The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

God doesn’t interfere with the free will of people – as it would remove our free will, if He did interfere.

Except when he is ordering the Israelites around .. :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

In a word YES.

Most Christians would disagree. Maybe you are wrong. Just a thought.

J C wrote:

Evolutionists seem to be happy to reduce God’s role in the origins of life to the point of practical non-existence.

Evolutionists study what actually happened. What actually happened is obviously what God actually did.

Creationists on the other hand ignore what actually happened, and cling to a description of what happened written in a book 3000 years ago by people living who knew nothing about science or the natural world.

Creationists choose to believe a book over what they can observe around them. They do this because they have rather confused ideas of what it means to be religious, and invest an unhealthy amount of personal needs in the belief that the Bible being literal and infailliable.

J C wrote:

However, the ultimate ORIGIN of all matter, energy and life as well as the natural laws themselves, can only be accounted for by a Transcendent, omnipotent and omniscient Entity

Evolution doesn't contradict that at all. If God exists evolution is how he made the life we see around us.

J C wrote:

Neither matter, energy or life could be produced using currently understood natural processes.

Now you are telling God what He could or could not do.

You are saying that God could not produce a natural process like evolution to ultimately make life. Is there not a law in your religion against telling God what he cannot do?

J C wrote:

The Big Bang attempts, but fails to explain how energy, time and matter originated

The Big Bang attempts nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:

Stop making things up JC.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Wicknight
The size of a ‘primitive’ Club Moss’ genome could be explained by an Intelligent Agent deliberately choosing a large genome

It certainly could be explained by a stupid intelligent agent deliberately choosing a large genome. But then one would imagine that if the intelligence can design life in the first place then it wouldn't make such a silly mistake.

J C wrote:

– whereas, if blind Evolutionary processes were at work, the relative size of the genome should be approximate to the relative sophistication of the organism.

Please detail the part of evolutionary theory that states that the size of a genome should related to the complexity of the organism.

(I will give you a hint. You won't be able to, because evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort :rolleyes:)

J C wrote:

Forty independent eye designs DON’T indicate a common descent as hypothesised by Evolution

You are right, they don't. Because evolution models that these species developing eyes INDEPENDENTLY of each other.

Do you actually understand what "common descent" means. Evolution does not state that all life on Earth descended from one species. Groan ... is this another part of evolution that needs to be explained to you? Exactly what books on Evolution have you read, since you claim to have read a lot.

J C wrote:

and the chances of EVEN ONE eye arising through undirected processes are so small as to be statistically impossible

EVOLUTION IS NOT AN UNDIRECTED PROCESS YOU IDIOT

Apologies for calling you an idiot. I personally don't think you are an idiot, I think you are a liar. But you see I'm not allowed call you a liar. So if one assumes that you aren't lying, then you must have genuinely not understood when it was explained to you about 150 times already why evolution is not an undirected process.

Since this was explained in quite plan language, over and over, one must assume that you just simply cannot understand even basic explanations of the theory of evolution. As such you aren't lying when you restate once again something completely false about evolution. You are just an idiot who doesn't get even the most basic explanation of what evolution is.

Of course the other option available is that you are simply barefaced lying, misrepresenting evolution on purpose in an attempt to confuse those reading this discussion in good faith, safe in the knowledge that the mods will call anyone up if they state that you are simply lying. So naturally I would not presume to state that you are lying. As such I'm left with only one other option, that you are just an idiot.

J C wrote:

What is ‘less efficient’ about either the Club Moss or the Human Genome??

The Club Moss is less efficent than a Human because you need more molecules to produce the DNA for club moss that is less complex that a human. If you know how to produce a human using a certain amount of molecules then it makes no sense to use more molecules to produce a much less complex species. That is a waste of resources.

If someone designed that THEY WERE STUPID. Is your god stupid?

I could write a computer sort function using 1000 lines of code, or I could use 10. Using 1000 would work just as well, but then why would I if I could just do exactly the same thing in 10 lines of code? And I'm not even a God.

J C wrote:

God certainly doesn’t lie

So you admit your last 10 points on how this was all done to confuse evolutionists were just nonsense ... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

To the Mods on this forum.

I don't really care that much if someone does or does not accept Evolution

I don't really care that much if someone does or does not accept the Big Bang

I don't really care that much if someone does or does not accept science in general.

But can we please put a stop to Creationists, or Creationist supporters, posting lies about what these different scientific theories do or do not say.

I call them "lies" rather than mistakes because I'm not talking about someone genuinely making an error. We all make mistakes, we all post things that we think is correct but that is then pointed out is not correct.

What I'm talking about is people repeatably posting errors or misrepresentations after it has been pointed out to them that they are incorrect about what a specific theory does or does not say.

You might not agree with what the theory says, you might think it is all nonsense. But don't, on purpose, misrepresent the theory just to make your position seem more acceptable.

I seriously doubt myself, or any of the regular posters here, would get away with stating over and over something as a Bible passage that isn't in the Bible.

I would not get away with saying over and over that the New Testament was written in 1679.

I would not get away with saying over and over that Jesus said "F**k the Jews" in John 8:14

It is ridiculous that those who support science here, and who are interested that the scientific theories are represented correctly, have to repeatably correct the same misrepresentations, the same lies, from the same posters over and over and over.

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

To the Mods on this forum.But can we please put a stop to Creationists, or Creationist supporters, posting lies about what these different scientific theories do or do not say.

Yes, we Mods could talk and come to agree that we should close the thread if that was what the majority wanted. I however, while I really do not agree with the creationist stance, do feel that this thread does do a lot of good for those christians that are troubled by the creationist interpretation. I believe that all who have contributed to setting the story strait should be commended for their patience and efforts, and the debate should rage on.
If you would like, we can run a pole to decide the best course of action.
I would say IMHO that life could get dull without our friends around to push us to new heights.:)

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

Yes, we Mods could talk and come to agree that we should close the thread if that was what the majority wanted. I however, while I really do not agree with the creationist stance, do feel that this thread does do a lot of good for those christians that are troubled by the creationist interpretation. I believe that all who have contributed to setting the story strait should be commended for their patience and efforts, and the debate should rage on.
If you would like, we can run a pole to decide the best course of action.
I would say IMHO that life could get dull without our friends around to push us to new heights.:)

No, I don't think my point was clear.

I have no issue with a Creationism vs Science debate.

This thread has raged for 200+ pages and hopefully it will rage for another 200. If anything it is somewhere where all the Creationism vs Science threads can come rather than every week a new thread opening.

But certain posters are simply lying about what is or is not in these scientific theories, and as such confusing those who come looking for answers to this thread. They are repeating lies about what the other side claims because it is easier to discredit their lie than what the other side actually claim

Take for example the repeated statement made by JC that evolution is an undirected process. Despite the fact that it has been explained to him numerous times that evolutionary theory does not describe an undirected process, he repeats this statement any change he can get.

Its not even that he is disagreeing with evolution, or saying it is wrong. He is actually saying it says something that it does not.

He knows this is incorrect because it has been pointed out to him many many times that evolutionary theory does not state this. Yet he repeats it when ever he can, and other posters appear to take what he states at face value.

A number of times various incorrect statements about theories such as evolution or the big bang being posted here and then picked up by other posters and repeated, with the follow on poster clearly not aware that what they are stating is incorrect.

This is very unfair to anyone actually trying to participate in this debate.

If I repeatably stated that there is a passage in Exodus that states Moses has sex with a group of children I would imagine the Christian and Jewish regulars here would get pretty annoyed at having to repeatable state that that simply isn't true. If after repeating that statement over and over other posters started picking up on it at face value and also posting that the Bible describes Moses raped kids I would imagine the annoyance would turn to anger that their holy book is being misrepresented and lied about.

Scofflaw

Good Heavens! If we ban Creationists from misrepresenting science, they won't have anything left to say. Their position requires misrepresentation of science.

It does get tedious constantly correcting the misrepresentations of science presented by JC, but only because he isn't coming up with any new ones.

It is also very difficult to definitively state that someone is lying about a scientific theory, unless the claims are outrageously false (which, admittedly, JC's often are). There is, at the end of the day, no definitive "text" of the theory of evolution - instead, there is an enormous body of research constantly growing and changing, with a million shadings and nuances. Virtually any summary of the theory is bound to misrepresent some part of it.

Nor is there any certain way of distinguishing actual mendacity from genuine stupidity.

No, I don't think we can keep JC from repeating ad nauseam his false claims. Instead, we should bear in mind that the principal characteristic of the lie is that if it is elaborated sufficiently it will always become self-contradictory.

In addition, the whole thread is there to read (assuming that someone has no life whatsoever, and has not decided on War and Peace as shorter and less baffling), so anyone can see, if they wish, where JC has denied something (like speciation, particularly in the sense of differentiation above the species level - originally included as "macro-evolution"), and later claimed it as being a fundamental part of his position all along.

I'll grant you that neither pointing out his contradictions, nor proving him wrong in matters of fact, make the slightest dent in JC's willingness to repeat his claims, but that's life.

I do, personally, draw the line at his claims to have studied every scientific subject, or to have read all the books ever written on evolution, but that's because these claims are essentially "pro hominem" claims made to lend authority to his arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. We cannot stop JC misinterpreting science, either wilfully or ignorantly, because that is the substance of his case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

Creationists on the other hand ignore what actually happened, and cling to a description of what happened written in a book 3000 years ago by people living who knew nothing about science or the natural world.

I’m sure that someone has probably linked this4 minute extract from a lecture by Ken Miller where he debunks intelligent design. I think he phrases his conclusion to this piece very well to make the point you are making.

How would Intelligent Design explain this? Only in one way. By shrugging and saying ‘That’s the way the Designer made it. No reason, no rhyme. Presumably there’s a Designer who designed human chromosome number 2 to make it look as if it was formed by the fusion from a primate ancestor.’

I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m a theist. In the broadest sense, I would say I believe in a Designer. But, you know what? I don’t believe in a deceptive one. I don’t believe in one that would do this to try to fool us and therefore I think this is authentic and it tells us something about our ancestors.

But I’m sure after 227 pages this kind of point has been made before.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
God doesn’t interfere with the free will of people – as it would remove our free will, if He did interfere

Wicknight
Except when he is ordering the Israelites around

In Old Testament times the world was under God’s judgement or law – and God did directly judge wrongdoing - with Noah’s Flood being the most obvious example.

Today the world is under Grace, and God is therefore reserving His judgement until after death and/or the end of the Church Era.

However, He does continue to intervene in the World by rewarding prayer and restraining evil – but without removing people’s free will in the process.:cool:


Wicknight
Evolutionists study what actually happened. What actually happened is obviously what God actually did.

…..but there is NO evidence that ‘big picture’ Evolution actually occurred – or that God produced life this way!!!!:D


Wicknight
You are saying that God could not produce a natural process like evolution to ultimately make life. Is there not a law in your religion against telling God what he cannot do?

Of course God COULD use Evolution to produce life.

