which has never been observed to be spontaneously generated, nor indeed could a mechanism for an undirected wire forming and nail manufacturing process be even theoretically postulated.
What IS amazing however, is that many scientists, who would stoutly defend the Intelligent Design of a simple steel nail, refuse to countenance the Intelligent Design of the infinitely more complex and tightly specified, Intelligent Designer of the nail!!!
There are two levels of applied intelligence observable in the design of living systems:-
The first level of applied intelligence shows an ability to SPECIFY specific sequences to order. A 10 year old can specify any particular 100 amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain in 30 minutes – yet all of the electrons in the known Universe would fail to produce enough permutations to do this by undirected processes in an effective infinity of time.
The second level of applied intelligence shows an ability to CHOOSE and GENERATE specific sequences and to coherently assemble these sequences to perform precisely co-ordinated functions. This would require an intelligent and creative power approaching infinity and therefore it is proof of Direct Divine Creation.
The relatively simple task is SPECIFYING the order of the amino acids.
The really intelligent ability is to know WHAT sequences to specify and how to coherently assemble them. A particular sequence might specify for a really useful Peptide that would be critical to producing a vital structural protein, for example, or it could be totally useless. However, merely examining the sequence superficially wouldn’t give any idea as to whether it was useful or not.
There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence will utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.
Natural selection can’t solve the problem – I am talking here about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.
Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE genetic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst PRE-EXISTING genetic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate genetic information – they merely degrade it.
There is no disagreement from Creationists about the evidence for Natural Selection, or indeed it’s scientific validity.
The ‘Emperor without the clothes’ is NOT Darwin’s ingenious concept of Natural Selection (which he described as analogous to Artificial Selection i.e. using pre-existing genetic diversity WITHIN Kinds). The ‘Naked One’ is its impostor first cousin, the theory of Evolution - which states that ‘primordial chemicals evolved into man’ – but fails to provide any observable mechanisms for the process.
The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent Creator. Science cannot observe this Creator – but it can validly conclude that such an intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity. ......
[/ 0 -
-
-
Scofflaw
you have simply introduced the constraint that each bacterium that ever lived gets just one go at randomly generating the 'correct sequence', complete, from scratch.
It is reality that each bacterium only lives once and like all other living creatures gets just one go at generating the correct sequence.
Wicknight
Lions can't live in mountainous areas.
Why not – last time I checked they didn’t suffer from Vertigo!!!.
Wicknight
So you believe that because of these known discrepancies (5%), ALL radiometric rock dating must be incorrect?
100% discrepancies are found by Creationists!!!.
Wicknight
You like odds JC, tell me what are the odds that a mistake in one system would occur independently in another say 5 systems so the exact same result appears?
The odds are a certainty when all systems are calibrated off each other!!.
Wicknight
Also Noah has the slight problem that he lands in the Middle East, where 99% of plant life would not germinate. Did Noah personally carry all these seeds to different climates where they could be germinated?
The ‘Fertile Crescent’ in Iraq is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the World – and such good growing conditions were more widespread throughout the Middle East in Noah’s time..
Wicknight
If Hoyle was wrong about that, could he not also be wrong in his understanding of evolution?
He COULD but he WASN’T!!!!.
Wicknight
All biologists know this is possible and would work like this, they have just done a model.
I see, they “have just done a model” - of a self replicating molecule – with an enormous input of Human effort and INTELLIGENCE!!!
I await the first stirrings of artificial life with ‘bated breath’!!!.
Wicknight
Macro-evolution is micro-evolution (which you accept happens) but taking longer and with an increase in genetic material.
………. We have seen it happen, in rapidly multiplying organisms such as bacteria.
Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:
“Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. Bacteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!
What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change?
In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.”.
Robin
Don't forget about the newly-evolved nylon-eating bacteria!
Even though Nylon is an artificial petrochemical polymer, the systems needed to break it down would not have been new.
It is a truism ‘that it is far easier to destroy than to create’.
Breaking something down only requires general systems e.g. fire will destroy almost anything, including Nylon and it is a SIMPLE combustion system. Ditto for bacterial destruction of Nylon.
If you would like to really impress me find me a Nylon Bug that CREATES Nylon – instead of DESTROYING it.
Nylon may be an artificial polymer but the bacterial ability to break it down wasn’t dependent upon developing a NEW way to eat Nylon – the breakdown pathways and the diversity of bacterial genetic information already existed.. 0 -
Wicknight
A simple protein doesn't have to suddenly turn into a more complex one. Two or more simple proteins fuse together to form one much more complex protein.
