The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

babyvaio wrote:

Too bad guys. U just cant prove that even if u spend a lifetime. U cant even answer the basic questions. & u think u know it all.

It has been explained to you, your question has been answered, but like the others you post something that seems to come from nowhere.
For instance:

Does that mean that also a piece of dirt will get intelligent if it consists of molecules?

This makes absolutely no sense and isn't vaguely related to what Wicknight was saying.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

Too bad guys. U just cant prove that even if u spend a lifetime.

What is "that" exactly that we cannot prove?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Respiration and photosynthesis cascades work at almost 100% energy efficiencies!!!!

Wicknight
Photosynthesis uses approx 3%-6% of the available solar energy converted into bioenergy. Scientist believe that the actual process of photosynthesis has a theoretical limit of 11% efficency

Could I gently point out that Incident Solar Radiation is about 1 Kw per m2. Any plant that would attempt to capture ALL of this radiation would spontaneously burst into flames!!!!

Photosynthesis is therefore CORRECTLY DESIGNED to use a fraction of Incident Solar Radiation. A by-product of this design is that photosynthesis can still occur at light intensities of less than 10% of Standard Solar Incident Radiation – which leaves solar panels ‘at the starting blocks’ on this one.

So far, every single one of your pronouncements on how things are perfect have boiled down to "they're exactly what they are, so they are perfectly what they are". This is identical to claiming that the software I write is perfect, because it is exactly as I have written it - any bugs or errors are actually perfect features. I should be interested to watch you trying your "explanation" on my clients.

These claims demonstrate very clearly the intellectual poverty of the Creationist movement. Instead of an explanation, or an attempt to define what "perfectly designed" would mean, we have instead a sequence of ever-feebler rhetorical tricks entirely devoid of explanatory power.

To deal with your specific claim - plants could be made out of less flammable materials, or have more efficient cooling systems, and thereby capture sunlight more efficiently.

J C wrote:

The various components of the Photosynthesis and Respiration cascades such as the Krebs Cycle are ‘molecular machines’ that are amongst the MOST EFFICIENT energy production and transmission systems known to science – and they work at almost 100% efficiencies!!!

Actually, Krebs is about 62% (see here)

J C wrote:

I would also make the point that perfect design is design that is fit for purpose and/or an optimum balance between conflicting factors. For example, an Ant brain is PERFECTLY fit for the purposes of the Ant and ditto for an Elephant brain. However, an Elephant Brain is completely unfit for an Ant as is an Ant brain for an Elephant.

The Photosynthesis and Respiration cascades ARE indeed perfectly designed – and they are miracles of nano-engineering!!!:cool:

The same rhetorical device as above. By this logic the brain of the criminal or llunatic is also "perfect", which reduces the word to a meaningless collection of letters.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Well, as we move away from the Creationist roots of science, I would expect our ideas to become more rational...

Could I gently point out that it was EVOLUTIONISTS who invented the lists of so-called ‘vestigial organs’ – that have now turned out to have useful functions!!!
Creationists have always maintained that everything has a purpose in God’s Creation.:cool:

No, JC. This is a claim made by modern Creationists, as a rhetorical attack on evolution. Scientists you otherwise claim as Creationists (anyone pre-Darwin) also thought the appendix served no apparent function.

J C wrote:

Or a more populist title like:-
“How Evolution finally became Extinct!!”:D

Mm. Again, you might want to wait until Creationists number more than 0.001% of scientists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Giblet

babyvaio wrote:

Too bad guys. U just cant prove that even if u spend a lifetime. U cant even answer the basic questions. & u think u know it all.

You're so out of your depth that you're about to fall off the continental shelf. I like the way you have a problem with humans evolving and what came before "the monkey" but you have no problem believing in "Space Ghost" and what came before him.

Some points, JC you are a horribly biased person and you think you can talk your way out of any scenario. You are failing miserably and you are using absolutely 0 scientific method. "You can't explain this, but GOD SURE CAN!" isn't science, it's nonsense. How can something come from nothing. Well the big bang is theorised to come from a super dense singularity. So it's not nothing really, it's infact EVERYTHING in one place, super compressed. Maybe God had it in his pocket...

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Such as the practice of copying and pasting from an online encyclopedia with random sentences of his own tacked on?

How is that honest?

As I recall, he flagged up his use of the sources. Maybe he did not always use the protocol required for academic publication, but from the posts I read it seemed to me evident for any but a pedant.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

As I recall, he flagged up his use of the sources. Maybe he did not always use the protocol required for academic publication, but from the posts I read it seemed to me evident for any but a pedant.

Unfortunately not - we objected specifically because he simply ran his own paragraphs into a cut and paste from Wikipedia, and sprinkled a couple of his own sentences into the quote, without any indication that the bulk of the material was a Wikipedia quote.

After being challenged a couple of times on entirely unattributed quotes from Wikipedia, he then switched to the Britannica, again unattributed, again with a couple of sentences of his own chucked in.

This was all in response to a claim that he didn't actually understand the physics he had previously criticised...the issue would be of less interest were it not for JC's repeated claims of scientific authority.