However, He has said that He CREATED life – and all of the available evidence supports this assertion.

Evolution was originally invented by Atheists (who deny the existence of God) as a means of ‘airbrushing’ God out of the history of life on Earth!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
The Big Bang attempts, but fails to explain how energy, time and matter originated

Wicknight
The Big Bang attempts nothing of the sort.

Stop making things up JC.

OK Wicknight – you tell us WHAT the Big Bang attempts to explain ……
………….or are Atheists now admitting that they haven’t a clue how energy, time and matter originated………….
………….and that the Big Bang is just a ‘great big noise’ - in their collective imaginations!!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
if blind Evolutionary processes were at work, the relative size of the genome should be approximate to the relative sophistication of the organism

Wicknight
Please detail the part of evolutionary theory that states that the size of a genome should related to the complexity of the organism

Evolutionary Theory postulates that 'progress' from simple cells to Humans was made via random copying errors upon which NS acted over inordinate periods of time. As a scientist, I see no evidence that this could or did occur.

However, if we accept that Evolution occurred, for the sake of argument, then such a process, would have produced enormous levels of damaging changes as well as a lot of useless changes along with relatively few useful changes.
Therefore, the most sophisticated genomes (with supposedly the greatest amount of useful changes) would also be the genomes with the greatest amount of useless and damaging changes as well – you can’t have one without the other – unless you assume Intelligent interference to avoid the damaging / useless changes.

So, if Evolution is true, then both the ‘junk DNA’ and the ‘functional DNA’ content of the Human Genome should be the greatest of all of the genomes – and therefore the Human Genome should be the largest. This is not the case – yet the pCSI, sCSI and tCSI of Human Beings is by far the greatest in comparison with all other organisms – thereby proving the Intelligent Design of life – but NOT it’s undirected production via random processes.


Wicknight
I personally don't think you are an idiot, I think you are a liar. But you see I'm not allowed call you a liar. So if one assumes that you aren't lying, then you must have genuinely not understood when it was explained to you about 150 times already why evolution is not an undirected process.

I’m neither an idiot nor a liar – and I will not grace such un-parliamentary language and Ad Hominem remarks with any further comment.:rolleyes:

We certainly have a difference of opinion on the point about whether Evolution is ‘undirected’ or not.
On the one hand you reject the possibility of Intelligent Design, which COULD provide a basis for the 'direction' of an Evolutionary process.

On the other hand you claim that NS could account for the ‘direction’ of Evolution. However, you are hypothesising that one undirected process (mutation) could be purposefully ‘directed’ by another undirected process (Natural Selection) to produce 'directed' Evolution.
This amounts to an argument of ‘the blind leading the blind’ – and hoping vainly that what 'blind' copying errors couldn’t achieve on their own, would be ‘magically’ produced by the use of another ‘blind’ system like NS.

'Progress' under such a regime would rapidly grind to a halt due to the preponderance of damaging/useless mutations – and trying to select between individual ‘packages’ with all of them containing many deleterious traits - and very few useful ones, would prove to be an impossible task for NS – and such a situation would rapidly degenerate into a ‘race to the bottom’ towards simpler systems (with less to go wrong) rather than an ‘upwards’ evolution of increasing complexity and levels of organisation – which ‘muck to man’ or ‘big picture’ Evolution postulates.

In a world of predominantly bad mistakes, the organism that makes no/fewest mistakes and/or with the simplest systems will be the ultimate winner.

Any ‘mistake mechanism’ would therefore be selected AGAINST by Natural Selection and, in any event neither NS nor copying ERRORS shows any potential to account for the development of the COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION observed in life.

The reason that all manufacturing processes have sophisticated quality control systems to prevent mistakes, is because the range of possible mistakes is effectively infinite, while there are relatively few ways to produce a functional product.
Because the possibility for error is infinite it would be impossible to produce, even a simple product using a process that relied on random errors – and introducing a quality control mechanism (like NS) at the end of the production line would result in EVERY article produced, being rejected as functionally useless!!!!!

It also stands to reason that if you couldn’t produce a paper clip using a combination of random errors and a selection mechanism, then the infinitely more sophisticated mechanisms in living organisms couldn’t develop in this way either.

The Evolutionist’s proposal that random mistakes were ‘directed’ by NS is akin to allowing a paper clip production line to go randomly ‘haywire’ – and then rely on a misfortunate Quality Controller to sort out the mess by ‘binning’ the useless stuff coming off the production line.
The Controller, in such a scenario, would have to ‘bin’ ALL of the stuff coming off the line – because it ALL would be functionally useless!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
The Club Moss is less efficent than a Human because you need more molecules to produce the DNA for club moss that is less complex that a human. If you know how to produce a human using a certain amount of molecules then it makes no sense to use more molecules to produce a much less complex species. That is a waste of resources.

God is a God of abundance - so "He doesn't do 'waste'"!!!:D

Life is gloriously abundant in all of it’s aspects – just look at the millions of sperm, for example, that are produced to fertilise one egg!!
If Evolution were true, then such an inordinate ‘waste’ of resources would have been selected against and wouldn’t now exist.

God has always desired that we might prosper and have life in abundance – and the abundance of the Club Moss Genome and the male ejaculate are perfect illustrations of God’s abundance in action!!!!:D


Wicknight
I could write a computer sort function using 1000 lines of code, or I could use 10. Using 1000 would work just as well, but then why would I if I could just do exactly the same thing in 10 lines of code? And I'm not even a God.

A more correct analogy would be storing 1,000 lines of code on a 4.5 GB DVD or on a 700 MB CD.

Would I care which medium I used - and would either option use any more resources in terms of the volume of plastic used?

The answer is NO in both cases – ditto for God with the Club Moss Genome!!


Wicknight
What I'm talking about is people repeatably posting errors or misrepresentations after it has been pointed out to them that they are incorrect about what a specific theory does or does not say.

What ARE these repeatedly posted ‘errors’ to which you refer?

As the Theory of Evolution is itself erroneous, with no evidential or logical support for it’s assertions, it is to be expected that it’s fallacies will be highlighted in a debate such as is currently underway on this thread!!!


Wicknight
can we please put a stop to Creationists, or Creationist supporters, posting lies about what these different scientific theories do or do not say

I have posted no lies – all I have posted are scientifically verifiable facts and robust irrefutable arguments.
I don’t claim infallibility – and I’m sure that you will highlight any mistakes that I may make as a Scientist and fallible Human Being!!!


Wicknight
Take for example the repeated statement made by JC that evolution is an undirected process. Despite the fact that it has been explained to him numerous times that evolutionary theory does not describe an undirected process………………..

But Materialistic Evolution IS an undirected process – because it’s supposed independent mechanism of mutation is undirected – and it’s dependent mechanism of NS is also undirected and can only select from (undirected) mutations – and so the entire process is therefore, er...undirected.:eek:

Which part of 'undirected' do you not understand???:D

Ken Millar as quoted by Schuhart
I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m a theist. In the broadest sense, I would say I believe in a Designer. But, you know what? I don’t believe in a deceptive one. I don’t believe in one that would do this to try to fool us and therefore I think this is authentic and it tells us something about our ancestors.

If Mr Millar is a Roman Catholic, then he would hold as An Article of Faith that God is CREATOR and MAKER of Heaven and Earth and all life therein – and he would proclaim this belief every Sunday in the Apostles or Nicene Creeds!!!

BTW, where is the deception in ID? ………….
………all life is OBVIOUSLY Intelligently Designed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
……………..and the quality of the design is such as to be of God!!!

In fact St Paul confirms that the power of God is so manifestly expressed in created things, that anybody who denies it will be without excuse :-
Rom 1:20 “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (KJV).

Son Goku

J C wrote:

God has always desired that we might prosper and have life in abundance – and the abundance of the Club Moss Genome and the male ejaculate are perfect illustrations of God’s abundance in action!!!!:D

I am now officially in love with this thread.

robindch

> Evolution was originally invented by Atheists as a means of ‘airbrushing’ God out of the history of life on Earth!!!

Aye, aye, Cap'n! And gravity wells were invented to airbrush out all those heavy guardian angels which have to sit on people's shoulders all the time to keep them from floating off into space!

I think I'm getting the hang of this creationism lark.

> He does continue to intervene in the World by rewarding prayer [...]

But don't forget that god will only help you if you don't check to see if he's listening! Remember that nice Templeton study which conclusively showed that god didn't cure people who were being prayed for. In fact, it's worse: if people knew they were being prayed for, then they suffered significantly more than those who weren't! A listening, loving god? The facts would suggest he listens, but only so that he can work out who to clout!

> [...] and restraining evil – but without removing people’s free will in the process.

Quite a trick -- he restrains people without restraining them. Could you tell us how he manages that?

Schuhart

J C wrote:

He does continue to intervene in the World by rewarding prayer and restraining evil – but without removing people’s free will in the process.:cool:

I’ll be sorry for asking, but how exactly does this work?

J C wrote:

God has always desired that we might prosper and have life in abundance – and the abundance of the Club Moss Genome and the male ejaculate are perfect illustrations of God’s abundance in action!!!!:D

I’m quite overcome.

J C wrote:

If Mr Millar is a Roman Catholic, then he would hold as An Article of Faith that God is CREATOR and MAKER of Heaven and Earth and all life therein – and he would loudly proclaim this belief every Sunday in the Apostles or Nicene Creeds!!!

I suppose it would be out of the question to point out that those formulations would have been made at a time when the only reasonable explanation for the sun rising in the morning was probably that God wound up some celestial clockwork mechanism.

During the ‘golden age’ of Islamic science all those centuries ago, astronomers calculated that God’s throne was 120 million miles from Earth. That’s how people saw things then. Now we can put God on a throne 15 billion years ago, and make a plausible effort at explaining everything that happened from a bare instant after that initial start. People like Ken Miller don’t see a problem in recognising both that reality and continuing to value the spiritual truths contained in those religious texts.

J C wrote:

BTW, where is the deception in ID?

You’ll notice that the point of difference between you and Ken Miller is not about the ultimate cause of creation. It’s that you believe that God wants to deceive us by leaving things lying around that suggest the world is very old and we share an ancestry with apes. He believes that spiritual truth does not conflict with accepting the evidence of our own senses about the age of the world and our origins in it. His full lecture is here. Two hours long, but I found the time passed quickly.

J C

Son Goku wrote:

I am now officially in love with this thread.

.......and I'm sure that this thread 'loves you back' as well!!!!:D

J C

Originally Posted by JC
God also continues to reward prayer and restrain evil – but without removing people’s free will in the process.

Schuhart
I’ll be sorry for asking, but how exactly does this work?

By granting peoples prayerful requests and by restraining Satan and his minions!!!!:cool:


Originally Posted by J C
God has always desired that we might prosper and have life in abundance – and the abundance of the Club Moss Genome and the male ejaculate are perfect illustrations of God’s abundance in action!!!!

Shuhuhart
I’m quite overcome.