This has been observed to happen, and completely contradicts your rather ridiculous idea that protiens cannot change.
Yes, two ALREADY FUNCTIONAL proteins may co-operate as you have described – that is how the organisation of organelles and organs is achieved. This co-operation is also observed to be tightly specified – again indicating the operation of Intelligent Design in these processes as well!!
Wicknight
Macro-evolution, the increase in genetic complexity and information, has been observed. And I don't mean re-arranged to do something new, I mean actual "this DNA stream is longer than before" increase in genetic information.
You’re confusing quantity with QUALITY – often more DNA can result in deleterious conditions, such as additional gene copies being generated within the cell.
Wicknight
So an ant farm, which is a tightly specificed machine, means the ants themselves are intelligent? As intelligent as God maybe?
YES, the Ants ARE intelligent – but they are not as intelligent as God.
There is NOTHING as intelligent as God!!!
Wicknight
That is like saying when you come across a river that someone must have planned and dug that river because it fits the flow of the water so perfectly, around all the mountains, and down to the sea.
There is no comparison between the unspecified simple flow pattern of an inert river and the tightly specified information density of a living cell – it’s like comparing a wheelbarrow with a super-computer or a Space Shuttle!!!
Wicknight
A 100 sequence did not just appear from nothing. It developed, as protiens still are observed to develop, through the constant merging and seperating of biological structures.
Either way, the odds are still 10e +130 AGAINST it happening via undirected processes!!!! 0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
you have simply introduced the constraint that each bacterium that ever lived gets just one go at randomly generating the 'correct sequence', complete, from scratch.
It is reality that each bacterium only lives once and like all other living creatures gets just one go at generating the correct sequence.
Complete blether. Utter and complete codswallop, my dear.
At what point in their brief lives do bacteria suddenly settle down to attempting to generate random amino acid sequences - sorry, wait, at what point in a bacterium's life does it attempt to randomly generate just one protein molecule. Has this moment been observed, perhaps, and found to be a singular event in the life of all organisms? Have I, personally, passed that moment? Should I have felt a profound change?J C wrote:Wicknight
Lions can't live in mountainous areas.
Why not – last time I checked they didn’t suffer from Vertigo!!!.
Is there no beginning to your competence?J C wrote:Wicknight
So you believe that because of these known discrepancies (5%), ALL radiometric rock dating must be incorrect?
100% discrepancies are found by Creationists!!!.
Well, Creationists disagree with all the dates produced by all conventional dating systems. I guess you could call that a 100% discrepancy, if you like, although, as so often, it has no scientific meaning.
Pity that Creationists don't have a dating system of their own, other than Biblical lookup. Hardly surprising, though, since I can't think of anything measurable that would produce the results they want to see.J C wrote:Wicknight
You like odds JC, tell me what are the odds that a mistake in one system would occur independently in another say 5 systems so the exact same result appears?
The odds are a certainty when all systems are calibrated off each other!!.
Which is why they aren't. Sigh.J C wrote:Wicknight
Also Noah has the slight problem that he lands in the Middle East, where 99% of plant life would not germinate. Did Noah personally carry all these seeds to different climates where they could be germinated?
The ‘Fertile Crescent’ in Iraq is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the World – and such good growing conditions were more widespread throughout the Middle East in Noah’s time..
Nevertheless, a tropical environment it wasn't - nor a tundra one. Never mind, I'm sure you don't understand the point.J C wrote:Wicknight
All biologists know this is possible and would work like this, they have just done a model.
I see, they “have just done a model” - of a self replicating molecule – with an enormous input of Human effort and INTELLIGENCE!!!
I await the first stirrings of artificial life with ‘bated breath’!!!.
Not too long to wait then. Google "Life 2.0" for the current crop of companies that are involved.J C wrote:Wicknight
Macro-evolution is micro-evolution (which you accept happens) but taking longer and with an increase in genetic material.
………. We have seen it happen, in rapidly multiplying organisms such as bacteria.
Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:
“Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. Bacteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!
What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change?
In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.”.
I thought we'd covered the use of selective quotes before - indeed, covered them in the specific case of Grassé. Certainly there is no need to quote the whole "..past-president..." bit for our benefit.