I would not imagine you would wish to perjure yourself....I can understand your wish to give the benefit of the doubt to JC, but there is no such doubt.

pedantically,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Er, yes. That was the point. To say that entropy always increases is to describe the system as a whole, not any localised region. Locally, entropy does not have to increase, as long as overall entropy increases. Creationists appear to ignore this rather important point, in order to claim that order and complexity can never increase.

Of course that is true. The point is, Does crystallization involve a decrease in entropy? Is it a spontaneous movement toward increased complexity or is it a basic property of the substance itself?

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Perfect design is design that is fit for purpose and/or an optimum balance between conflicting factors. On this basis, the Human Eye is perfectly designed – and indeed it is a miracle of optical engineering!!!

Scofflaw
…….anything can be described as "perfect", assuming you assume perfection. The human eye is perfectly the human eye, even the short-sighted ones, which are perfectly short-sighted

A short sighted eye ISN’T fully fit for purpose NOR is it an optimum balance between conflicting factors – and it is therefore NOT a perfect eye.

Myopia is unfortunately another IMPERFECTION caused as a result of The Fall of Man from their originally perfect state.


Scofflaw
If that reminds you of those completely meaningless discussions that almost everyone seems to have at some point, as to whether lemons are actually blue, it should.

Are meaningless discussions some kind of Evolutionist ritual?:D

Creationists prefer the pursuit of logic – and so they DON’T engage in meaningless discussions about whether Lemons are blue – when they are obviously a glorious shade of YELLOW!!!! :eek:


Scofflaw
In short, everyone is actually a Creationist really, we're just more or less lapsed.

Got it in one Scofflaw!!!

All Human Beings have a God-given desire to know and love Him as Creator of all things. Some go into denial, others get saved in Jesus Christ!!!:D


Scofflaw
I humbly admit I don't know what started it all.

There goes Macro-Evolution and The Big Bang ‘up in smoke’ for a start!!!

Now, can you go just one step further and admit that you are a sinner and in need of salvation by Jesus Christ?


Wicknight
Photosysthesis has a theoretical max efficency of 11%, where as solar cells have been developed that function at over 25%.

………….. we have already designed a better system ... in like 30 years.

Wow, God must be really dumb. After all He had an eternity to come up with this stuff, and He still couldn't make it work very well.

Hold the Champagne!!!

These solar cells are unable to function at low light intensities and could I remind you that they only produce electricity – not PURE isomeric sugar – which STILL cannot be artificially manufactured!!!!!

Finally, the basic modules of solar cells operate at macro-scales measured in centimetres, while the basic modules for photosynthesis operate on the nano-metre scale!!!

Yes, solar cells do indeed exhibit good design – but plant cells exhibit PERFECT design!!!!:cool:


Wicknight
……. biotech firms are falling over themselves to get out of America and go to places like Europe, India and China where their students actually know how biology works.

You seem to be forgetting that the ONLY theory of ‘biological origins’ that IS taught in American public schools IS Materialistic Evolution – so are you arguing that THIS explains why American firms are relocating out of America, like you have claimed????


Wicknight
Unless you want to explain why God felt the need to design 40 independent eye designs (was one perfect one not good enough?),

Fully consistent with an independent CREATOR – but NOT consistent with COMMON EVOLUTIONARY DESCENT!!!!:cool:


Wicknight
or why He felt the need to not give us eyes that function as well as a cats at night time

…..or indeed why He felt the need to not give cats a brain that is able to create the Space Shuttle or the Intel Core 2 Duo CPU!!!!!!:D


Positron
I now know what 'Devil' is - Its the element in us that doesn't allow us to rethink our beliefs when new facts and information surfaces

…..like when all of the information from Molecular Biology and Intelligent Design started to emerge – and Evolutionists stuck their heads into a ‘foetal position’ and cried “no, no, No, No, NO, NO!!!”:D


Giblet
Well the big bang is theorised to come from a super dense singularity. So it's not nothing really, it's infact EVERYTHING in one place, super compressed. Maybe God had it in his pocket...

A ‘super dense singularity’, Eh!!
Everything in one place, super compressed Eh!!
Sounds like ‘special pleading’ to me!!:D

Maybe God had it in His pocket….
……or more likely it is all a figment of your very fertile IMAGINATION!!!


Scofflaw
Actually, Krebs is about 62%

Thanks for the reference – I knew that Krebs was quite high – at 62% it is twice the efficiency of a typical internal combustion engine.

Wicknight
Maybe you should actually bother to read up a bit, because if you think the theory of evolution states that the human eye spontaniously formed out of a soup of chemicals you are either an idiot or you haven't bother to inform yourself.

As a former Evolutionist I could write the definitive book on it!!!


Maybe YOU could explain how the following biochemistry of Krebs Cycle could have developed SPONTANEOUSLY :-
http://www.bmb.leeds.ac.uk/illingworth/metabol/krebs.htm

You may choose to believe that random chance or indeed blind chemical forces produced all of the above systems – but please bear in mind that if EVEN ONE of the biochemical steps are missing or in the wrong position on the cascade this will mean that the cascade will be functionally useless.

I think that the conclusion that “God did it” – is the only RATIONAL explanation.