Eh em….Quite!!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
If Mr Millar is a Roman Catholic, then he would hold as An Article of Faith that God is CREATOR and MAKER of Heaven and Earth and all life therein – and he would proclaim this belief every Sunday in the Apostles or Nicene Creeds!!!

Schuhart
I suppose it would be out of the question to point out that those formulations would have been made at a time when the only reasonable explanation for the sun rising in the morning was probably that God wound up some celestial clockwork mechanism.

…….but the point is that the Nicene and Apostles Creeds still remain mandatory Articles of Faith for all Roman Catholics – and therefore all Roman Catholics proclaim their belief that God is CREATOR and MAKER of Heaven and Earth and all life therein, every Sunday!!!:cool:


Schuhart
You’ll notice that the point of difference between you and Ken Miller is not about the ultimate cause of creation. It’s that you believe that God wants to deceive us by leaving things lying around that suggest the world is very old and we share an ancestry with apes. He believes that spiritual truth does not conflict with accepting the evidence of our own senses about the age of the world and our origins in it.

But there is nothing lying around that suggests that the Earth is very old or that we are descended from Ape ancestors or indeed the ancestors of Apes!!:D

There are no ‘missing links’ between Mankind and any other organisms – and the following is a list of some literature which indicates a very young Earth indeed:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp


Schuhart
During the ‘golden age’ of Islamic science all those centuries ago, astronomers calculated that God’s throne was 120 million miles from Earth. That’s how people saw things then.

Christians have always believed that God is omnipresent in both space and time!!!!


Schuhart
Now we can put God on a throne 15 billion years ago, and make a plausible effort at explaining everything that happened from a bare instant after that initial start.

But God is a doubly ETERNAL Being who is on His throne right here, right NOW!!!:D

………..and the Big Bang and ‘big picture’ Evolution are amongst the most IMPLAUSIBLE ideas that I have ever heard!!!:D

Schuhart

J C wrote:

By granting peoples prayerful requests and by restraining Satan and his minions!!!!:cool:

I don’t see how granting prayerful requests is consistent with non-interference with free will. Incidently, did he give Satan and his minions free will?

J C wrote:

…….but the point is that the Nicene and Apostles Creeds still remain mandatory Articles of Faith for all Roman Catholics – and therefore all Roman Catholics proclaim their belief that God is CREATOR and MAKER of Heaven and Earth and all life therein, every Sunday!!!:cool:

The point is also that many of the people in the audience just recite those words out of rote, but even if they took the time to reflect on them they don’t see them as inconsistent with evolution being the mechanism through which life was created.

J C wrote:

But there is nothing lying around that suggests that the Earth is very old or that we are descended from Ape ancestors or indeed the ancestors of Apes!!:D

If you invest four minutes of your life in watching the extract from Ken Miller’s lecture, you’ll discover one of the pieces of evidence that we share a common ancestry with apes. Apart from that, I think Theodosius Dobzhansky’s article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution eloquently addresses your desire to pretend that the Earth is a few thousand years old

One can suppose that the Creator saw fit to play deceitful tricks on geologists and biologists. He carefully arranged to have various rocks provided with isotope ratios just right to mislead us into thinking that certain rocks are 2 billion years old, others 2 million, which in fact they are only some 6,000 years old. This kind of pseudo-explanation is not very new. One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos ("the Navel"). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now – a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.

Son Goku

Schuhart wrote:

Apart from that, I think Theodosius Dobzhansky’s article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution eloquently addresses your desire to pretend that the Earth is a few thousand years old

Good essay, particularly for pointing out that evolution is not a theory of how life developed but a core principle in those theories.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Evolutionists study what actually happened. What actually happened is obviously what God actually did.

…..but there is NO evidence that ‘big picture’ Evolution actually occurred – or that God produced life this way!!!!:D

As we keep having to say - yes there is, and pretending that there isn't doesn't change that. Simply constantly repeating that there isn't doesn't improve your case either...

J C wrote:

Wicknight
You are saying that God could not produce a natural process like evolution to ultimately make life. Is there not a law in your religion against telling God what he cannot do?

Of course God COULD use Evolution to produce life.

However, He has said that He CREATED life – and all of the available evidence supports this assertion.

Evolution was originally invented by Atheists (who deny the existence of God) as a means of ‘airbrushing’ God out of the history of life on Earth!!!:eek:

This is factually incorrect. Evolutionary theory essentially started with Darwin - who wasn't an atheist. It continued with the work of many others - who weren't atheists either. Most scientists are, and have been throughout the history of science, religious.

Yes, evolution gives atheists an explanation of how we came to be here that doesn't require God. However: (a) Christians also accept it; (b) some atheists don't accept it; (c) the atheistic Soviet Union did not accept it.

The connection between acceptance of evolution and atheism is therefore neither necessary nor complete.

JC wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The Big Bang attempts, but fails to explain how energy, time and matter originated

Wicknight
The Big Bang attempts nothing of the sort.

Stop making things up JC.

OK Wicknight – you tell us WHAT the Big Bang attempts to explain ……
………….or are Atheists now admitting that they haven’t a clue how energy, time and matter originated………….
………….and that the Big Bang is just a ‘great big noise’ - in their collective imaginations!!!!:eek:

I think the word you're looking for here is "physicists", not "atheists". Unless you assume that all scientists are atheists, which of course would be an interesting assumption on your part.

JC wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
if blind Evolutionary processes were at work, the relative size of the genome should be approximate to the relative sophistication of the organism

Wicknight
Please detail the part of evolutionary theory that states that the size of a genome should related to the complexity of the organism

Evolutionary Theory postulates that 'progress' from simple cells to Humans was made via random copying errors upon which NS acted over inordinate periods of time. As a scientist, I see no evidence that this could or did occur.

Once again - what kind of scientist? You have repeatedly demonstrated an almost complete misunderstanding of most areas of science, yet you persist with this claim to be a scientist.

Come clean, JC - you're an Ag.

JC wrote:

However, if we accept that Evolution occurred, for the sake of argument, then such a process, would have produced enormous levels of damaging changes as well as a lot of useless changes along with relatively few useful changes.

No. Most mutations are neither damaging nor beneficial - they are neutral. For heaven's sake, the mutation rate in humans (and other organisms) is well -established by observation. The average mutation rate is 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation (here, top abstract). If you were correct in your assertion that there are more harmful changes than neutral (and yes, this is what your assertion above is), then we would be riddled with harmful mutations.

JC wrote:

Therefore, the most sophisticated genomes (with supposedly the greatest amount of useful changes) would also be the genomes with the greatest amount of useless and damaging changes as well – you can’t have one without the other – unless you assume Intelligent interference to avoid the damaging / useless changes.

What rubbish. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how natural selection operates to cull damaging mutations. The reduction of the organism's fitness results in fewer, less viable offspring, and so on, until that mutation disappears. The more deadly the mutation, the faster this happens - in extremis, it would be immediate.

In addition, you are assuming an unproven link between sophistication of the genome and quantity of mutations. You are also about to say something really stupid.

JC wrote:

So, if Evolution is true, then both the ‘junk DNA’ and the ‘functional DNA’ content of the Human Genome should be the greatest of all of the genomes – and therefore the Human Genome should be the largest. This is not the case – yet the pCSI, sCSI and tCSI of Human Beings is by far the greatest in comparison with all other organisms – thereby proving the Intelligent Design of life – but NOT it’s undirected production via random processes.

And now you have moved on to make the further unwarranted assumption that humanity are genetically the best organisms on earth.

The really stupid thing you have said, of course, is that accumulation of mutations = accumulation of genetic material. That, even for you, is actually remarkable.

If we "mutate" all the letters of the word ASS, we don't wind up with a longer word, we wind up with a different word of the same length, like YEC. Do you see now how that works.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
I personally don't think you are an idiot, I think you are a liar. But you see I'm not allowed call you a liar. So if one assumes that you aren't lying, then you must have genuinely not understood when it was explained to you about 150 times already why evolution is not an undirected process.

I’m neither an idiot nor a liar – and I will not grace such un-parliamentary language and Ad Hominem remarks with any further comment.:rolleyes:

I've said this before. If you are lying, that is not an ad hominem , because you are using "facts" to support your argument. If you are lying, then your facts are very suspect.

Personally, I disagree with Wicknight on his initial opinion there.

JC wrote:

We certainly have a difference of opinion on the point about whether Evolution is ‘undirected’ or not.
On the one hand you reject the possibility of Intelligent Design, which COULD provide a basis for the 'direction' of an Evolutionary process.

On the other hand you claim that NS could account for the ‘direction’ of Evolution. However, you are hypothesising that one undirected process (mutation) could be purposefully ‘directed’ by another undirected process (Natural Selection) to produce 'directed' Evolution.
This amounts to an argument of ‘the blind leading the blind’ – and hoping vainly that what 'blind' copying errors couldn’t achieve on their own, would be ‘magically’ produced by the use of another ‘blind’ system like NS.

All you have proven is that you don't understand Natural Selection.

I'll give you an example of how the interaction between organisms operates to provide selection - that there are no giraffes in rain forests. Instead, there is a relative of the giraffe called an okapi, which has a short neck. Why? Well, because there's no understorey in a rain forest. Trees grow to great heights, in competition for sunlight - which puts the leaves out of reach of even giraffes. There are, however, leaves available at and around ground level.

Now, mutation might give you a shorter or a longer neck. On the savannah, trees grow to a limited height (because they are not in fierce competition for sunlight), so the long neck is an advantage. In the rainforest, it isn't. Giraffe -> savannah -> long neck. Okapi -> rainforest -> short neck.

JC wrote:

'Progress' under such a regime would rapidly grind to a halt due to the preponderance of damaging/useless mutations – and trying to select between individual ‘packages’ with all of them containing many deleterious traits - and very few useful ones, would prove to be an impossible task for NS – and such a situation would rapidly degenerate into a ‘race to the bottom’ towards simpler systems (with less to go wrong) rather than an ‘upwards’ evolution of increasing complexity and levels of organisation – which ‘muck to man’ or ‘big picture’ Evolution postulates.

Again - no, evolution doesn't postulate this "upwards" evolution. You nearly had it last time, but then you realised that if there was no "up" in evolution, there was no "on top" to put humans on.

I really think your essential problem with evolution is that of the child who cannot bear to be told they are not "automatically the best", the "most beloved", the favourite.

JC wrote:

In a world of predominantly bad mistakes, the organism that makes no/fewest mistakes and/or with the simplest systems will be the ultimate winner.

That would be the case, were it the case. It isn't. This is not a "world of predominantly bad mistakes", JC - that is Fall theology talking.

JC wrote:

Any ‘mistake mechanism’ would therefore be selected AGAINST by Natural Selection and, in any event neither NS nor copying ERRORS shows any potential to account for the development of the COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION observed in life.

So far, JC, nothing could possibly do so - because you refuse to define what this "Complex Specified Information" actually is, or how it is measured, or indeed do anything but repeat the phrase when everything factual is against you.