There are several quotes from Grassé in the Creationist Quote Book - you need not trot them all out separately, since none has any more credibility than another, given the selective word-chopping that is done on the quotes before use.J C wrote:Robin
Don't forget about the newly-evolved nylon-eating bacteria!
Even though Nylon is an artificial petrochemical polymer, the systems needed to break it down would not have been new.
It is a truism ‘that it is far easier to destroy than to create’.
Breaking something down only requires general systems e.g. fire will destroy almost anything, including Nylon and it is a SIMPLE combustion system. Ditto for bacterial destruction of Nylon.
If you would like to really impress me find me a Nylon Bug that CREATES Nylon – instead of DESTROYING it.
Nylon may be an artificial polymer but the bacterial ability to break it down wasn’t dependent upon developing a NEW way to eat Nylon – the breakdown pathways and the diversity of bacterial genetic information already existed..
Great statement. Is there any point asking for some evidence that the necessary breakdown pathways have "always existed"? No? You're just assuming it? Well, I am surprised.
I do still wonder, JC, if you're not a pretend Creationist. It seems impossible for one mortal person to be as mistaken as you are, and on such a diversity of subjects.
please stop hitting the brick wall,
I am concerned for its wellbeing,
Scofflaw0 -
Is that supposed to be a joke?J C wrote:Why not – last time I checked they didn’t suffer from Vertigo!!!.
Lions such as those found on the African planes cannot live in mountains regions because their bodies are not adapted to. Most land creatures cannot live in mountainous regions, due to a varity of regions.
I am not aware of any Creationist Science group ever dating anything using radiometeric dating.J C wrote:100% discrepancies are found by Creationists!!!.
As I said, only one of the hundreds of thousands of individually, independently verified results has to be correct to disprove your young earth creationist theory. Are you saying they are all wrong, despite the fact that 95% of them give the same answers?
They aren't calibrated off each other. So I'll ask the question again.J C wrote:The odds are a certainty when all systems are calibrated off each other!!.
What are the odds that two or more independent radiometeric systems, using different methods, would come up with the exact same answer?
And?J C wrote:The ‘Fertile Crescent’ in Iraq is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the World
80% of the worlds plants cannot grow in the Middle East. How fertile it is doesn't change that fact. Have you not wondered why there isn't a rain forest in the middle east? :rolleyes:
The Flood didn't happen JC.
You have nothing to support that except Hoyles reputation as a scientist. So if is reputation supports that idea, it must also support the idea that the earth is very old.J C wrote:He COULD but he WASN’T!!!!.
So basically you have to accept the Earth was very old (4.5 billion years) or you have to reject Hoyle's reputation. Which is it?
I can intelligently choose to drop a bowling ball from a tall building, that doesn't mean gravity is designed JC :rolleyes:J C wrote:I see, they “have just done a model” - of a self replicating molecule – with an enormous input of Human effort and INTELLIGENCE!!!
The model constructed at MIT was a natural set up. Self replicating molecules formed naturally based on this set up, and began to evolve in the chemical bath.
Abiogensis is a natural phenomona based on certain environment, which we know the Earth possessed. Case closed.
Grasse died in 1985 JC, 10-15 years before these observations.J C wrote:Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:
And just like Hoyle, Grasse rejected the biblical idea of a young Earth. So again, just like Hoyle if you want us to go on Grasse's reputation you must also accept his reputation about a young Earth, which you clearly don't.
And even if Grasse was alive to day, his personal feelings on the matter don't change the fact that this has been OBSERVED.
Seriously what part of that do you not get. For nearly a 50 years Creationists have been harping on that genetic increase has never been observed so we can't say it happens. It has now been observed. So get over it!
Exactly.J C wrote:Yes, two ALREADY FUNCTIONAL proteins may co-operate as you have described – that is how the organisation of organelles and organs is achieved.
All you need is two simpler replicating molecule structures, which can develop into more complex ones. And guess what JC, that is exactly what the boys at MIT showed occur naturally in nature.
The first self-replicating molecules that we know can naturally form, evolved into more complex molecules which, given a 2 billion years or so, developed into protien structures similar to the ones we have today.
All you need is a starting point, and MIT (and others) have shown that that starting point can happen naturally.
The starting point for naturally occuring life is an observable natural phenonomna.
As I said before, case closed.
And often it doesnt. As I said, increase in genetic material that did not harm the life form or cause its death has been observed to take place.J C wrote:You’re confusing quantity with QUALITY – often more DNA can result in deleterious conditions, such as additional gene copies being generated within the cell.