The following quote from Prof. Richard E. Dickerson, California Institute of Technology; illustrates the eternal dilemma of the Evolutionist:-

“The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts…..
We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imaginations so far have not been very helpful.”

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

You are interpreting the literal discriptions of the scripture as having certain meanings (the crushing of the snake = the crushing of satan) that are not actually found in the books themselves.

Unless you want to pick out the passage in Genesis that says the snake is the devil? If the snake represented the devil then what was the point of this line

Your error lies in your simplistic approach to the Bible. You think that Genesis is all that God has said about Creation and the Fall. But Genesis is really like the first of a 66 chapter book: the Author reveals more as He completes the book.

Was it merely a (talking!) snake that deceived Eve and caused her and Adam to die?
Satan the snake:
Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Satan the deceiver:
Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Satan the liar and murderer:
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Nothing changed after the Fall except for Humans and snakes.

The Bible says different: Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

God worked the land for Adam (its not hard, he is a god after all).

But after the Fall God refused to do this any more as punishment. Adam would have to work for his food, God would not work it for him -

You mistake God's initial provision of means with Adam's on-going responsibilities. Before the Fall, God had committed the work of tending the Garden to Adam:
Genesis 1:15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

The plants were already subject to death (otherwise Adam could not eat them) and sickness (otherwise there would be no need to work the garden)

Feeding and watering and aerating the soil and other farming methods do not involve disease or pest control. As to plants dying, they have not the 'breath of life' as do animals, so they are no more than lovely forms of food and ornamentation, as well as their oxygen function. Sin and death are tied together in the 'breath of life' world, not in vegetation.

Then why are you and JC claiming that the imprefections found in all life were caused by The Fall of Man (to give it it's full title), when the Bible clearly does not state that?

The Bible clearly does state that:
Genesis 1:
4 And God saw the light, that it was good;

10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. [emphasis mine].

I often wondered why God thought it necessary to repeat this so many times; now I can see. Some of us are very slow to learn.;)

And don't get me started on JC's theory that the land masses rose up up to 7km during the flood because of the passage -

on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth

You both insert into the Bible passages things that are clearly not there, because you are both struggling (and failing) to fit the Genesis account around modern day knowledge and science.

That text tells us of one source of the Flood water, not where the mountains came from.

God hasn't said how He made the waters reach their present levels. But He clearly says He both caused the water to cover the entire earth and then to be drained from it. The obvious mechanism is the formation of valleys (and their correlating hills). This is the picture in:
Psalm 104: 5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.

Of course the more rational logical argument is this

God would make things perfect. Things aren't perfect. God didn't make them

More rationalistic, not more rational. Your presuppositions are showing.

Well I actually read the Bible so I seem to have a head start on yourself and JC. I'll give you a few moments to go back and actually read Genesis.

As I said, the Bible is more than Genesis - but you show a serious lack of knowledge of even that. Take time and it will reward your study.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

As I recall, he flagged up his use of the sources. Maybe he did not always use the protocol required for academic publication, but from the posts I read it seemed to me evident for any but a pedant.

As Scofflaw said, he created run on paragraphs into a wikipedia paste job with his own sentences tacked on at the end and gave no indication that he was doing so. He was obviously attempting to make sound like he was the one who wrote the majority of it.

For example:

However, I will concede that the part of the Lagrangian containing the electromagnetic field tensor does seem to describe the free evolution of the electromagnetic field accurately but the Dirac-like equation with the gauge covariant derivative which describes the free evolution of the electron and positron fields as well as their interaction with the electromagnetic field are quite speculative.

This is literally:
However I will concede....Wikipedia quote.......are quite speculative.

Even ignoring this the entire thing makes no sense what so ever. There is no reason to doubt the Dirac Field anymore than the Faraday field.

However the worst was:

QED also uses a covariant and gauge invariant prescription for the calculation of observable quantities. Feynman's mathematical technique, based on his diagrams, was superficially, very different from the field-theoretic, operator-based approach of Schwinger and Tomonaga, but Freeman Dyson subsequently claimed that the two approaches were equivalent, but I am not so sure!!!!

Again literally: Wikipedia quote.......,but I'm not so sure!!!!
"I'm not so sure", makes absolutely no sense in this context. The two approaches are equivalent to 100% certainty this is something which has been proved.

Additionally all of his paragraphs were mainly about QED not electroweak, which is what I asked him about.

This has nothing to do with academic protocol or me being a pedant, I do not see how you think this is justified or even honest.

J C

Wicknight
Approx 4 billion years ago energy from the sun and from the interal heat of the Earth, cause rather interesting chemical reactions to start taking place in the seas of Earth………

………Species similar to modern day humans evolve approx 150,000 thousand years ago.

A great bedtime STORY I’m sure!!!!:D

Now would you like to apply some SCIENTIFIC reasoning to it – and watch it fall apart?:)

Maybe YOU could explain how the following description of the biochemistry of sight in just ONE retina cell could have developed within your storyline :-

BTW THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE from a biochemistry book whose title currently eludes me !!!!!!!!

I am using the quote for convenience and because I don't have the time to put it in my own words!!

I also must bring to the attention of the purists amongst you, that the quote contains some of my own words, where I deemed it advisable for clarity!!!!