JC wrote:

The reason that all manufacturing processes have sophisticated quality control systems to prevent mistakes, is because the range of possible mistakes is effectively infinite, while there are relatively few ways to produce a functional product.

When you define the result, this is the case. Notice, however, that is completely untrue in the creative process (ironic, eh?), where mistakes are sometimes the greatest successes.

JC wrote:

Because the possibility for error is infinite it would be impossible to produce, even a simple product using a process that relied on random errors – and introducing a quality control mechanism (like NS) at the end of the production line would result in EVERY article produced, being rejected as functionally useless!!!!!

Assuming all you ever wanted to do was produce identical paper-clips, this would indeed be the case.

JC wrote:

It also stands to reason that if you couldn’t produce a paper clip using a combination of random errors and a selection mechanism, then the infinitely more sophisticated mechanisms in living organisms couldn’t develop in this way either.

The Evolutionist’s proposal that random mistakes were ‘directed’ by NS is akin to allowing a paper clip production line to go randomly ‘haywire’ – and then rely on a misfortunate Quality Controller to sort out the mess by ‘binning’ the useless stuff coming off the production line.
The Controller, in such a scenario, would have to ‘bin’ ALL of the stuff coming off the line – because it ALL would be functionally useless!!!!:eek:

Which is where you run into a problem, because the job of life is not to produce paperclips.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
The Club Moss is less efficent than a Human because you need more molecules to produce the DNA for club moss that is less complex that a human. If you know how to produce a human using a certain amount of molecules then it makes no sense to use more molecules to produce a much less complex species. That is a waste of resources.

God is a God of abundance - so "He doesn't do 'waste'"!!!:D

Life is gloriously abundant in all of it’s aspects – just look at the millions of sperm, for example, that are produced to fertilise one egg!!
If Evolution were true, then such an inordinate ‘waste’ of resources would have been selected against and wouldn’t now exist.

God has always desired that we might prosper and have life in abundance – and the abundance of the Club Moss Genome and the male ejaculate are perfect illustrations of God’s abundance in action!!!!:D

In effect, you've just redefined "waste" by calling it "abundance". I admire your abundant confidence in doing so, but I won't comment on what your example reveals about your psycho-sexual nature, except to say that it probably fits with my hypothesis as to why you reject evolution in the first place.

Interestingly, it also fits with my hypothesis as to what kind of scientist you are.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
I could write a computer sort function using 1000 lines of code, or I could use 10. Using 1000 would work just as well, but then why would I if I could just do exactly the same thing in 10 lines of code? And I'm not even a God.

A more correct analogy would be storing 1,000 lines of code on a 4.5 GB DVD or on a 700 MB CD.

No, it wouldn't, in any respect. Wicknight's analogy works because we have a defined effect to produce - club moss - and the production of it in x lines of code.

Your analogy, on the other hand, implies that humans and club mosses contain the same amount of "functional code" (the 1000 lines), and that the genome is simply the storage mechanism (the DVD or CD). I suspect that this is the opposite of what you mean to imply, but there we go - like I said, I disagree with Wicknight.

JC wrote:

Would I care which medium I used - and would either option use any more resources in terms of the volume of plastic used?

The answer is NO in both cases – ditto for God with the Club Moss Genome!!

And one wonders if you even understand how data storage works, or why the same volume of plastic can hold different amounts of data....certainly you appear to be implying that the DNA of humans and club mosses actually have different data storage densities.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
What I'm talking about is people repeatably posting errors or misrepresentations after it has been pointed out to them that they are incorrect about what a specific theory does or does not say.

What ARE these repeatedly posted ‘errors’ to which you refer?

Well, most of the post I'm replying to...

JC wrote:

As the Theory of Evolution is itself erroneous, with no evidential or logical support for it’s assertions, it is to be expected that it’s fallacies will be highlighted in a debate such as is currently underway on this thread!!!

Dear oh dear. 1/10. See comments above.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
can we please put a stop to Creationists, or Creationist supporters, posting lies about what these different scientific theories do or do not say

I have posted no lies – all I have posted are scientifically verifiable facts and robust irrefutable arguments.
I don’t claim infallibility – and I’m sure that you will highlight any mistakes that I may make as a Scientist and fallible Human Being!!!

Well, you see, they stop being "mistakes" when they are "facts" that are scientifically verifiable as wrong, as many of your "facts" are, and that you insist on repeating as true.

You never admit that your facts are wrong - but we can tell that you know they are, because you will often, in a later post, proclaim the correct facts as if you had never proclaimed the false ones. A good example is your initial denial that frame shift mutation actually happens (as per the nylon-digesting enzyme mutation), followed by your claim of frame shift mutations as one of the driving mechanisms behind post-Flood rapid speciation. To allow you to make this shift, you invented the idea that the genome dictated how frame shift mutations could occur, since otherwise you would have had to admit that new information had been added to the genome in question.

An equally good example is your initial denial that speciation/divergence occurred above the species level. You now also claim that this is obviously true, and indeed predicted by Creation scientists...

JC wrote:

Wicknight
Take for example the repeated statement made by JC that evolution is an undirected process. Despite the fact that it has been explained to him numerous times that evolutionary theory does not describe an undirected process………………..

But Materialistic Evolution IS an undirected process – because it’s supposed independent mechanism of mutation is undirected – and it’s dependent mechanism of NS is also undirected and can only select from (undirected) mutations – and so the entire process is therefore, er...undirected.:eek:

Which part of 'undirected' do you not understand???:D

Certainly we seem to have different definitions of it. Yours, I think, means "not directed by an intelligence", whereas ours means "random in effect". You conflate the two, because you believe they are the same thing. unfortunately, this is what you are supposed to be proving, so it doesn't do to simply assume it...

JC wrote:

BTW, where is the deception in ID? ………….
………all life is OBVIOUSLY Intelligently Designed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
……………..and the quality of the design is such as to be of God!!!

Heck, I couldn't say....wait...doesn't ID claim to be non-religious! Perhaps that's it!

JC wrote:

In fact St Paul confirms that the power of God is so manifestly expressed in created things, that anybody who denies it will be without excuse :-
Rom 1:20 “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (KJV).

It should occur to you at this point that what God made might be what is studied by science, and that therefore you are "without excuse" in your denial of what is observed to be His work. It won't, of course, which is a good thing, since you often make me laugh.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

(c) the atheistic Soviet Union did not accept it.

Have you any links giving background to this (I'm just curious, as I didn't know this.)

Scofflaw wrote:

I won't comment on what your example reveals about your psycho-sexual nature, except to say that it probably fits with my hypothesis as to why you reject evolution in the first place.

Science demands that you share this hypothesis.

Son Goku

JC wrote:

The Big Bang attempts, but fails to explain how energy, time and matter originated

You are lying again.
The Big Bang is an attempt to explain how the universe evolved from shortly after electroweak symmetry breaking to the point before galaxy formation.

After this galaxy formation is treated with Linear General Relativity, which is a separate theory.

It does not attempt to explain how energy, time and matter originated.
(Predicted response: Yes, it fails miserably:eek: )

You would be better served giving an attempt at a rebuttal rather than talking nonsense.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

– or that God produced life this way!!!!:D

If one assumes God produced life on Earth then evolution is how he did it because evolution is how life developed on Earth. Its pretty simply JC.

J C wrote:

However, He has said that He CREATED life

He hasn't said how he did anything. Some people who lived in the desert 3000 years ago wrote a book (a few actually) on how they think He did it. That is a bit of difference.

J C wrote:

– and all of the available evidence supports this assertion.

No, actually none of the evidence supports this assertion. In fact all the evidence contradicts this assertion. You yourself have admitted as such, yet you explain this away as God wanting to screw with us, wanting to deceive us so he can laugh as us trying to figure it out. Which is a bit of a weak theory, even for you JC :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Evolution was originally invented by Atheists (who deny the existence of God) as a means of ‘airbrushing’ God out of the history of life on Earth!!!

Evolution is an observable, verifiable, natural process. It wasn't invented by anyone (except God if one assumes he created life on Earth).

J C wrote:

OK Wicknight – you tell us WHAT the Big Bang attempts to explain

The Big Bang theory attempts to model the first moments of the universe. It is completely silent on what happened before this.

J C wrote:

or are Atheists now admitting that they haven’t a clue how energy, time and matter originated

Scientists, atheist or theist, have always admitted that.

J C wrote:

………….and that the Big Bang is just a ‘great big noise’

Noise is a series of pressure waves that travel through a solid, gas or liquid that cause vibrations in the inner ear of animals. The Big Bang was not "noise"

J C wrote:

As a scientist, I see no evidence that this could or did occur.

Well you aren't a scientists, so that might explain why you don't ... :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Therefore, the most sophisticated genomes (with supposedly the greatest amount of useful changes)

No, no, no, no, no :rolleyes:

Seriously what books on evolution did you read? Please list them. Where they all Creationist by any chance?

The most "sophisticated" genomes (I assume you mean genome that produces the most complex organisms) are not necessarilary the ones with the most amount of useful mutation. That has never been a stated output of evolution. If you understood evolution you would understand that.

How many mutations you have is not as important as what the mutations do. A species with 1,000,000 successful mutations can be less sophisticated than a species with 10. Bacteria mutation very quickly, yet compared to humans are not nearly as complex.

It is quite clear that you still don't understand what the theory of neo-darwin biological evolution states. This is surprising because this has been explained to you before a number of times. In fact I think I told you that in my posts a few days ago that the number of mutations is largely irrelivent.

I understand science can be a bit complex, but this is quite simple really. Please try and keep up :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

We certainly have a difference of opinion on the point about whether Evolution is ‘undirected’ or not.

There isn't a "difference of opinion" JC. The theory of evolution does not describe an undirected process. If you don't realise that it is because you have not bothered to actually read what the theory of evolution does actually describe.

J C wrote:

On the one hand you reject the possibility of Intelligent Design, which COULD provide a basis for the 'direction' of an Evolutionary process.

I reject that intelligent design actually happened. But at least I bothered to go read up on what intelligent design actually says. You still don't seem to have a clue about what the theory of evolution actually says. Either that or you are pretending you don't, which I suppose it equally likely.

J C wrote:

On the other hand you claim that NS could account for the ‘direction’ of Evolution.

Natural selection is a directed process. You can claim it doesn't happen in nature (which is a bit silly because it has been observed and studied), but the theory describes a directed process. If it wasn't a directed process it wouldn't be called "natural selection"

Natural Selection is the direction in evolution. It doesn't account for it, it is it.

There is no Neo-darwin evolutionary theory without natural selection :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

However, you are hypothesising that one undirected process (mutation) could be purposefully ‘directed’ by another undirected process (Natural Selection) to produce 'directed' Evolution.

There is no non-directed Neo-darwinian evolution. Neo-darwinian evolution is directed evolution. That is the whole freaking point JC :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

This amounts to an argument of ‘the blind leading the blind’ – and hoping vainly that what 'blind' copying errors couldn’t achieve on their own, would be ‘magically’ produced by the use of another ‘blind’ system like NS.

ARE YOU SERIOUS???? ARE YOU ACTUALLY SERIOUS?????

You must be trolling at this point, seriously you must be trolling.

Natural selection does not produce anything. It selects what has already been produced by mutation. The hint is in the bloody name!!! Natural SELECTION

Mutation produces changes. Natural selection selects those changes that produce benefit for the organism based on how the environment interacts with the mutation changes. That is the direction. It is that simple.

This is like talking to a 5 year old who every 10 minutes forgets where he is or what we were talking about.

READ A BOOK, ANY BOOK, ON EVOLUTION JC, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!

J C wrote:

'Progress' under such a regime would rapidly grind to a halt due to the preponderance of damaging/useless mutations

That is EXACTLY what natural selection prevents from happening. Useless or damaging mutations are NOT SELECTED!!!

This is the FUNDAMENTAL point of neo-darwinian evolution.

J C wrote:

In a world of predominantly bad mistakes, the organism that makes no/fewest mistakes and/or with the simplest systems will be the ultimate winner.

There is NO WINNER!!! ... (bangs head against wall)

The evolution is blind to how other species are evolving. The evolution of one species is not aware of if some other species has figured out a better way of doing something. It isn't a race :rolleyes:

The only thing evolution cares about is if the mutation that just happened produces any form of benefit for the organism. It is a "blind" process, as you yourelf keep saying over and over. It cannot plan ahead, it cannot seek out a specific goal, and it certainly cannot win anything.

J C wrote:

The reason that all manufacturing processes have sophisticated quality control systems to prevent mistakes, is because the range of possible mistakes is effectively infinite, while there are relatively few ways to produce a functional product.

That is why you need natural selection directing the process. If you didn't have natural selection nothing would evolve because the useless or damaging mutations far out weight the number of benefital ones.

J C wrote:

Because the possibility for error is infinite it would be impossible to produce, even a simple product using a process that relied on random errors

That isn't true at all. pH has already demonstrated a computer program that can model the evolution of an English sentence using random errors and selection based on fitness, just like evolution works in the real world.

J C wrote:

– and introducing a quality control mechanism (like NS) at the end of the production line would result in EVERY article produced, being rejected as functionally useless

It is only rejected if it does not provide benefit to the organism. If it does provide benefit, which is determined by the environment, then it is "selected" over the following generations.

J C wrote:

The Evolutionist’s proposal that random mistakes were ‘directed’ by NS is akin to allowing a paper clip production line to go randomly ‘haywire’

No actually it isn't like that AT ALL :rolleyes:

Neither mechanisms for mutation nor natural selection are in place in a paper clip factor, so how the feck would you expect evolution to happen there too.

That is like saying if a paper clip factory cannot produce an F-15 jet fighter then it must be impossible for any production line to produce an F-15 jet fighter.

Nonsense, utter nonsense :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

God is a God of abundance - so "He doesn't do 'waste'"!!!:D

That rules out Intelligent Design then, since life is full of waste.

J C wrote:

Life is gloriously abundant in all of it’s aspects – just look at the millions of sperm, for example, that are produced to fertilise one egg!!

Thank you, more evidence against Intelligent Design. You are on a roll JC, keep going ...

J C wrote:

If Evolution were true, then such an inordinate ‘waste’ of resources would have been selected against and wouldn’t now exist.

No actually it wouldn't have, because it still works And if it works that is good enough for evolution.

As I said, I could write a sort algorithm in 1000 lines of code, or one that does the same thing in 10. Evolution would have no problem with the 1000 lines of code because it still works, and evolution being blind it doesn't even know that you could do it in 10 lines of code.

But God certainly should, so it makes little sense to suppose that God would choose to use 1000 lines of code, when he should know that 10 would do the same thing.

Evolution is the only explanation for this. Evolution is not aware of anything except what works. If it works that is good enough for evolution. If by random mutation it works a bit better that is good too. But there is no plan to get to a specific point of efficency.

But with ID it must not only work, it should also work as well as it can. It is designed after all by intelligence. Since most of life only works, it certainly doesn't work as well as it possibly can, this rules out Intelligent Design.

J C wrote:

God has always desired that we might prosper and have life in abundance – and the abundance of the Club Moss Genome and the male ejaculate are perfect illustrations of God’s abundance in action!!!!:D

Wow ... that was pathetic word play, even for you JC

Waste & inefficency really equals abundance. Abundance is good. Therefore all the waste found in life is actually good ... oh now I see :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

A more correct analogy would be storing 1,000 lines of code on a 4.5 GB DVD or on a 700 MB CD.

No, actually JC I think I will stick with mine. 1,000 lines of code that does the same as 10 lines of code.

You expect people to believe that your perfect intelligence would pick the former over the latter. Why in Gods name (pardon the pun) would He choose to do that? Is he stupid or something?

J C wrote:

What ARE these repeatedly posted ‘errors’ to which you refer?

- The Big Bang describes what happened before the universe came into existence - WRONG

- Neo-Darwinian evolution describes a undirected process - WRONG

- Neo-Darwinian Evolution states that the more complex an organism the more benefitial mutations it should have in it's genome. - WRONG

That is just this post ... I can get back to you with more if you like being more humiliated ....

J C wrote:

As the Theory of Evolution is itself erroneous

As I think I've said before, your posts suggest you couldn't possibly know that, since you seem to have no clue what the theory of evolution actually says.

J C wrote:

with no evidential or logical support for it’s assertions

You can keep stating that JC, doesn't make that statement any more true. Evolution is an observable process. You can watch it happening.

J C wrote:

I have posted no lies

Yes actually, you have. When you repeatably stated something that is in fact not true (a few things actually) after being informed of this fact you continue to post it. What is that if not lying.

J C wrote:

But Materialistic Evolution IS an undirected process

"Materialistic evolution" is a nonsense term coined by Creationists

The theory of neo-darwin biological evolution does not describe an undirected process. The process described is directed by natural selection. That is a fundamental core of the theory. If you don't get that point then it is clear you don't get what the theory of neo-darwin biological evolution describes.

This then makes a mockery of your claim that you have actually read many books on this subject.

J C wrote:

and it’s dependent mechanism of NS is also undirected

Groan ... natural selection is not undirected. Natural selection is directed by the environment. It could not possibly work otherwise! How did you ever think that natural selection actually selected beneifical mutations if it was not directed to these benefits some way.

Do you understand how natural selection works, how traits are "selected" by the process?

I would love for you to write out what you think evolution actually states, what you think the processes are and how you think they work.

J C

Schuhart
I don’t see how granting prayerful requests is consistent with non-interference with free will.

It all depends on what the prayer requests are.
God, in His sovereign power, can obviously grant prayers for health and happiness without interfering with other people’s free will.
However, He will not grant coercive prayer requests that interferes with other peoples free will – like forcing somebody else to love you, for example.


Schuhart
Incidently, did he give Satan and his minions free will?

God gave all of the angels free will at their Creation.
Satan and his Host chose to use their free will to defy God – and God chose to punish them with eternal damnation and restraints on their freedom of action.

God hasn’t chosen to limit the actions of Humans - yet!!!!:cool:


Originally Posted by J C
…….but the point is that the Nicene and Apostles Creeds still remain mandatory Articles of Faith for all Roman Catholics – and therefore all Roman Catholics proclaim their belief that God is CREATOR and MAKER of Heaven and Earth and all life therein, every Sunday!!!

Schuhart
The point is also that many of the people in the audience just recite those words out of rote, but even if they took the time to reflect on them they don’t see them as inconsistent with evolution being the mechanism through which life was created.

The Nicene and Apostles Creeds are FORMAL PUBLIC DECLARATIONS of faith.

I think that, if Roman Catholic Evolutionists take the time to reflect on the words CREATOR and MAKER, they will indeed find them to be inconsistent with a belief in God being the EVOLVER of Heaven and Earth!!:)


Theodosius Dobzhansky as quoted by Schuhart
One can suppose that the Creator saw fit to play deceitful tricks on geologists and biologists. He carefully arranged to have various rocks provided with isotope ratios just right to mislead us into thinking that certain rocks are 2 billion years old, others 2 million, which in fact they are only some 6,000 years old.

God didn’t need to deceive Mankind – as we are eminently capable of doing that ourselves!!!:eek:

Radioactive dating of rocks doesn’t work in PRINCIPLE – because we cannot know what the starting levels of radioactivity were or if further radioactivity was added or taken away (for example, by the differential leaching of the radioactive chemicals such as Potassium) during the ‘life’ of the rock. It also doesn’t work in PRACTICE – because erroneous (very large) ages are routinely obtained from rocks of recent KNOWN ages.


Originally Posted by Wicknight
Evolutionists study what actually happened. What actually happened is obviously what God actually did.
Originally Posted by J C
…..but there is NO evidence that ‘big picture’ Evolution actually occurred – or that God produced life this way!!!!

Scofflaw
As we keep having to say - yes there is, and pretending that there isn't doesn't change that.

....and as I keep having to say....... please show us the EVIDENCE for ‘big picture’ Evolution !!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
Evolutionary theory essentially started with Darwin - who wasn't an atheist. It continued with the work of many others - who weren't atheists either. Most scientists are, and have been throughout the history of science, religious.

The theory of Evolution is at least as old as the Ancient Greeks.

Darwin had a major faith crisis due to the untimely death of his beloved daughter - and he would appear to have become an Atheist during the latter part of his life.

It is indeed true that most scientists have been religious – and the founders of modern Biology, like Linnaeus, Mendel and Pasteur were Creationists ..........
..........and many other scientists have had a profound religious faith .............in Evolution!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Yes, evolution gives atheists an explanation of how we came to be here that doesn't require God. However: (a) Christians also accept it; (b) some atheists don't accept it; (c) the atheistic Soviet Union did not accept it.

So, where do Theistic Evolutionists believe that God fits into a theory that doesn’t require God, in the first place?

Yes, Stalin DIDN'T accept Darwinian Evolution – but he did believe in the even more bizarre and un-scientific, Lamarkian Evolution – which postulates that if you cut off your arm , you children will be born without arms!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
Most mutations are neither damaging nor beneficial - they are neutral. For heaven's sake, the mutation rate in humans (and other organisms) is well -established by observation. The average mutation rate is 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation

Firstly, this figure of 175 mutations per genome per generation has been established by comparing Human and Chimp sequences and ASSUMING that they are both descended from a common ancestor that lived about 5 billion years ago. The figure is therefore DEPENDENT on the veracity of the Evolutionary assumption that Humans and Chimps ARE both descended from a common ancestor from about 5 billion years ago.

In any event, the deleterious genomic mutation rate, using supposedly conservative assumptions of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, is estimated at a rate (U) of at least 3.
The fact that only a handful of very debatable useful mutations have EVER been observed puts the deleterious mutation rate into perspective. It indicates, that the only reason why mutations aren’t creating major difficulties for all living organisms is because of the observed sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms that eliminate these mistakes – but such systems show foreknowledge of what the ‘correct’ information is – akin to computer auto recovery and rebooting systems – and this is a further indicator of the intelligent design of living systems.:cool:


Scofflaw
If you were correct in your assertion that there are more harmful changes than neutral (and yes, this is what your assertion above is), then we would be riddled with harmful mutations

The study you have cited states that “using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3”.
It goes on to admit that “this high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations” .
So, Evolutionists have unambiguous evidence for the predominance of deleterious effects from mutations and they are 'scratching their heads' trying to work out why all living organisms are so fit in spite of these mutations.
The answer is obvious – and that is that we were originally created perfect and complete with auto-repair mechanisms to overcome the predominantly deleterious effects of mutations.

In summary, we are here in spite of mutations, rather than as a result of mutations, as Evolutionists would have us believe!!!:D


Scofflaw
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how natural selection operates to cull damaging mutations. The reduction of the organism's fitness results in fewer, less viable offspring, and so on, until that mutation disappears. The more deadly the mutation, the faster this happens - in extremis, it would be immediate.

Because mutations are predominantly deleterious or useless and about 175 of them occur per genome per generation, the fitness of all organisms should have 'run into the sands’ long ago!!!!!

It should be a ‘World of the Damned’ with the ‘bar’ for survival being lowered in each succeeding generation. The only reason that such a ‘runaway’ situation doesn’t develop, is because sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms eliminate most of the mistakes before they can be pheotypically expressed – but such systems show overview of what the ‘correct’ trait is - which strongly indicates the intelligent design of these systems.:cool:

J C

Scofflaw
If we "mutate" all the letters of the word ASS, we don't wind up with a longer word, we wind up with a different word of the same length, like YEC.

No, if we mutate an ASS we always end up with a DONKEY!!!

……………and a more defective Donkey at that, unless it’s auto-repair mechanisms have overcome the effects of the mutations.:cool:

If you doubt me, then WHY are Evolutionists not ‘putting their money where their mouths are’ - and following up on their belief in the benefits of mutagenesis by queuing up to be irradiated or to ingest mutagenic chemicals?

They know and we know that mutation is almost invariably harmful – and so they wisely AVOID mutagenesis.
The actions of Evolutionists speak more loudly than their words - and so mutagenesis cannot account for the emergence of the sophisticated living organisms on out planet.:eek:


Scofflaw
I'll give you an example of how the interaction between organisms operates to provide selection - that there are no giraffes in rain forests. Instead, there is a relative of the giraffe called an okapi, which has a short neck. Why? Well, because there's no understorey in a rain forest. Trees grow to great heights, in competition for sunlight - which puts the leaves out of reach of even giraffes. There are, however, leaves available at and around ground level.

Now, mutation might give you a shorter or a longer neck. On the savannah, trees grow to a limited height (because they are not in fierce competition for sunlight), so the long neck is an advantage. In the rainforest, it isn't. Giraffe -> savannah -> long neck. Okapi -> rainforest -> short neck.

There is a very simple reason why there are no Giraffes in rain forests.

It is because any Giraffe that ever tries to enter a jungle will bang it's head and wrap it's neck around the vines and branches in the understory of the forest - and they will therefore, leave very quickly - and never come back!!!!:D

……...the Okapi and the Elephant happily munch their away through the understory of the forests - because they don't bang their heads or break their necks in the process!!!!


Scofflaw
Again - no, evolution doesn't postulate this "upwards" evolution.

You said this before and I didn’t follow up on it – and now I am going to.

IF Evolution doesn’t postulate (i.e. explain) “upwards” Evolution – then it cannot explain the obvious “upwards” movement in complexity and organisation observed between Algae and Man.

Therefore, you are admitting that 'big picture' Evolution is effectively a useless concept in that it doesn’t postulate what it’s proponents have claimed it to be capable of – namely transforming Pond Slime into Man!!!!:D


Scofflaw
You nearly had it last time, but then you realised that if there was no "up" in evolution, there was no "on top" to put humans on.

But Humans are objectively vastly more complex and vastly more sophisticated that say, Algae.
So, there is an objective continuum of increasing sophistication in design and physiology between Algae and Man and it is in a decidedly “upwards” direction!!!!

Unless plain English has lost all meaning, arguing that Humans aren’t on top of practically every known descriptive hierarchy, is nonsense!!!:D

........and confirming that Evolution ISN'T an "upwards" process eliminates it as a possible explanation for the "upwards" development of life on Earth!!!!


Scofflaw
That would be the case, were it the case. It isn't. This is not a "world of predominantly bad mistakes", JC - that is Fall theology talking.

It is indeed a "world of predominantly bad MISTAKES" – and that is common sense and plain English talking!!!!:D


Originally Posted by JC
Because the possibility for error is infinite it would be impossible to produce, even a simple product using a process that relied on random errors – and introducing a quality control mechanism (like NS) at the end of the production line would result in EVERY article produced, being rejected as functionally useless!!!!!

Scofflaw
Assuming all you ever wanted to do was produce identical paper-clips, this would indeed be the case.

So, in your wildest dreams, can you think of anything useful that randomly bent and mangled pieces of wire could do????

…………..and if anything other than a specific 'paper clip' would kill me (which is the case with EVERY protein in my body) then producing a specific 'paper clip' every time would indeed be very important!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
Which is where you run into a problem, because the job of life is not to produce paperclips

But the ‘job of life’ IS to produce tightly specified molecules that are vastly more complex in themselves and in their interactions than paperclips.

………..so producing a paperclip using random processes is ‘childs play’ compared with the task of randomly producing the complex tightly specified requirements of living organisms.

…………you seem to be agreeing that randomly producing a paperclip is impossibly difficult – ditto ‘with bells on it’ for living systems!!!!:D


Scofflaw
I won't comment on what your example reveals about your psycho-sexual nature, except to say that it probably fits with my hypothesis as to why you reject evolution in the first place.

The millions of sperm in the male ejaculate is a scientific fact – and has nothing to do with my psycho-sexual nature, good, bad or indifferent!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
And one wonders if you even understand how data storage works, or why the same volume of plastic can hold different amounts of data....certainly you appear to be implying that the DNA of humans and club mosses actually have different data storage densities.

Yes indeed, the Human and Club Moss Genomes do have different densities of functional information stored on them!!!

A Eureka Moment – for you????

……….or maybe not???


Scofflaw
A good example is your initial denial that frame shift mutation actually happens (as per the nylon-digesting enzyme mutation), followed by your claim of frame shift mutations as one of the driving mechanisms behind post-Flood rapid speciation.

I denied that random mutations generated the ‘Nylon Bug’ – and frame shifts show pre-existing design in action, using pre-existing genetic information – akin to changing gears in a car.


Scofflaw
To allow you to make this shift, you invented the idea that the genome dictated how frame shift mutations could occur, since otherwise you would have had to admit that new information had been added to the genome in question.

So, I suppose you believe that every time you change gears, that some random process invents a new gear in your gearbox, to allow you overtake the car in front!!!!:D


Scofflaw
An equally good example is your initial denial that speciation/divergence occurred above the species level. You now also claim that this is obviously true, and indeed predicted by Creation scientists...

Speciation above the level of Created Kind doesn’t occur – IF I used the term Species rather than Created Kind, then I apologise for this inadvertent error.:cool:


Scofflaw
It should occur to you at this point that what God made might be what is studied by science, and that therefore you are "without excuse" in your denial of what is observed to be His work.

Yes indeed ALL that God has made is indeed studied by science – and the specific forensic evidence for Creation Week is studied by Creation Science!!!:cool:

robindch

> > (c) the atheistic Soviet Union did not accept it.
> [Schuhart] Have you any links giving background to this (I'm just curious, as
> I didn't know this.)

It seems that Stalin couldn't accept that random mutation, subject to natural selection, could be responsible for anything. He believed that an organisms characteristics were not fixed at birth, but could instead be molded by controlling the environment in which they lived. In the political context -- the only context important to Stalin -- this meant that people could be successfully "re-educated" into good communists by such things as forced collectivization.

Stalin was, therefore, largely a Lamarckist and he appointed the uneducated, but politically astute, Ukrainian peasant Trofim Lysenko to head up the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences, from where Lysenko could lend spurious scientific support to Stalin's fantasies.

Stalin also seems to have thought, on the few occasions when he seems to have thought about it at all, that evolution was a conspiracy -- but this time, against communism.

Schuhart

J C wrote:

God, in His sovereign power, can obviously grant prayers for health and happiness without interfering with other people’s free will.

Just to clarify – you are saying God will only interfere with the free will of the person praying.

J C wrote:

God gave all of the angels free will at their Creation. Satan and his Host chose to use their free will to defy God – and God chose to punish them with eternal damnation and restraints on their freedom of action.

Does this restraint on their freedom of action prevent them from doing any evil, or does he decide to let them do evil sometimes?

J C wrote:

I think that, if Roman Catholic Evolutionists take the time to reflect on the words CREATOR and MAKER, they will indeed find them to be inconsistent with their belief in God being the EVOLVER of Heaven and Earth!!

Not unless they think it means God personally fathered each of us, and then carried us in Her womb for the full period of gestation.

J C wrote:

It also doesn’t work in PRACTICE – because erroneous (very large) ages are routinely obtained from rocks of recent KNOWN ages.

I’m not a scientist, so I’m not going to pretend to have technical knowledge that I don’t have. That said, I thought that it was known and acknowledged that carbon dating was not of great use for recent dates.

robindch wrote:

Stalin was, therefore, largely a Lamarckist and he appointed the uneducated, but politically astute, Ukrainian peasant Trofim Lysenko to head up the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences, from where Lysenko could lend spurious scientific support to Stalin's fantasies.

Thanks for this - an interesting side of Stalin that I was unaware of. I did know that he's credited with stunting the study of linguistics in the USSR because he decided to take a personal interest in the topic.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

The point is which account. Why are you not worshipping the Babylonian gods?

Because God has revealed to me the truth: He is the one true God; He created the universe just as He said He did.

How do you know that your "memory" is not the distorted superstitious one?

Again, the witness of God the Holy spirit in my conscience.

How many times does it have to be said- you don't know what Jesus did or did not say, Jesus never wrote down anything himself.

He inspired His apostles to record all that He wanted us to know.

You only know what others, years later, claimed Jesus said. Since we both agree that these others were not the son of God the requirement on them to be infallible doesn't exist.

Both the Old testament and New Testament prophets and apostles were not speaking of their own accord, but writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is the Scripture that cannot be broken.

If the Adam and Eve story is true then there is no genetic material in the human race seperate from that originally found in Adam and Eve. There would never be genetic material to counter-balance the line from Adam and Eve. The problem gets worse the longer it goes on, not better.

I fully agree. But starting with perfect genes gave a long period free from serious defect.

Also your point ignores the fact that Noah's family had to do the same thing over again, without "prefect" genes.

Noah's family consisted of three brothers and their wives, not one couple. But even so, harmful effects may be part of the sudden decrease in longevity (centuries down to decades) in the next few generations.

Face it, it didn't actually happen

God says it did. As I said before, I think I'll take His word on it rather than yours.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

I fully agree. But starting with perfect genes gave a long period free from serious defect.

What are perfect genes? What makes them perfect?
Defects from incest are simple consequences of the topological nature of the folding of nearby genes, so what is this perfection and how does it get around this problem?
Saying they had perfect genes is an empty claim without an explanation of how it solves the problem of incest.

wolfsbane wrote:

God says it did. As I said before, I think I'll take His word on it rather than yours.

Did God tell you Genesis 1 was not metaphorical or did he just tell you he created the universe without saying anything about Genesis.
Secondly, why the pretence that this is about Science? You know you're right, this has nothing to do with the observations of the fossils and an analysis of their dating methods, so why go on about your conspiracy crap when you aren't even interested in the actual science?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

You are visualising it, I think, as if H. sapiens suddenly emerged from its predecessor in one generation - H.erectus parent, H. sapiens child...

In fact, various lineages will have been collecting different genetic changes, and the eventual accumulation of these changes makes the different species. There was no single change - the first H.sapiens would have been cross-fertile with its parents' generation, and indeed it would have been difficult to distinguish them. If you were "watching the pot", so to speak, you wouldn't have been able to put your finger on the moment it started to boil.

Thanks for the explanation of the materialistic evolution scenario. No, I was not thinking of it, but rather the theistic evolutionary one.

Yours makes sense, given its premise. But Theistic Evolution has to account also for the enterance of the soul/spirit. Did the first true human breed with non-humans (albeit almost physically indentical)? Are their hybrids walking the earth? Did God put human spirits into one couple or several couples or hundreds of couples? If evolution is true, then the gene pool was not perfect in the first humans and the inbreeding of one or a few couples would have led to their extinction. But if it was more than one couple, how does T.E. then account for the Fall into sin? Did all these couples rebel?

I just can't see how T.E. can be seriously considered by a Christian.

J C

Originally Posted by JC
The Big Bang attempts, but fails to explain how energy, time and matter originated

Son Goku
The Big Bang is an attempt to explain how the universe evolved from shortly after electroweak symmetry breaking to the point before galaxy formation.

After this galaxy formation is treated with Linear General Relativity, which is a separate theory.

It does not attempt to explain how energy, time and matter originated.

IF, as you say, the Big Bang concerns itself with events supposedly up “to the point before galaxy formation” – then time, matter and energy would ALL have arisen by this point.
I am therefore correct in my assertion that the Big Bank ATTEMPTS to explain how energy, time and matter originated.

The fact that you deny that the Big bang attempts to explain how energy, time and matter originated, may be because it doesn’t do so – and I am therefore ALSO correct in asserting that the Big Bang fails to explain how energy, time and matter originated.:D


Wicknight
If one assumes God produced life on Earth then evolution is how he did it because evolution is how life developed on Earth

Which part of “there is no scientific evidence that Evolution occurred” do you not understand?


Wicknight
you explain this away as God wanting to screw with us, wanting to deceive us so he can laugh as us trying to figure it out

As I have said before, God didn’t need to deceive Humanity – because we are eminently capable of doing this ourselves!!!

……………and God isn’t laughing at people trying to figure things out – but He may well laugh at people who try to figure our ways to ‘airbrush’ Him out of history!!!!!


Wicknight
Evolution is an observable, verifiable, natural process

Da, de, da, de, da….

Once again, where is the evidence for ‘big picture’ Evolution????


Wicknight
The Big Bang theory attempts to model the first moments of the universe. It is completely silent on what happened before this.

The ‘first moments of the universe’ would be PRECISELY WHEN energy, time and matter would have originated – so the Big Bang therefore DOES attempt to model how energy, time and matter originated!!!!

The fact that yourself and Son Goku are saying that the Big Bang theory doesn’t explain how energy, time and matter originated, means that the Big Bang never happened – except in the (very) fertile imaginations of Evolutionists!!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
or are Atheists now admitting that they haven’t a clue how energy, time and matter originated

Wicknight
Scientists, atheist or theist, have always admitted that

Fair enough – so there goes the Big Bang ‘up in smoke’!!!!!


Wicknight
Noise is a series of pressure waves that travel through a solid, gas or liquid that cause vibrations in the inner ear of animals.

That is ONE means by which noise can be DETECTED – an Oscilloscope, for example can ALSO detect noise!!!


Wicknight
The Big Bang was not "noise"

At this stage in the debate, the Big Bang seems to not be “anything” – i.e. it never happened!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
As a scientist, I see no evidence that this could or did occur.

Wicknight
Well you aren't a scientists, so that might explain why you don't ...

Whatever I am - in this ‘David and Goliath’ debate on this thread - of ONE Creation Scientist against what must now be FIFTY leading Evolutionist Scientists, I am ‘beating the pants off you all’ theologically and scientifically!!!!!

As a Christian I take no credit for this myself – I give all of the credit to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – and my NUI lecturers!!!


Wicknight
Seriously what books on evolution did you read? Please list them. Where they all Creationist by any chance?

I have read books on Evolution by BOTH Evolutionists and Creationists – but it seems that ALL of the books that you have read on Evolution were written by Evolutionists !!!!


Wicknight
How many mutations you have is not as important as what the mutations do. A species with 1,000,000 successful mutations can be less sophisticated than a species with 10. Bacteria mutation very quickly, yet compared to humans are not nearly as complex

So, are you saying that Humans evolved from Pond Slime via just 10 mega-mutations???!!

Come off it Wicknight, while you can get lucky some times – on average the creature with the most complexity should be the one with the largest genome – IF random copying errors were the basis of their evolution!!!


Wicknight
Natural selection is a directed process. You can claim it doesn't happen in nature (which is a bit silly because it has been observed and studied), but the theory describes a directed process.

Who or what is directing it then???

I don’t deny that NS can occur – but it is akin to a pendulum swinging or a sword falling – i.e it is observed to result in ‘genetic drift’ over (and often back) along the genetic variety potential of the organism – or it eliminates the creature completely!!!!!


Wicknight
If it wasn't a directed process it wouldn't be called "natural selection"

If it WAS a directed process it would be called Divine Intervention!!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
Natural Selection is the direction in evolution. It doesn't account for it, it is it.

Yes, Natural Selection results in ‘genetic drift’ over and back along the genetic variety potential of the organism – or it eliminates it completely – but such a phenomenon is incapable of 'lifting muck up by it’s own bootstraps' to become Man!!!!!


Wicknight
There is no Neo-darwin evolutionary theory without natural selection

Wicknight, I don’t know how to break the news to you, - but there is NO scientifically valid Neo Darwininan Theory, that accounts for the presence of Man on Earth, full stop!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
There is no non-directed Neo-darwinian evolution. Neo-darwinian evolution is directed evolution.

Stop playing ‘word games’ Wicknight – you will confuse yourself – and even worse, you will confuse everyone else on the thread as well!!!!!


Wicknight
Natural selection does not produce anything. It selects what has already been produced by mutation.

So what happens when mutations produce nothing but ‘rubbish’ – how does NS select THAT???!!!


Wicknight
READ A BOOK, ANY BOOK, ON EVOLUTION JC, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!

I am currently reading the Bible, for the love of God – and it says that God CREATED all life!!!!:D


Wicknight
The only thing evolution cares about is if the mutation that just happened produces any form of benefit for the organism. It is a "blind" process, as you yourelf keep saying over and over. It cannot plan ahead, it cannot seek out a specific goal, and it certainly cannot win anything

…………..so it is totally incapable of producing a Human Being then!!!!


Wicknight
That is why you need natural selection directing the process. If you didn't have natural selection nothing would evolve because the useless or damaging mutations far out weight the number of benefital ones.

But when the useless or damaging mutations far outweighing the beneficial ones, there wouldn’t be a single organism that wouldn’t be suffering from something awful somewhere along it’s 3 billion base pair (or whatever) genome.
………..so NS would be faced with selecting amongst creatures with one thing worse that the other wrong with them ALL. :eek:

It would be a ‘World of the Damned’ with the ‘bar’ for survival being lowered in each succeeding generation. The only reason that such a ‘runaway’ situation doesn’t develop currently, is because sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms eliminate most of the mistakes before they can be pheotypically expressed – but such systems show overview of what the ‘correct’ trait is - which strongly indicates the intelligent design of these systems.


Wicknight
pH has already demonstrated a computer program that can model the evolution of an English sentence using random errors and selection based on fitness, just like evolution works in the real world.

From what I recall, pH’s algorithms illustrated Intelligent Design in action – and for anybody who is interested, the following link answers all you wanted to know about algorithms, but were afraid to ask!!!!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp


Wicknight
It is only rejected if it does not provide benefit to the organism. If it does provide benefit, which is determined by the environment, then it is "selected" over the following generations.

This might work with come kind of simple uni-dimensional organism where selection rested on one trait only.
However, any complex organism is a combination literally billions of traits, some good, some neutral and some bad as well as many traits masked in the heterozygous state.

So NS isn’t able to follow some mythical yellow brick road of increasing utility to eventually produce Man. It would get bogged down with the first ‘self replicating molecule’ as its ‘descendants’ picked up an ever-increasing load of 'useless' or 'bad' traits – with very few good ones emerging – and ALL of these 'good' traits in organisms already gravely afflicted with other 'useless' or 'bad' traits!!!!


Wicknight
That is like saying if a paper clip factory cannot produce an F-15 jet fighter then it must be impossible for any production line to produce an F-15 jet fighter.

The only way that a paper clip factory can be converted to produce F-15 Jets is by the appliance of significant levels of Intelligent Design and large amounts of organised and intelligently directed physical and mental effort!!!!


Originally Posted by J C
God is a God of abundance - so "He doesn't do 'waste'"!

Wicknight
That rules out Intelligent Design then, since life is full of waste

What I actually said was that because God is a God of abundance – He doesn’t mind a lot of ‘waste’ – and as you have said, and I have confirmed with my ‘ejaculate’ example, life is full of abundant WASTE – which shouldn’t be the case if competitive ‘dog eat dog’ evolution existed!!!!:D


Wicknight
If it works that is good enough for evolution. If by random mutation it works a bit better that is good too. But there is no plan to get to a specific point of efficency.

Could I suggest that something that fails to plan, plans to fail – and evolution is no exception – and it therefore could never produce a Man using such blind inefficeiencies!!!


Wicknight
Waste & inefficency really equals abundance. Abundance is good. Therefore all the waste found in life is actually good ... oh now I see

In a word YES.

One organism’s abundant 'waste' is another organisms abundant food!!!!

………….and it was all created GOOD by God.


Wicknight
When you repeatably stated something that is in fact not true (a few things actually) after being informed of this fact you continue to post it. What is that if not lying

On that basis, all of the Evolutionists on this thread are ALSO lying – but I think that it is your definition of ‘lying’ that is wrong – and all of the Evolutionists (and myself) are NOT lying, but merely debating the facts!!!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Theodosius Dobzhansky as quoted by Schuhart
One can suppose that the Creator saw fit to play deceitful tricks on geologists and biologists. He carefully arranged to have various rocks provided with isotope ratios just right to mislead us into thinking that certain rocks are 2 billion years old, others 2 million, which in fact they are only some 6,000 years old.

God didn’t need to deceive Evolutionists – as they are eminently capable of doing that themselves!!!:eek:

Radioactive dating of rocks doesn’t work in PRINCIPLE – because we cannot know what the starting levels of radioactivity were or if further radioactivity was added or taken away (for example, by the differential leaching of the radioactive chemicals such as Potassium) during the ‘life’ of the rock. It also doesn’t work in PRACTICE – because erroneous (very large) ages are routinely obtained from rocks of recent KNOWN ages.

We've been over this, JC. The "erroneous" dates are not unexpected when you choose to carbon date suspect lumps of iron nodule from the Jurassic. Nor do the very large dates from recent lavas mean anything special - they are well-understood errors. In addition, of course, these "errors" represent a miniscule fraction of all dates...

What you mean is that you don't like radioactive dating methods, because they don't agree with you.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
As we keep having to say - yes there is, and pretending that there isn't doesn't change that.

....and as I keep having to say....... please show us the EVIDENCE for ‘big picture’ Evolution – and don’t hide behind semantics like “evolution is not a theory of how life developed but a core principle in those theories”!!!!!:eek:

Well, it is clear at this stage that no amount of evidence will ever convince you - at least partly because you don't understand the theory, so it is impossible for you to understand how the evidence relates to it.

When I introduced the concept of 'big picture' evolution, in an attempt to wean you off your addiction to the phrase 'muck to Man', I made it clear that there is, and can be, no direct evidence for the 'big picture', because the big picture is composed of the details.

Of course, the fossil record and the geological record, taken together, support the 'big picture' of evolution - at one end is muck, and at the other is man. In between are increasingly complex organisms, and as we move towards the present through geological time, things that look more and more like humans.

In order for Creationism to "explain" this, it resorts to bizarre contortions - some sediments are supposed to be pre-Flood, some Flood, animals are sorted by mysterious hydrological processes that never mix human and dinosaur bones, or indeed the bones of any animals supposed to be of different ages, despite their various sizes, the Earth splits in two, continents slide around at the massive speeds only to mysteriously stop just before historical records begin, water is mysteriously boiled off without boiling anything alive - and on and on through a bewildering and contradictory array of mechanisms, not one of which has ever been observed.

Challenged, the Creationist shrugs, and says "God chose to do it".

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Evolutionary theory essentially started with Darwin - who wasn't an atheist. It continued with the work of many others - who weren't atheists either. Most scientists are, and have been throughout the history of science, religious.

The theory of Evolution is at least as old as the Ancient Greeks.

Darwin had a major faith crisis due to the untimely death of his beloved daughter - and he would appear to have become an Atheist during the latter part of his life.

It is indeed true that most scientists have been religious – and the founders of modern Biology, like Linnaeus, Mendel and Pasteur were Creationists while many other scientists have had a profound religious faith .............in Evolution!!!!:D

The crisis you refer to occurred after Darwin had worked out his theory, and the general consensus is that he was a deist in later life.

The rest of what you say is the usual piffle. You cannot sustain your claim, because it is provably untrue. The majority of scientists, worldwide, are religious - suck it up.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Yes, evolution gives atheists an explanation of how we came to be here that doesn't require God. However: (a) Christians also accept it; (b) some atheists don't accept it; (c) the atheistic Soviet Union did not accept it.

So, where do Theistic Evolutionists believe that God fits into a theory that doesn’t require God, in the first place?

You see your answer to Schuhart about God's intervention in response to prayer? Like that.

J C wrote:

Yes, the Atheistic Soviet Union didn’t accept Darwinian Evolution – but they did believe in the even more bizarre and un-scientific, Lamarkian Evolution – which postulates that if you cut off your arm , you children will be born without arms!!!!:eek:

Aye - they were odd. There is, however, some evidence that there is some inheritance of acquired traits, although not in any dramatic form.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Most mutations are neither damaging nor beneficial - they are neutral. For heaven's sake, the mutation rate in humans (and other organisms) is well -established by observation. The average mutation rate is 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation

Firstly, this figure of 175 mutations per genome per generation has been established by comparing Human and Chimp sequences and ASSUMING that they are both descended from a common ancestor that lived about 5 billion years ago. The figure is therefore DEPENDENT on the veracity of the Evolutionary assumption that Humans and Chimps ARE both descended from a common ancestor from about 5 billion years ago.

In any event, the deleterious genomic mutation rate, using supposedly conservative assumptions of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, is estimated at a rate (U) of at least 3.

Yes. Let's just note that that's 3 out of the 175 before we move on to your further material...

J C wrote:

The fact that only a handful of very debatable useful mutations have EVER been observed puts the 100+ deleterious mutations per genome per generation into perspective. It indicates, that the only reason why mutations aren’t creating major difficulties for all living organisms is because of the observed sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms that eliminate these mistakes – but such systems show foreknowledge of what the ‘correct’ information is – akin to computer auto recovery and rebooting systems – and this is a further indicator of the intelligent design of living systems.:cool:

Hmm. Wait, suddenly we have jumped from 3 to 100?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
If you were correct in your assertion that there are more harmful changes than neutral (and yes, this is what your assertion above is), then we would be riddled with harmful mutations

The study you have cited states that “using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3”.
It goes on to admit that “this high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations” .
So, Evolutionists have unambiguous evidence for the predominance of deleterious effects from mutations and they are 'scratching their heads' trying to work out why all living organisms are so fit in spite of these mutations.
The answer is obvious – and that is that we were originally created perfect and complete with auto-repair mechanisms to overcome the predominantly deleterious effects of mutations.

Amazing! You left out all their suggested solutions. Instead, you've gone for the cartoon image of them "scratching their heads".

Their suggestion that interaction between deleterious may lead to even greater levels of unfitness, leading in extremis to "truncation selection" in which those embryos with more than a certain level of mutations are eliminated immediately, would seem to tally with the high spontaneous abortion rates in humans (observed rates of miscarriage are 25% in known early pregnancies, almost certainly much higher across all conceptions) and low conception rates.

J C wrote:

In summary, we are here in spite of mutations, rather than as a result of mutations, as Evolutionists would have us believe!!!:D

In summary - science progresses as a result of puzzles, rather than in spite of them, as Creationists would have us believe.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how natural selection operates to cull damaging mutations. The reduction of the organism's fitness results in fewer, less viable offspring, and so on, until that mutation disappears. The more deadly the mutation, the faster this happens - in extremis, it would be immediate.

Because mutations are predominantly deleterious or useless and about 175 of them occur per genome per generation, the fitness of all organisms should have 'run into the sands’ very rapidly !!!!!

Again, neutral mutations are not deleterious. As long as damaging mutations are weeded out rapidly enough, they will not propagate enough to damage the species.

J C wrote:

It should be a ‘World of the Damned’ with the ‘bar’ for survival being lowered in each succeeding generation. The only reason that such a ‘runaway’ situation doesn’t develop, is because sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms eliminate most of the mistakes before they can be pheotypically expressed – but such systems show overview of what the ‘correct’ trait is - which strongly indicates the intelligent design of these systems.:cool:

Again, your assumption is that deleterious mutations are not weeded out - and this is incorrect.

Also, as has been explained before, all genomic repair systems are capable of doing is restoring the status quo. If the status quo includes a mutation inherited from a parent, they will repair any damage to restore the mutation.

This is clearly not what you pretend here - which is that repair mechanisms magically aim to restore some template of perfection - a suggestion that fits neither evolutionary theory nor Creationist theology.

Why are all mutations not repaired? The answer, according to evolutionary theory, is that they are necessary. Without mutations, organisms have no genetic variability. Without genetic variability, there can be no adaptation. Without adaptation, an environmental change means disaster.

Since the world is always changing, species must adapt. The Creationist says they cannot, evolutionary theory says they do. Adaptation is an observed fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Thanks for the explanation of the materialistic evolution scenario. No, I was not thinking of it, but rather the theistic evolutionary one.

Yours makes sense, given its premise. But Theistic Evolution has to account also for the enterance of the soul/spirit. Did the first true human breed with non-humans (albeit almost physically indentical)? Are their hybrids walking the earth? Did God put human spirits into one couple or several couples or hundreds of couples? If evolution is true, then the gene pool was not perfect in the first humans and the inbreeding of one or a few couples would have led to their extinction. But if it was more than one couple, how does T.E. then account for the Fall into sin? Did all these couples rebel?

I just can't see how T.E. can be seriously considered by a Christian.

Ah. I take your point. Yes, it's pretty hard for the Theistic Evolutionist, but certainly not impossible.

Assume for a moment that souls evolved as well as bodies. That everything, if you like, has a spark from God in it - even the bacterium. However, in non-humans, this spark is very simple, and buried very deeply in an uncomprehending material shell. As you come closer to true humanity, that spark burns brighter, and the 'veiling' effect of the material is less.

Humans, then, are the first to evolve sufficiently to speak with God. Adam and Eve were the first humans to do so - the first to be truly in His image. As more of humanity has evolved spiritually, the Word of God has spread. As his early dealings with Israel show, the earliest of God's people were balky and spiritually quite undeveloped - they had to be led by prophets like Moses, or brought to heel by blunt, and destructive, interventions.

That's where the other people in Genesis come from - no mystery. It's why the rules on marriage outwith Israel. People didn't get the Word of God until they had evolved enough to understand it. And atheists? We're just throwbacks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

J C wrote:

IF, as you say, the Big Bang concerns itself with events supposedly up “to the point before galaxy formation” – then time, matter and energy would ALL have arisen by this point.
I am therefore correct in my assertion that the Big Bank ATTEMPTS to explain how energy, time and matter originated.

The fact that you deny that the Big bang attempts to explain how energy, time and matter originated, may be because it doesn’t do so – and I am therefore ALSO correct in asserting that the Big Bang fails to explain how energy, time and matter originated.:D

That doesn't make any sense at all. Let me rewrite what you've wrote rephrasing certain things.


IF, as you say, the theory of Rome's fall concerns itself with events supposedly up to “the fall of Rome” – then time, matter and energy would ALL have arisen by this point.
I am therefore correct in my assertion that the theory of Rome's fall ATTEMPTS to explain how energy, time and matter originated.


Let me say this again in moron-speak.

It concerns itself with how the universe got from having totally unbroken electroweak symmetry to when galaxies formed. It doesn't attempt to explain where time, matter and energy came from, please stop saying stuff you know is false.

It starts with unbroken electroweak and goes from there.
Do you have a serious criticism of the theory as an explanation of how the universe lost full electroweak symmetry and reached the galaxy forming stage?

I don't even understand why you would make this up? The Big Bang already says it isn't an attempt to explain the origins of the universe and can't explain where it comes from. Why would you make up that it attempts to do something it doesn't and then try to disprove this false characterization when the original theory already says it can't do it?