I find it hilarious though that you now admit that increase in genetic material can take place due to mutation, but that is is ALWAYS harmful (which isn't true), when before you totally refused to accept that even harmful increase in genetic information can take place due to mutation.
Non-harmful increase in genetic information due to mutation has been observed to take place in natural biological life forms.
A river is specified JC, it is about as fecking specified a natural phenomona you are going to get. It has easily determined size shape structure and workings.J C wrote:There is no comparison between the unspecified simple flow pattern of an inert river and the tightly specified information density of a living cell
It is specifed even by Creationists standards, it wouldn't be called "life" by a creationist since it lacks complexity.
Bloody hell JC at least read up on Creationists theory before spouting it out here. It is specified complexity that determines life according to a creationist, not specification alone. Crystal compounds are specified according to creationists. :eek:
And after I shuffle a deck of cards the odds that it will have turned out the way it has are 8 x 10^67. My God! Some intelligence must have ordered them llike that, the odds that they would just happen to fall like that are huge!J C wrote:Either way, the odds are still 10e +130 AGAINST it happening via undirected processes
Or wait, what are the odds that, out of the billions of molecules on Earth, a river would some how KNOW which is the best route to take to get from point A to the sea. I mean, it flows AROUND the mountains. HOw is that possible. Some intellligence must have mapped out that route, the odds that at each turn the river would just KNOW which way to travel is impossible surely!
No, wait they were always going to form in some pattern, just like amino acids were always going to form in some combination.
If the cards were not suffled one way they would be suffled another. If the river had not gone one way it would have gone another. If life had not formed as it did it would have formed another way.
You assume only one specific way could work, which is nonsense. Just like any of the arrangements of cards would still work, there are an infinate different ways life could have developed on Earth.
Life has developed a specific way, and you are right, if we remove certain parts the system fails to work. But that is teh style now! If you damn a river the river system fails to work, that doesn't mean the river system is a product of intelligent design and could not have occured naturally. Because all the parts fit neatly into place NOW, doesn't mean something designed it. A completely different system could have developed, just as a completely different river could have formed.0 -
-
J C wrote:A 10 year old can specify any particular 100 amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain in 30 minutes – yet all of the electrons in the known Universe would fail to produce enough permutations to do this by undirected processes in an effective infinity of time.
A 10-year-old cannot specify a meaningful sequence of 100 aas. They can generate the sequence in one of three basic ways:
1) randomly select 100 aminoacids. This feat is replicable without intelligence.
2) copy an existing sequence of 100 aminoacids. This feat is replicable without intelligence.
3) Combine methods 1 and 2, generating a new sequence from a combination of existing sequences and random interchanges/mutations. This feat is replicable without intelligence.
Thus, nature most certainly can replicate the process that you refer to.
The notion that it would take X amount of time to begin at a random point, and to produce random results to get to a pre-determined result is simply irrelevant. It would be significant only if we claimed that evolution was goal-specific - that at teh start of it all, there was some intention to end up where we are now.
In short, the allegation that evolution could not occur without a guiding hand is dependant on the assumption that evolution is guided to a specific destination in the first place.
One could shufflea deck of cards, look at the results and declare that the odds of achieving this particular resultset were so enormous that the only explanation was that the shuffling mechanism had to be designed to produce this result. It doesn't matter what the results are - a perfectly-ordered set of 4 suits, or a random hodge-podge. In each case, 52 cards are arranged in a sequence, and the odds of that sequence occurring are identical - 1 in 52!.
By your logic, we can thus conclude that it is impossible for a deck of cards to be randomly shuffled, as it will inevitably end up in a position which the odds are so stacked against that said position should never have occurred.
Why not?Natural selection can’t solve the problem – I am talking here about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.
Untrue. Mutations change genetic information. Whether that results in an overall improvement or degredation based on some empirical test is not and cannot be predetermined.Mutations are equally not observed to generate genetic information – they merely degrade it.
Indeed, for it to be impossible for a random change to do other than degrade the quality of something, then it must be impossible for anything to do other than degrade the quality.
A moment ago you were arguing that Natural selection cannot play a role in areas where it is generally accepted that it does play a role. To then say that there is no disagerement about its existence nor its validity is disingenuous. There most certainly is disagreement. You're willing to concede its existence and utility only as long as it doesn't infringe on something you hold to be an (unscientific) absolute truth.There is no disagreement from Creationists about the evidence for Natural Selection, or indeed it’s scientific validity.