“When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP).
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (cGMP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers it’s concentation by acting as an ‘absorber’.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of Sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows Sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein ‘pumps’ them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and the ‘pump’ keeps the level of Sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentrations of positively charged Sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and Sodium ions would be depleted quickly. Several mechanisms turn off the proteins that were turned on, in order to restore the cell to it’s original state. Firstly, the ion channel also lets Calcium ion in as well as Sodium ions. The Calcium is ‘pumped’ back by a different protein so that a constant Calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, Calcium concentrations also decrease too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP slows down at lower Calcium ion concentrations. Second, a protein called guanlate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when Calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. And this is how the cell limits the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin and is reconverted to 11-cis-retinal which is again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, transretinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol – a form containing two more Hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retionol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added Hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal and one cycle is completed (in about one nanosecond).”

Could I suggest that if the undirected production of the sequence for a simple protein is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY the production of the above biochemical sequence for sight is even more IMPOSSIBLE.

…and BTW the above biochemical sequence is but ONE of many THOUSANDS of equally unique and highly specific sequences found in living cells!!!!

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Is it a spontaneous movement toward increased complexity or is it a basic property of the substance itself?

Why would this make a bit of difference to entropy?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I humbly admit I don't know what started it all.

There goes Macro-Evolution and The Big Bang ‘up in smoke’ for a start!!!

Now, can you go just one step further and admit that you are a sinner and in need of salvation by Jesus Christ?

All you need to do to be saved right NOW is to say that you believe on Jesus Christ.
These are potentially the most important words that you will ever utter – as they will save you for all eternity.

Let's work through the logic here.

First of all, Scofflaw doesn't know how everything started (same as every other human being) therefore Evolution and the Big Bang, neither of which are theories of the origin of the universe, are obviously incorrect.

So we've established that scientific theories depend on Scofflaw in some manner.

Obviously because of the weakness of said theories, Scofflaw must say he believes in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. This, as we all know comes from the fact that there are only two possible theories in all of existence, the currently accepted scientific one and the literalist biblical one.

Now we have established that simply by demonstrating that Scofflaw lacks complete knowledge of the universe's history that we are forced to accept Jesus Christ as our saviour.

Could Scofflaw be the most powerful preaching tool to ever exist?
(Sorry to use you like this Scofflaw.)

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Let's work through the logic here.......

....Could Scofflaw be the most powerful preaching tool to ever exist?

The thought never occured to me .......but now that you mention it .......you could quite possibly be right!!!!:D

Although the odds of Scofflaw being "the most powerful preaching tool to ever exist" are very very low, they are certainly much greater than the odds that the sequence for a simple protein was generated by undirected processes!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Could I suggest that if the undirected production of the sequence for a simple protein is a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY the production of the above biochemical sequence for sight is even more IMPOSSIBLE.

You could.

I'm not sure why you would though, since the evolution of the first protiens was directed by natural selection, as was the developed from photo sensitive cells into the modern day eye ball. In fact we know the eye developed by evolution at least 40 times during the last 2 billion years.

Isn't evolution cool. A directed natural process creating such wonderful organic structures.

J C wrote:

…and BTW the above biochemical sequence is but ONE of many THOUSANDS of equally unique and highly specific sequences found in living cells!!!!

It is. Isn't evolution great. All you need is trillions of cells replicating every second, spread this out over billions of years, and you get very complex organic structures forming.

What is a trillion to the power of a billion btw JC?

robindch

> As I recall, he flagged up his use of the sources.

No, as others have pointed out, he did not. He copied the text, changed a few words and hoped everybody would think he'd written it. In the intellectual world that honest people inhabit, copying from other people without attribution is called "plagiarism", or more simply, "theft".

Zombrex

J C wrote:

A short sighted eye ISN’T fully fit for purpose

Neither is a normal human eye if the purpose is driving at night.

The human eye isn't actually well suited to most of the things modern man does. Funny that. Its almost as if what or who ever designed it couldn't forsee how man kind would be living in modern times. Shocking! :eek:

J C wrote:

These solar cells are unable to function at low light intensities and could I remind you that they only produce electricity – not PURE isomeric sugar – which STILL cannot be artificially manufactured!!!!!

They can only produce electricity? What the fubar are you talking about JC. They are designed to produce electricity. Not many camper vans run on sugar :rolleyes:

And that still doesn't change the fact that we have already, after 30 years of trying, produced a more efficent way to trap and store the enery from the sun.

Obviously we are smarter than God .....

J C wrote:

Yes, solar cells do indeed exhibit good design – but plant cells exhibit PERFECT design!!!!

How does that work if our solar cells are better than planet design.

Are our solar cells more perfect than plant cells?

J C wrote:

You seem to be forgetting that the ONLY theory of ‘biological origins’ that IS taught in American public schools IS Materialistic Evolution – so are you arguing that THIS explains why American firms are relocating out of America, like you have claimed????

Yes, because as the Christian Right and religious nut jobs ... sorry "fundamentalists" ... attempt to get evolution removed from science rooms (as they have been for the last 100 years) biotech firms are panicing that the next generation of biologists are going to be totally ignorant of how biology actually works. No one wants to invest billions in new R&D plants to find out that in five years time you have to staff your plant with morons who think the reason people get sick is nothing to do with baterial infections, but is due to the "Fall of Man" :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Fully consistent with an independent CREATOR – but NOT consistent with COMMON EVOLUTIONARY DESCENT!!!!

Fully consistent with the observable universe. You can study and view these 40+ different designs JC.

So again, why did God design 40 different eye independently of each other?

J C wrote:

…..or indeed why He felt the need to not give cats a brain that is able to create the Space Shuttle or the Intel Core 2 Duo CPU!!!!!!:D

So you are saying that God doesn't want us to see better in the dark?

That would make him a bit of a mean bastard wouldn't it? Knowing that we would spend large amounts of time in dark or night time situations, yet decide to give us imprefect eyes, not at all suited to functioning at night.

J C wrote:

As a former Evolutionist I could write the definitive book on it!!!

You aren't a form evolutionist, you don't know what the theory of evolution is :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Maybe YOU could explain how the following biochemistry of Krebs Cycle could have developed SPONTANEOUSLY :-
http://www.bmb.leeds.ac.uk/illingworth/metabol/krebs.htm

Why would I? The theory of evolution says it didn't develop SPONTANEOUSLY. More lies.

You don't know what the theory of evolution is, so I doubt you understand that point. How can you argue against evolution when you don't even understand what the theory itself states?

J C wrote:

You may choose to believe that random chance or indeed blind chemical forces produced all of the above systems – but please bear in mind that if EVEN ONE of the biochemical steps are missing or in the wrong position on the cascade this will mean that the cascade will be functionally useless.

True.

And out of the 40 trillion cell replications that happen each hour on Earth, only a handful will produce a useful mutation.

But multiple 40 trillion by 24 and you get 960 trillion replications a day happening on Earth.

Multiply that by a year 350,400 trillion replications a year.

That is 350,400,000,000,000,000,000,000 cell replications in a year.

So now multiply that by a billion years.

350,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cell divisions in a billion years.

Since you like putting things in scientific notion that is

3.504e+35 cell division in a billion years.

So the combinations of cell divisons is approx

40.0e+12 to the power of 3.504e+35

This sum causes my Windows calculator to break, so I think we can safely assume that it is a big f**king number of possible combinations of replication and mutation.

Even if evolution failed to produce positive results at every single stage a million times that would still leave plenty of room to develop all the wonderous things we see around us.

JCs claim then that their simply wasn't enough time for this to happen might hold if he was talking about one single cell, replicating by itself, for a billion years. But as that wasn't the case his argument is invalid. Their were trillions of cells, replicating for billions of years. The number of combinations are there for in the billions of trillions of trillions of trillions. Much much bigger number than JCs "known electrons in the universe" number.

It would be like if I shuffled a trillion playing cards once every 8 hours (the average cell replication time) for a billion years. How many different combinations is that JC?

J C wrote:

I think that the conclusion that “God did it” – is the only RATIONAL explanation.

Except you have already proven that God didn't do it, by the nature of the design itself which is functional but less than perfect.

J C wrote:

The following quote from Prof. Richard E. Dickerson, California Institute of Technology;

This would be the same Richard E. Dickerson who has demonstrate a large number of evolutionary theories in lab settings at the molecular level (effectively proving a large chunk of evolutionary theory happens for real), and who was been an expert wittness against creationist attempts to introduce creationism into public schools.

You might want to pick a better quote their JC, considering Prof Dickerson would probably believe you to be an idiot.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Let's work through the logic here.

First of all, Scofflaw doesn't know how everything started (same as every other human being) therefore Evolution and the Big Bang, neither of which are theories of the origin of the universe, are obviously incorrect.

So we've established that scientific theories depend on Scofflaw in some manner.

Obviously because of the weakness of said theories, Scofflaw must say he believes in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. This, as we all know comes from the fact that there are only two possible theories in all of existence, the currently accepted scientific one and the literalist biblical one.

Now we have established that simply by demonstrating that Scofflaw lacks complete knowledge of the universe's history that we are forced to accept Jesus Christ as our saviour.

Could Scofflaw be the most powerful preaching tool to ever exist?
(Sorry to use you like this Scofflaw.)

No problem. I knew something was niggling at me, and for a fact I'd forgotten that major scientific theories are entirely dependent on my belief that I know the origins of everything. Hopefully I haven't done irreparable harm.

I'm impressed by your forbearance in describing this as logic. If that is logic, then "hurray! today's is orange day, and you must all give me your houses!" is equally logical, and certainly more to my liking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Actually, Krebs is about 62%

Thanks for the reference – I knew that Krebs was quite high – at 62% it is twice the efficiency of a typical internal combustion engine.

So? The thermal efficiency of a gas turbine power plants is approaching 90% with the efficiency of standard aviation gas turbines close to 50%. We would expect an evolving system to increase in efficiency, where as a system designed by your God can only decrease in efficiency as genetic information is lost.
We'll have to watch this nylon chomping bug...

J C wrote:

As a former Evolutionist I could write the definitive book on it!!!

...

You may choose to believe that random chance or indeed blind chemical forces produced all of the above systems

You obviously have absolutely no grasp of natural selection, or you hare deliberately trying to confuse and misinform.

J C wrote:

I think that the conclusion that “God did it” – is the only RATIONAL explanation.

You can keep saying it but it doesn't make it true. All the "God did it" excuse shows is a failure of imagination, a failure to investigate with an unbiased view and ultimately lazyness.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

3.504e+35 cell division in a billion years.

On one planet.

Son Goku

Another thing, what do Creationists make of the evidence for the two Ordovician-Silurian extinction events?

What caused such stress on the Mollusc species we find there?
I know you guys don't agree with dating used, but whats you're explanation?

Sangre

God did it to test our faith....duh.

J C

Wicknight
Isn't evolution great. All you need is trillions of cells replicating every second, spread this out over billions of years, and you get very complex organic structures forming.

Such ENORMOUS faith, on such a POOR basis!!!:D


Wicknight
What is a trillion to the power of a billion btw JC?

It’s one great enormous number – how did you derive it ?
Were you trying to work out the odds of producing the Human Genome using undirected processes, by any chance, Wicknight ??
It is a trillion to the power of one billion seven hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and eighty two (approximately)??:eek:

.......and this is 10 E+799,981 times GREATER than your figure of a trillion to the power of a billion - whatever that stands for!!!

We would need the combined power of 10 E+1,799,918 of 'Big Bang Universes' to produce the sequence for the Human Genome - but very inconveniently, we only have ONE Big Bang Universe, at least according to Materialitic Evolutionists!!:D


Wicknight
Neither is a normal human eye (fit for purpose) if the purpose is driving at night.

Neither is a normal human eye fit for purpose if the purpose is driving nails into timber – what EXACTLY is your point, Wicknight?

BTW, I have no difficulty driving at night – I find that TURNING THE LIGHTS ON usually does the trick!!!!!:D


Wicknight
And that still doesn't change the fact that we have already, after 30 years of trying, produced a more efficent way to trap and store the enery from the sun.

Obviously we are smarter than God .....

Dream on!!!

Could I remind you that you are comparing ‘apples and oranges’ when you are comparing sugar and electricity production.
Anyway, the solar panels seem to have a 25% energy efficiency and the Krebs Cycle runs at 62% – sounds like God STILL has the edge !!!

Equally, when it comes to “the efficiency of storage” please compare a leaf with those great lumbering batteries that are required to store Solar Cell electricity - sounds like God ALSO has the edge on 'storage efficiency' as well!!!


Wicknight
biotech firms are panicing that the next generation of biologists are going to be totally ignorant of how biology actually works. No one wants to invest billions in new R&D plants to find out that in five years time you have to staff your plant with morons

……yea, I’m sure that biotech firms are panicking about the next generation of biologists - just like the clothes manufacturers are panicking that the next generation won’t be able to use sewing machines!!!!!.:D

………of course, the fact that wage and tax rates in China and India are very LOW has NOTHING to do with it!!!!:D


Wicknight
Fully consistent with the observable universe. You can study and view these 40+ different (eye) designs JC.

As I have already said, 40+ different eye designs are FULLY CONSISTENT with an independent CREATOR – but they are NOT consistent with COMMON EVOLUTIONARY DESCENT from a common ancestor (with ONE eye design)!!!


Wicknight
So you are saying that God doesn't want us to see better in the dark?

That would make him a bit of a mean bastard wouldn't it? Knowing that we would spend large amounts of time in dark or night time situations, yet decide to give us imprefect eyes, not at all suited to functioning at night.

Our wonderful Almighty God did give us the ability to see, by shining light into dark corners of both the spiritual and material varieties!!!:D


Wicknight
Richard E. Dickerson who has demonstrate a large number of evolutionary theories in lab settings at the molecular level (effectively proving a large chunk of evolutionary theory happens for real), and who was been an expert wittness against creationist attempts to introduce creationism into public schools.

I don’t know, but it may very well be one and the same Prof Dickerson!!!

…….whoever he was, he did say in ‘Chemical evolution and the origin of life’. Scientific American, vol. 239 (3), September 1978, pp. 77 and 78 that:-
“The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts…..
We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imaginations so far have not been very helpful.”


Wicknight
You might want to pick a better quote their JC, considering Prof Dickerson would probably believe you to be an idiot.

Goes to show that Christians don’t bear grudges and always turn the other cheek, doesn’t it!!!!:D


Scofflaw
"hurray! today's is orange day, and you must all give me your houses!"

Is that from the same Evolutionist ‘school of logic’ that has “completely meaningless discussions …….. as to whether lemons are actually blue”??

BTW the above quote is attributable to your good self – lest you accuse me of stealing your ’ideas’ by not making FULL ATTRIBUTION whenever I quote you.
PS I truncated it for brevity, but it still means roughly what you originally said!!!:D


5uspect
So? The thermal efficiency of a gas turbine power plants is approaching 90% with the efficiency of standard aviation gas turbines close to 50%. We would expect an evolving system to increase in efficiency, where as a system designed by your God can only decrease in efficiency as genetic information is lost.

Oh, yes you have just reminded me – Krebs probably had an even greater efficiency shortly after Creation.

Could I remind you AGAIN that gas turbine power plants produce (unstorable) ELECTRICITY – not eminently storable pure isomeric sugar – so you are comparing ‘apples and oranges’ here!!!
Equally, the plant leaf ‘does it’s thing’ at ambient temperatures in your flower pot at home – while the gas turbine requires vast quantities of concrete and steel and temperatures of hundreds of degrees to produce anything!!!
I think that God has the superior design, once again!!


Originally Posted by Wicknight
3.504e+35 cell division in a billion years

bonkey
On one planet.

Bonkey, I thought that you were threatening to ‘bow out’ from the debate?

Anyway, to get back to your point on 3.504 E+35 possible cell divisions (i.e. possible individual genetic permutations) in a billion years.
It is a long way SHORT of the 10E+130 permutations required to just produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein – 10 E+95 permutations short TO BE EXACT !!!

On the ‘one planet’ point:-

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica (PLEASE NOTE FULL ATTRIBUTION HERE) there are approximately one million million stars in the Milky Way Galaxy and roughly 10 thousand million galaxies in the postulated Big Bang Universe.
If we generously assume a life-hospitable planet like Earth 'whirring' about EVERY star, then taking your figure of 3.0504 E+35 and multiplying it by one million million times 10 thousand million we come up with the grand total of 3.054 E+57 possible cell divisions (or individual genetic permutations) in a billion years in the Big Bang Universe.
Could I gently remind you that it is STILL a long way SHORT of the 10 E+130 permutations required to just produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein - 10 E+73 permutations short TO BE EXACT !!!

pH

Could I gently remind you that it is STILL a long way SHORT of the 10 E+130 permutations required to just produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein - 10 E+73 permutations short TO BE EXACT !!!

Since this appears to be your personal 'road to Damascus' when the scales fell from your eyes and you saw the 'truth' about evolution, let's dig a little deeper because I for one have not understood your argument here, so if you would be so kind as to explain again what your fundamental problem is.

Let's take titins, which have 27,000 amino acids. Now they exist in your body, are you claiming that each and every one of them was created by God because the chances of you having even one in your body is 20^27,000? Now the chances of you having all of them (plus billions of others) is absolutely astounding, so what you're saying is that you can see no way that you could be this 'lucky' to have all these hugely 'unlikely' molecules in your body, that God must have created you? Am I understanding correctly?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Is it a spontaneous movement toward increased complexity or is it a basic property of the substance itself?

Why would this make a bit of difference to entropy?

Because if crystal formation is a spontaneous movement toward increased complexity then it would establish the point that entropy can be naturally decreased. But if it is a basic property of the substance itself then it cannot be used to support the idea of naturally occuring increased complexity, as evolution requires.

I'm sure better scientific terms could be used to put these ideas across, but please excuse me for expressing it as best I can.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Is it a spontaneous movement toward increased complexity or is it a basic property of the substance itself?


Because if crystal formation is a spontaneous movement toward increased complexity then it would establish the point that entropy can be naturally decreased. But if it is a basic property of the substance itself then it cannot be used to support the idea of naturally occuring increased complexity, as evolution requires.

I'm sure better scientific terms could be used to put these ideas across, but please excuse me for expressing it as best I can.

Well, it does sound a little theological. In the terms you've framed it, both could be the case. Crystallisation is certainly spontaneous, but is also easier if seeded by some irregularity or other nucleation promoter. It also applies to a very wide range of substances - there are few things that will not crystallise. Even viruses crystallise!

To use your terms, only the exact form that a crystal takes is "a basic property" in the sense that it varies with the substance - however, many substances will form different crystalline structures in response to their environment (temperature, pressure, impurities), so even that would probably not be "basic" (perhaps "intrinsic" is a better word).

Your question does neatly illustrate the difficulty of using non-scientific language in relation to a scientific question - you presumably intend the two options to be mutually exclusive, but they need not be. Using your terminology, it would be possible to say that crystallisation is a spontaneous process, but that the forms a crystal may take are dictated by properties of the material, as well as environmental conditions.

On balance, "spontaneous". There is nothing intrinsic that forces a material to crystallise. However, this does not represent a decrease in entropy, except locally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

It’s one great enormous number – where you trying to work out the odds of producing the Human Genome using undirected processes, by any chance, Wicknight ??

No, since the human genome didn't arise out of an undirected process. It was directed by natural selection

This has been explained to you before. Are you refusing to acknowledge that fact that no theory of neo-darwin evolution suggests spontaious undirected formation of modern life? Or are you just dumb?

J C wrote:

Neither is a normal human eye fit for purpose if the purpose is driving nails into timber – what EXACTLY is your point, Wicknight?

My point is is that not only is the human eye not even as good a design amoung other known eye designs, it isn't even that good a design for what human use it for.

Your (rather pathetic) argument was that the human eye is a perfect design because it is perfectly suited to what humans eye our eyes for. That is complete nonsense.

Humans spend a significant amount of their time in artifically lit areas. We have to artificially light these areas because our eye balls are not designed to function properly in these areas. This is despite the fact that other eye designs, found in animals such as cats, are far better suited.

What, was God just stupid? Did He not realise that we would require night vision for significant amount of our waking day?

J C wrote:

BTW, I have no difficulty driving at night – I find that TURNING THE LIGHTS ON usually does the trick!!!!!:D

So you admit that your eyes are not at all designed for driving at night, and that for your own safety, and to even function in the first place, it is necessary for you to augment the normal light conditions with artifical light.

J C wrote:

Could I remind you that you are comparing ‘apples and oranges’ when you are comparing sugar and electricity production.

I'm comparing one system of converting sunlight into stored energy with another system of converting sunlight into stored energy.

And our design comes out top of Gods design.

How is that possible, unless God actually didn't design it.

It is rather irrelivent simply shifting the focus to another design, such as talking about how the leaf stores the energy.

To show that God was not the designer of these systems all I have to do is show one imperfect across the entire spectrum of life on Earth. I've already shown several. You can search for perfect designs in life, and I'm sure you will find them. Natural selection can produce perfect designs. But I've already got my imperfect designs. We have already ruled out God as a designer of life on Earth, since for God to be the designer everything would be perfect design.

J C wrote:

……yea, I’m sure that biotech firms are panicking about the next generation of biologists

You are correct, they are. The pool of talented individuals is one of the most important aspects of R&D. Why do you think so many American firms came to Ireland during the Celtic Tiger years. It was because of tax breaks and our education system.

If America raises a generation of biology scientists who are unaware of the process of evolution, and therefore don't know the first thing about how biology actually works, they are placing themselves out of the job market by bascially being too dumb or missinformed to work in the biotech industry.

"Diease is caused by the sins of man" isn't going to get you job in a biotech firm, because not only is it nonsense it also means you are ignorant of what does actually cause diease, and therefore are in no position to help fight these dieases.

J C wrote:

As I have already said, 40+ different eye designs are FULLY CONSISTENT with an independent CREATOR – but they are NOT consistent with COMMON EVOLUTIONARY DESCENT from a common ancestor (with ONE eye design)!!!

Neo-darwin evolution theory says that the directed process of natural select developes abilities that benefit the genetic carry. This largely happens independently of other evolutionary processes.

40+ eye designs developed because across the world natural selection developed them independently of each other.

It makes little sense for God to develop 40+ different eye designs independently of each other. Why not just give each animal the perfect eye for what they will be doing?

J C wrote:

Our wonderful Almighty God did give us the ability to see, by shining light into dark corners of both the spiritual and material varieties!!!:D

How is that the most efficent method of allowing us to function at night? It makes a lot more sense just to give us eyes that work better in low light conditions.

J C wrote:

I don’t know, but it may very well be one and the same Prof Dickerson!!!

Yes it is hard to understand who you are quoting when you simply life the quote from the pages of a Creationist website.

J C wrote:

…….whoever he was, he did say in ‘Chemical evolution and the origin of life’. Scientific American, vol. 239 (3), September 1978, pp. 77 and 78 that:-
“The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts…..
We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imaginations so far have not been very helpful.”

1978 :rolleyes: ... yes, maybe JC is you knew anything about Prof Dickerson you would know that since 1978 he has made significant procress in demonstrating evolution with "labortory models".

In 1978 Dickeron observed that the machinery for evolution was not properly modeled. He then spend the next 20 years modeling the machinery for evolution.

Hell JC, I mean if you are going to be this ridiculous why don't you just quote President Kennedy when he said no one has been to the moon in 1961 and use that quote of proof no one has been to the moon

J C wrote:

Goes to show that Christians don’t bear grudges and always turn the other cheek, doesn’t it!!!!:D

Doesn't stop him being right

J C wrote:

Anyway, to get back to your point on 3.504 E+35 possible cell divisions (i.e. possible individual genetic permutations) in a billion years.
It is a long way SHORT of the 10E+130 permutations required to just produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein – 10 E+95 permutations short TO BE EXACT !!!

Its not 3.504E+35

It is 40.0e+12 to the power of 3.504e+35

The 40.0e+12 is the number of individual cards, and the 3.504e+35 is the number of times in a billion years you rearrange those cards.

Which I think, and I'm not a totally up on my massive number theory, but that is a number approx 10 trillion trillion trillion times larger than your 10E+95 number

And that is before one assumes this has happened on 1 billion planets around the universe, or the fact that the development of life on Earth was not random at all, but was directed by natural selection, and observable (and very important) process in nature.

Look, my number is bigger than your number. I win :rolleyes:

Son Goku

Wicknight wrote:

Look, my number is bigger than your number. I win :rolleyes:

Around 4-6 decillion times larger, just to put things in perspective.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Around 4-6 decillion times larger, just to put things in perspective.

SPAM: You crave to have bigger statistics!!!

Boost your statistics to astonishing levels! Have you ever felt left out when other scientists compare their big numbers!?! Funding body unhappy with your intimate numbers!!!! Everything you need to feel a real Scientist!!!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Son Goku wrote:

Around 4-6 decillion times larger, just to put things in perspective.

LOL

I don't need a big number, I've a sports car!