It staggers me how often people defending your point of view make such statements, as though repetition will make them true. The only justification I can think of is that you understand that repetition may make them accepted as valid assertions by the scientifically illiterate.The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent Creator.
From a scientific perspective, such a position is not valid. There is also no way one can honestly say it is observationally valid, unless one has observationally seen the creation of DNA by this external, intelligent entity - that one watched God do it, so to speak.
And yet you claim its observationally valid!Science cannot observe this Creator
No, it can't.– but it can validly conclude that such an intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
One might be able to conclude that it is not impossible for such an intelligence to have existed, not that one did exist.
Furthermore, such a line of reasoning would scientifically require that one also explain how intelligence can exist prior to there being life, given that (observationally and scientifically) life is a pre-requisite for intelligence. This would effectively require either a redefinition of "life", "intelligence", or both.
I'm always suspicious of anything which requires the Redefinition of terms to "prove" something which is, in turn, dependant on those terms.
I think you may be mistaking the evidence for reality with the evidence for Creation.The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable
Until you can provide falsifiable predictions, there most certainly is an issue in relation to scientific validity.– and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity. ......[/
Until you can show that every pre-requisite for this theory is - in and of itself - falsifiable, then there is an issue with scientific validity.
That term just won't go away. Falsifiability. If it ain't so, it ain't science.
Smiley away all you like. Just as with your repetitive insistences, it is not the scientific-minded you are targetting with them, and it serves as further proof that you know exactly what the distinction is between your target-audience and those who you are actually discussing with.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Scofflaw
At what point in their brief lives do bacteria suddenly settle down to attempting to generate random amino acid sequences –
Could I gently remind you that it was the Evolutionists on this thread, who suggested that bacteria could generate random amino acid sequences so often that 10e +133 permutations could be generated in a matter of hours on a Petri Dish!!!! :eek:
I accepted (for the sake of argument) the suggestion that a combination of mutation (one per bacterium) and recombination would create new sequences for NS to select – but I proved mathematically that, even if the entire universe consisted of bacteria, there still wouldn’t be enough of them to have a statistically significant chance of generating the sequence for a useful Protein!!!:) :cool:
Wicknight
Lions such as those found on the African planes cannot live in mountains regions
…..And MOUNTAIN Lions (or Pumas) live HAPPILY in MOUNTAIN habitat in America.
BTW the Puma is a member of the Big Cat Kind (that produced Lions, Tigers, Cheetahs & Leopards).:)
Scofflaw
The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced.
That is ‘Evolutionist Speak’ for :-
“The genetic variety that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme existed right from the start at Creation, and it was expressed countless times in the past. When Nylon was introduced it broke it down in an inefficient manner - and it continues to do so.”
All the ‘Nylon Bug’ proves is the almost infinite genetic diversity that was originally Created by our omnipotent and omniscient God !!!
‘Nylon bugs’ were right there when Nylon was first invented – and this indicates that the ‘bug’ is a result of PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity.
Wicknight
And after I shuffle a deck of cards the odds that it will have turned out the way it has are 8 x 10^67.
You can ‘shuffle’ cards and WHATEVER way they turn out doesn’t really matter – such is the UNSPECIFIED nature of a Deck of Cards.
However, if just ONE critical base pair out of a Human’s 3,200,000,000 base pairs is ‘shuffled’ into the wrong space – death or serious illness will result – such is the tight SPECIFICITY of living systems!!!
Wicknight
So basically you have to accept the Earth was very old (4.5 billion years) or you have to reject Hoyle's reputation. Which is it?
Using YOUR logic I could equally say:-
“So basically you have to REJECT the Earth being very old (4.5 billion years) or you have to ACCEPT Hoyle's reputation. Which is it?”
The fallacy in BOTH of the above arguments lies in the belief that either of us must accept or reject EVERYTHING that Hoyle ever believed.
Hoyle wasn’t infallible, but he was an exceptionally gifted scientist – who saw that Macro-Evolution was invalid and mathematically proved his contention using repeatably observable phenomena.
His beliefs about the (old) age of the Earth should make his rejection of Evolution even more credible (for long ages Evolutionists)!!!
Here was a leading Mathematician and Astronomer who accepted that the Earth was billions of years old – but STILL rejected the idea that Evolution could produce an Amoeba, even over these enormous lengths of time!!! ............. 0 -
-
-
Son Goku wrote:JC, what is wrong with the Big Bang model of the universe according to Creationists?
Just about EVERYTHING!!!:eek:
In relation to the origins of the Universe :-
Creationists say "First there was NOTHING and then God Created it!!!":cool: :cool:
Big Bangers say "First there was NOTHING and then it blew UP!!":D .....
.....
I'll leave YOU to decide which is the most LIKELY scenario!!!0 -
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
At what point in their brief lives do bacteria suddenly settle down to attempting to generate random amino acid sequences –
Could I gently remind you that it was the Evolutionists on this thread, who suggested that bacteria could generate random amino acid sequences so often that 10e +133 permutations could be generated in a matter of hours on a Petri Dish!!!! :eek:
No, you have misunderstood what was said. That's OK, though.J C wrote:I accepted (for the sake of argument) the suggestion that a combination of mutation (one per bacterium) and recombination would create new sequences for NS to select – but I proved mathematically that, even if the entire universe consisted of bacteria, there still wouldn’t be enough of them to have a statistically significant chance of generating the sequence for a useful Protein!!!:) :cool:
Sigh. No, you have misunderstood what was said. That's OK, though.
I stipulated one mutation per bacterium in the relevant DNA stretch over its lifetime before replication - a pretty conservative rate. The mutation is passed on both by recombination and fission to the other bacteria, which also undergo one random mutation in the same DNA sequence.
Because you have absolutely no idea what I said, you have taken this to mean that each bacterium, once in its life, rather bizarrely attempts to generate a random protein.J C wrote:Wicknight
Lions such as those found on the African planes cannot live in mountains regions
…..And MOUNTAIN Lions (or Pumas) live HAPPILY in MOUNTAIN habitat in America.
BTW the Puma is a member of the Big Cat Kind (that produced Lions, Tigers, Cheetahs & Leopards).:)
Woah! An actual defined "kind" - Big Cat Kind! Don't be shy, JC - if you know them all, trot them out for us - enough of doling them out like sweets...J C wrote:Scofflaw
The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced.
That is ‘Evolutionist Speak’ for :-
“The genetic variety that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme existed right from the start at Creation, and it was expressed countless times in the past. When Nylon was introduced it broke it down in an inefficient manner - and it continues to do so.”
Sigh. No, you have misunderstood, or not even read, what was said.
The precursor of the mutant bacterium is 99.9975% similar to the mutant - it does not have the nylon-digesting enzyme. Therefore, before the mutation, the nylon-digesting enzyme was not present in the mutant bacterium.
Now, let's contrast the fact that the mutation was not present with your claim that it was present. Your claim is irreconcilable with the facts, something which I suspect doesn't bother you at all.J C wrote:All the ‘Nylon Bug’ proves is the almost infinite genetic diversity that was originally Created by our omnipotent and omniscient God !!!
‘Nylon bugs’ were right there when Nylon was first invented – and this indicates that the ‘bug’ is a result of PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity.
Again, because you're simply denying the facts, there's little reason to comment on this rubbish.J C wrote:Wicknight
And after I shuffle a deck of cards the odds that it will have turned out the way it has are 8 x 10^67.
You can ‘shuffle’ cards and WHATEVER way they turn out doesn’t really matter – such is the UNSPECIFIED nature of a Deck of Cards.
However, if just ONE critical base pair out of a Human’s 3,200,000,000 base pairs is ‘shuffled’ into the wrong space – death or serious illness will result – such is the tight SPECIFICITY of living systems!!!
Nice idea, but complete rubbish. First, every amino acid is coded for by several DNA base sequences, so there's some tolerance built in. Second, most proteins have a degree of tolerance in their struture - in particular, you can change almost everything about an enzyme except for the active site(s) without any effect. Third, most of us have at least two copies of most genes. Fourth, most phenotypic factors are controlled by multiple genes. Fifth, most biochemical pathways have a degree of tolerance built in as well.
We are, in fact, loosely specified.
Assuming that you again will have no idea what I'm saying above, let me boil this down to a simple statement:
If human beings were as tightly specified as you claim, there could be no genetic differences between us - no variation at all, since any variation at all would kill us. Clearly this is not the case, and clearly your idea is rubbish.JC wrote:
Between one thing and another, I fear you are suffering from Repetitive Brain Injury...
cordially,
but dismissively,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement