The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Originally Posted by J C
....and IF it ever occurred, it would be the LAST thing that you would see......because it would kill you

Son Goku
Except for the people who survived it. Why did they not record it? Remember it would be visible all over the world.

As Scofflaw has confirmed, all of the witnesses to any extra-terrestrial impacts at the start of the Flood were drowned.:D

In any event, an explosion big enough to wipe out all macro-fauna life on Earth, probably would have wiped out the planet itself as well!!!
As the macro-fauna and the Earth are both still with us ……the ‘big one’ NEVER HAPPENED!!!:eek:


Son Goku
Earth is much more difficult to destroy than the life that lives on its surface. This is fact, I mean you can't seriously start arguing this.

A single explosion capable of sterilising the entire surface of the planet and every nook and cranny thereon of all life, would be so massive that it would physically destroy the Planet as well…..and even then living organisms might still be found clinging to some of the larger fragments.:D


Son Goku
You've already admitted that the trajectory is correct, you can't back out of that. You think the trajectory is good enough, so why not the dates that go with it?
So do you accept the trajectory or not?

A trajectory tells us NOTHING about the origin of the projectile or the date of it’s impact. It could have originated almost anywhere in the (local) Universe …….the Earth rotates through 360 degrees every day............and it traverses its orbital path around the sun every year!!!!:D

Lovingly,

J C:)

Son Goku

J C wrote:

As Scofflaw has confirmed, all of the witnesses to any extra-terrestrial impacts at the start of the Flood were drowned.:D

How did Noah not see it? Was he blind or something? Or did he consider it beneath his notice?

A single explosion capable of sterilising the entire surface of the planet and every nook and cranny thereon of all life, would be so massive that it would physically destroy the Planet as well…..and even then living organisms might still be found clinging to some of the larger fragments.:D

It takes 2.4 X 10^32 Joules to detroy a planet the size of earth (calculations available on request), energy required to destroy the crust is only around 10^10 Joules.
There is a huge difference, end of story. I don't know where you get the idea that earth is as fragile as its surface.

A trajectory tells us NOTHING about the origin of the projectile or the date of it’s impact. It could have originated almost anywhere in the (local) Universe …….the Earth rotates through 360 degrees every day............and it traverses its orbital path around the sun every year!!!!:D

No it couldn't the trajectory uniquely determines the starting location and the impact time. If you reject this you reject the least action principle.
Do you think the least action principle is incorrect?

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

JC wrote:

As Scofflaw has confirmed, all of the witnesses to any extra-terrestrial impacts at the start of the Flood were drowned.

How did Noah not see it? Was he blind or something? Or did he consider it beneath his notice?

For 20 points, the difference between "confirm" and "flippantly suggest". And for a bonus 10 points, the difference between "all the witnesses" and "all but the guy who passed down the story in the Bible".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

J C wrote:

Galvasean
The asteroid did not wipe out all of the dinosaurs. To this day we still have roughly 9,500 species of dinosaur alive and well. We call them 'birds'.

Whatever!!!

Brilliant response. Really captured that scene from the film Clueless.

J C wrote:

……were they called ‘birdeosaurs’?????

The confused face sums it up well. Are you referring to the extinct ones or the living ones? To avoid mass panic we generally avoid calling the pigeons in our gardens dinosaurs. It freaks certain people out.

J C wrote:

......and you forgot to include the 'Crock' and the 'Rhino'!!!!:eek:

Its 'croc'.
Besides, we had this debate before. You lost.

J C wrote:

…….and the cartoon was provided by Galvasean…….to whom all queries, as to its scientific accuracy, should be directed!!!:eek:

Of course the cartoons were provided for novelty purposes only. Anyone trying to interpret them scientifically will be executed on the spot.

Ciaran500

J C wrote:

In any event, an explosion big enough to wipe out all macro-fauna life on Earth, probably would have wiped out the planet itself as well!!!
As the macro-fauna and the Earth are both still with us ……the ‘big one’ NEVER HAPPENED!!!

I don't want to answer for anyone else but I don't think anyone is arguing that a meteor that hit earth wiped out everything.

Scofflaw

Ciaran500 wrote:

JC wrote:

In any event, an explosion big enough to wipe out all macro-fauna life on Earth, probably would have wiped out the planet itself as well!!!
As the macro-fauna and the Earth are both still with us ……the ‘big one’ NEVER HAPPENED!!!

I don't want to answer for anyone else but I don't think anyone is arguing that a meteor that hit earth wiped out everything.

I think it goes like this: JC knows that evolutionists are stupid. Therefore, they will be arguing something stupid. The idea that a meteor wiped out all macro-fauna is stupid. Therefore, that is what they must be arguing.

After all, if we were making clever arguments, we wouldn't be contradicting the Bible, now would we?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, the "compassionate", by being tagged on, rather suggests that conservatism is not of its nature compassionate...

cordially,
Scofflaw

We agree on that - there are many non-compassionate conservatives.

PS. I'm about to change my ISP, so may be off-line in the next week or so. What a hassle I have already had, with my first choice of new provider failing to provide. I then signed up with another - only to have the first continue to process the order and so prevent the second providing because of 'double-booking'. Still not sure it is being correctly resolved.

J C

Ciaran 500
I don't want to answer for anyone else but I don't think anyone is arguing that a meteor that hit earth wiped out everything.

Son Goku seem to think that life could be wiped out by a sufficiently large Asteroid ……without destroying the planet….

Originally Posted by Son Goku
Earth is much more difficult to destroy than the life that lives on its surface. This is fact, I mean you can't seriously start arguing this.
Original answer by J C
A single explosion capable of sterilising the entire surface of the planet and every nook and cranny thereon of all life, would be so massive that it would physically destroy the Planet as well…..and even then living organisms might still be found clinging to some of the larger fragments.


Son Goku
How did Noah not see it? Was he blind or something? Or did he consider it beneath his notice?

The ‘big one’ NEVER happened…..and any small impacts were not in Noah’s immediate vicinity and/or he just regarded them as ‘part and parcel’ of the general Flood process.


Son Goku
It takes 2.4 X 10^32 Joules to detroy a planet the size of earth (calculations available on request), energy required to destroy the crust is only around 10^10 Joules.
There is a huge difference, end of story. I don't know where you get the idea that earth is as fragile as its surface.

The problem is one of DISPERSING the explosive energy to wipe out all life……as I have said a single explosion capable of sterilising the entire surface of the planet and every nook and cranny thereon of all life, would be so massive that it would physically destroy the Planet as well…..and even then living organisms might still be found clinging to some of the larger fragments.


Son Goku
the trajectory uniquely determines the starting location and the impact time.

…..that’s like saying that you can determine the TIME of a car crash (and what pub the driver was coming from) by establishing the trajectory of its impact!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by Galvasean
The asteroid did not wipe out all of the dinosaurs. To this day we still have roughly 9,500 species of dinosaur alive and well. We call them 'birds'

Originally Posted by J C
Whatever!!!

Galvasean
Brilliant response. Really captured that scene from the film Clueless

Clueless (in every sense of the word) is a really good description of Evolution (and the 'Dinobirds')!!!


Galvasean
To avoid mass panic we generally avoid calling the pigeons in our gardens dinosaurs. It freaks certain people out.

The pigeons don’t freak people out……..but the idea that some scientists secretly fantasise about pigeons being DINOSAURS ……..could slightly un-nerve some people!!!!:eek:


Galvasean
Its 'croc'.
Besides, we had this debate before

Evolution is a bit of a ‘Crock’ allright!!!!:D


Galvasean
Of course the cartoons were provided for novelty purposes only.

Evolution is such a joke that one never knows when Evolutionists are serious or just having a laugh!!!!:D


Scofflaw
…..JC knows that evolutionists are stupid.Therefore, they will be arguing something stupid. The idea that a meteor wiped out all macro-fauna is stupid.
I don't think that Evolutionists are stupid........
.....but you do have a point........ that a meteor wiping out all macro-fauna is stupid!!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
After all, if we were making clever arguments, we wouldn't be contradicting the Bible, now would we?

….and you ALSO have a point there!!!!!!:D


Lovingly,

J C:)

Galvasean

Yes J C puns will win this argument for you. How did you not figure this out sooner? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Wicknight
What "leverages" the existing information JC? Thats right, new information introduced by the mutation!!

If the new information wasn't there then the existing information would not shift and there would be no leveraging

The frame shift ‘leverages’ the EXISTING information base…….and if the existing information base wasn't present, there would be nothing to 'leverage'!!!!:D

Of course it does!!

What?, do you think the theory of evolution states that a mutation will cause the entire genetic code of an organism to thrown out and completely replaced. That is how you think evolution works? Really? :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Seriously, what book on evolution have you read? :rolleyes: :eek:

The frame shift is new information, introduced by mutation. This mutation causes a new and different interpretation of both the new genetic information and the old genetic information, producing a new and different out put.

That is how evolution works.

J C

Galvasean wrote:

Yes J C puns will win this argument for you. How did you not figure this out sooner? :rolleyes:

Puns won't win any argument........but the Word of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit will provide the truth to anybody who desires to know it.:D

Lovingly,

J C

J C

Wicknight wrote:

The frame shift is new information, introduced by mutation. This mutation causes a new and different interpretation of both the new genetic information and the old genetic information, producing a new and different out put.

The frame shift ‘leverages’ the EXISTING information base…….and if the existing information base wasn't present, there would be nothing to 'leverage'!!!!
The point is that Evolution may 'fiddle' with information rich systems found in living organisms ......but it DOESN'T explain how all of these information rich systems originated in the first place. It is like a child in a flight simulator randomly 'throwing the switches' to see what happens.......but the simulator could NEVER be built by similar random processes. In techincal terms the useless combinatorial space is ALWAYS so overwhelming that the random accumulation of useful information is IMPOSSIBLE.
That is why we don't randomly drive our cars or manufacture them using 'random' processes......and if we don't do so with cars why do Evolutionist look at us with faith-filled eyes and assure us that random processes which couldn't produce a wheel nut for a car could produce a Human Being!!!:D

In plain language, Evolution may explain the 'survival' of the fittest (by selection of the enormous levels of pre-existing genetic diverstity built into genomes)....but it doesn't explain the 'arrival' of the fittest, in the first place (i.e. the origins of the enormous levels of pre-existing genetic diverstity built into genomes) !!!:eek:

Lovingly,

J C

Galvasean

J C wrote:

The point is that Evolution may 'fiddle' with information rich systems found in living organisms ......but it DOESN'T explain how all of these information rich systems originated in the first place. It is like a child in a flight simulator randomly 'throwing the switches' to see what happens.......but the simulator could NEVER be built by similar random processes.

I agree with you to a point here (common ground, huzzah! ). Although I'd like to point out that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning of it all. Ideas like the big bang theory or a God like creator of the universe operate independently of evolutionary theory. So to say evolution doesn't work because evolution couldn't bring about the beginning of life is missing the point.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The frame shift ‘leverages’ the EXISTING information base…….and if the existing information base wasn't present, there would be nothing to 'leverage'!!!!

Of course. No one is disputing that. A mutation will not completely rewrite the entire genetic code of an organism.

The point you seem to be ignoring (on purpose one imagines) is that the cause of the leverage is the new information introduced by the mutation.

J C wrote:

The point is that Evolution may 'fiddle' with information rich systems found in living organisms ......but it DOESN'T explain how all of these information rich systems originated in the first place.

Yes actually it does. But then we aren't talking about the evolution of genetic material.

You are changing the subject because you don't want to accept what you originally said couldn't happen, that mutation can cause an increase in genetic information.

Ignoring the issue of how genetic material originated in the first place, do you now accept that mutation can and does add genetic material and information to life through the process of mutation and natural selection?

Because if you do accept that then you have no reason to say that small life forms cannot evolve into bigger more complex life forms through evolution.

J C wrote:

It is like a child in a flight simulator randomly 'throwing the switches' to see what happens.......but the simulator could NEVER be built by similar random processes.

Once again you are misdirecting and lying.

You know perfectly well that mutation is random but natural selection isn't.

Using your example it would be life a child in a flight simulator flicking switches at random but every time the child flicks the correct switch it is locked in place by the plane. Eventually (quite quickly actually) the child will manage to get the plane off the ground because the correct switch is given significant placing (selection by the environment). The child just has to flick the right switch once, and this will be set by the environment (ie the plane).

J C wrote:

In techincal terms the useless combinatorial space is ALWAYS so overwhelming that the random accumulation of useful information is IMPOSSIBLE.

I agree 100% with you. But of course you know by now that that isn't how evolution works at all, so you are simply lying here for anyone stupid enough to think this is how evolution works.

It isn't a random accumulation of information, it is an accumulation of information directed by the environment (natural selection).

J C wrote:

Lovingly,

You must know that you are talking nonsense JC, so how does that fit into your idea that you are saved by your god because you reject evolution.

You must know you are lying to us, so how can you truly believe in Young Earth Creationism. My guess is that you don't.

Why you continue with this masquerade though, I'm not sure.

Sleepy

WOW.

I didn't know we had creationists in Ireland. Guess the education systems in even more trouble than I thought it was.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote:

WOW.

I didn't know we had creationists in Ireland. Guess the education systems in even more trouble than I thought it was.

Speaking of which, when is evolution taught here
I always hated biology and dropped it after JC so I don't remember

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

Speaking of which, when is evolution taught here
I always hated biology and dropped it after JC so I don't remember

I don't know quite what to say...it seems JC also dropped it after JC, and also seems to have dropped it after JC - for a variety of values of JC.

confusingly,
Scofflaw

Sleepy

bluewolf wrote:

Speaking of which, when is evolution taught here
I always hated biology and dropped it after JC so I don't remember

Tbh, I was more refering to the notion of our education system producing people capable of believing in creationism.

I don't want to drop this into a slagging match though so I'll withdraw from this thread.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't know quite what to say...it seems JC also dropped it after JC, and also seems to have dropped it after JC - for a variety of values of JC.

confusingly,
Scofflaw

lol.

Sleepy: oh yeah I know, I just thought I'd ask about it . Everyone goes on about studying it in school, and I don't recall ever coming across it

The Mad Hatter

bluewolf wrote:

lol.

Sleepy: oh yeah I know, I just thought I'd ask about it . Everyone goes on about studying it in school, and I don't recall ever coming across it

I'm actually pretty sure I found out about it outside school, but it was a view generally accepted by my teachers too.

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

oh yeah I know, I just thought I'd ask about it . Everyone goes on about studying it in school, and I don't recall ever coming across it

Sure - if you gave up Biology at the Junior level, you'd hardly have come across evolution. Clearly, we evilutionists are remiss in our efforts to inculcate the young....at what point did religious education stop, as a matter of interest?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by J C
The point is that Evolution may 'fiddle' with information rich systems found in living organisms ......but it DOESN'T explain how all of these information rich systems originated in the first place. It is like a child in a flight simulator randomly 'throwing the switches' to see what happens.......but the simulator could NEVER be built by similar random processes.

Galvasean
I agree with you to a point here (common ground, huzzah!). Although I'd like to point out that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning of it all. Ideas like the big bang theory or a God like creator of the universe operate independently of evolutionary theory. So to say evolution doesn't work because evolution couldn't bring about the beginning of life is missing the point.

The ‘fiddling’ with the information rich systems found in living organisms IS ‘Evolution' ......and NOT 'Abiogenesis'………….
………BUT Evolution DOESN'T explain how all of these information rich systems supposedly developed from putative simple self-replicating molecules or whatever is the latest fashion in Abiogenesis Mythology!!!:D

EVOLUTON is like a child in a flight simulator randomly 'throwing the switches' to see what happens.......but the simulator could NEVER be built by similar random processes…….and NEITHER could the child or it’s genome, be 'built' using random frame-shifts......even in tandem with a selection mechanism.


Wicknight
Ignoring the issue of how genetic material originated in the first place, do you now accept that mutation can and does add genetic material and information to life through the process of mutation and natural selection?

Because if you do accept that then you have no reason to say that small life forms cannot evolve into bigger more complex life forms through evolution.

I don’t accept that frame shifts add new information to genomes……..they merely ‘leverage’ existing information. Damage to complex systems, like genomes and computer code, can (very rarely) result in new ‘useful’ activities but repeated damage will destroy the activity completely.
It is analogous to a broken toy robot which walks backwards when the broken ‘forwards’ button is pressed…….any more breakages however, and it would ‘pack up’ completely.
The broken ‘forwards’ switch DOESN’T result in new information………..it only produces a ‘new’ imperfect ‘backwards’ movement. Such a movement could even be conceivably ‘useful’ to the Robot……but because it is the result of DAMAGE to the robot any further damage will likely result in NO movement at all by the robot!!!


Wicknighty
You know perfectly well that mutation is random but natural selection isn't.

Using your example it would be life a child in a flight simulator flicking switches at random but every time the child flicks the correct switch it is locked in place by the plane. Eventually (quite quickly actually) the child will manage to get the plane off the ground because the correct switch is given significant placing (selection by the environment). The child just has to flick the right switch once, and this will be set by the environment (ie the plane).

The plane would crash EVERY TIME the switches are flicked randomly …..and so it would NEVER get off the ground. Try typing something randomly on your computer and see what I mean.

Natural Selection can only select advantages that arise…….but no ‘advantage trail’ can arise randomly in a complex system.

So, how could Evolution ‘win’ this particular ‘lottery’ and produce a useful functional protein?

1. It could do so if the number of ‘possible attempts’ more than matched the possible combinations – thereby generating all of the possible protein sequences for NS to select the functional ones. This is the intuitive belief that even though the chances of any aspect of life occurring spontaneously is exceedingly small, the vastly greater size of the Universe would still ensure that life would emerge somewhere via the Law of Big numbers.
However, the odds of 1E+180 for even a small protein are beyond all ‘possible attempts’ – even if all of the matter and time in the universe were used – so this is impossible.

2. It could do so if the process wasn’t actually random – but was ‘chemically pre-determined’ to select functional proteins or could otherwise efficiently select functional protein sequences from amongst the effectively infinite useless ‘combinatorial space’ that is 1E+180. Again this is observed to not be the case – the four nucleotide base combinations of DNA can chemically join up in any sequence to produce any amino acid sequence, thereby ruling out any ‘chemically pre-determined’ result.
NS is DEPENDENT on essentially random mutations / replication errors and therefore because NS is dependent upon on the random sequences that random mutations provides it is an essentially a random system, with effectively random results because of the infinite useless ‘combinatorial space’ that is available.

3. NS could also 'win' if practically all combinations of Amino Acids produced ‘useful functional proteins’ – but this is also NOT the case. There are an only an estimated 50,000 'functional proteins' in a Human Being, with chain lengths up to 27,000 amino acids in very tightly specified sequences.
There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence can utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that ALL sequences COULD potentially produce a 'functional protein', it would be impossible for an undirected system to 'discover' for example, a 'functional protein' for blood clotting where and when it needed it, because by definition nearly 1E +180 of the protein sequences 'out there' are in the 'useless combinatorial space' for blood clotting - so 'finding' the ACTUAL proten sequence to incorporate into the blood clotting cascade would defeat any 'blind' system like Macro-Evolution.
It would be like a spare parts company, randomly searching it's enormous warehouse of 1E+180 spare parts for a particular spare part for your car. You would end up with a pile of supplied spare parts the size of the Universe - and still no statistical chance of ever getting the spark plug that you ordered!!!

Equally, it is observed that ALL functional proteins are tightly specified and in turn they perform highly specific tasks in a closely co-ordinated and tightly integrated manner with other proteins and bio-molecules within the living organism concerned – so there is an EXACT hierarchy of multiple layers of tightly specified complexity within which proteins perform their useful functions – and without which they would be functionally useless.

This logically indicates that functional proteins COULDN’T have ANY functionality until practically ALL of the critical sequence is formed and it is fully integrated within the organism and perfectly co-ordinated within for example, whatever cascade it is catalysing.

There are therefore enormous amounts of ‘useless combinatorial space’ between useful functional proteins and the ‘useless combinatorial space’ is so enormous (even in very short 100 chain proteins) that it would defeat all of the time and resources of the Universe to ‘cross’ it using undirected processes such as mutation and replications errors.

However, intelligence can easily ‘cross’ this ‘space’ by possessing the power to logically specify sequences to meet pre-determined, co-ordinated and fully integrated functional objectives.

DNA is basically a ‘chemical language’ that instructs the cellular machinery on how to construct the living organism and keep it alive. Like all languages it logically must have an intelligent source – because all languages (including DNA) are observed to have tightly specified unambiguously unique sequences in the midst of an effectively infinite amount of surrounding ‘useless combinatorial space’.

To illustrate, the 59 letters in the statement that “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” occupy a total potential ‘combinatorial space’ of 3.04E+83 i.e. (1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ………….59 times)
This happens to be an figure that is greater than the number of electrons in the Universe.

In practice, it would therefore be impossible for an undirected computer programme to EVER combine the 26 letters of the alphabet into this statement using undirected processes.
However, by applying very basic Human Intelligence to specifying the exact sequence of the letters, we easily overcome the effectively infinite ‘useless combinatorial’ space surrounding this unique, tightly specified and functionally understandable sequence of letters.

An example of the ‘useless combinatorial space’ within these 59 letters would be “SGFVXY BHESKGDFW BJJGDSDUPWDSBN NHGDFJKK JJHNSMDOOERYNNDK GYUWOQ”
- and a further approximately 10E+83 of similarly ‘functionally useless’ 59 letter ‘sets of gobbledygook’.!!!!

If a short meaningful sentence in the English language cannot be generated by random processes – then a meaningful DNA stretch for a functional protein also cannot be generated by random processes – and Materialistic Macro-Mutation is an essentially random process.


Quote :- Dr Stephen C Meyer, Director of The Discovery Institute Centre for Science & Culture, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Vol 117 no 2 pp 213-219 2004.
“Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks – almost by definition – are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality – with purposeful intelligence……….
For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.”

Wicknight
You must know that you are talking nonsense JC, so how does that fit into your idea that you are saved by your god because you reject evolution.
A belief in either Evolution or Creation cannot save you.....
You can only be saved by believing on Jesus Christ.

Wicknight
You must know you are lying to us, so how can you truly believe in Young Earth Creationism. My guess is that you don't.

Why you continue with this masquerade though, I'm not sure.

Could I lovingly and respectfully suggest that your sentiments ONLY actually apply to Evolution !!!!:)


Sleepy
I didn't know we had creationists in Ireland. Guess the education systems in even more trouble than I thought it was.

We have ALWAYS had Creationists in Ireland …..next time you are in Dublin visit the new Ussher Library in Trinity College, which honours one of the leading Irish Creationists, Archbishop James Ussher

Trinity honoured the 350th Anniversary Archbishop Ussher’s death, last year…….
And in 2003 Archbishop Ussher was also honoured by Trinity with the opening of the James Ussher Library – great to see Trinity honouring such a magnificent Irish Creationist and intellectual genus!!!!

…….and the Irish education system ......it's one of the best in the World……:D


Bluewolf
I just thought I'd ask about it . Everyone goes on about studying it (Evolution) in school, and I don't recall ever coming across it

Funny you should mention that.
I once met a person who claimed that he first heard of Evolution in Religion class and first studied Creation in Biology class!!!:eek:
you see, the RE teacher was a Theistic Evolutionist, with no scientific training, and the Biology teacher was a Creationist.
Apparently, the scientific objections to Theistic Evolution by students in the RE class, were so many and so sophisticated that the misfortunate RE teacher used to chastise his pupils for their "lack of faith in the miraculous power of God to use evolution"!!!!

I agree with the RE teacher that it WOULD take a Divine miracle to produce anything with Evolution!!!:eek:

I believe in a broad liberal education. On balance, I guess that the Religion Class was where Evolution properly belonged………I suppose that it could have been covered in the module on the ‘Great Religions of the World’!!!!:eek:


The Mad Hatter
I'm actually pretty sure I found out about it outside school.

Was that sex or Evolution ……..or BOTH??????


Scofflaw
Sure - if you gave up Biology at the Junior level, you'd hardly have come across evolution. Clearly, we evilutionists are remiss in our efforts to inculcate the young....at what point did religious education stop, as a matter of interest?

As an Evolutionist, your ‘Religious Education’ would seem to be ONGOING!!!!


….and I came across this very interesting quote in The Scientist 11(14): 10, 1997, about the lack of importance of Evolution within Operative Science:-
“No product, discovery, medical procedure, or advance has come out of evolutionary theory. Without evolutionary theory, all practical biology would just stand just as it is. No major corporation has a ‘Department of Evolution’ because scientists who have to produce results don’t use it.
In fact I would like to challenge the readership of this publication to come up with one practical application of biology that would have been impossible were it not for the hypothesis of evolution.”

However, within Religious Studies, I don't deny that Evolution may be somewhat more important within the overall scheme of things!!!!:eek:

Lovingly,

J C

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The point is that Evolution may 'fiddle' with information rich systems found in living organisms ......but it DOESN'T explain how all of these information rich systems originated in the first place. It is like a child in a flight simulator randomly 'throwing the switches' to see what happens.......but the simulator could NEVER be built by similar random processes.

Galvasean
I agree with you to a point here (common ground, huzzah!). Although I'd like to point out that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning of it all. Ideas like the big bang theory or a God like creator of the universe operate independently of evolutionary theory. So to say evolution doesn't work because evolution couldn't bring about the beginning of life is missing the point.

The ‘fiddling’ with the information rich systems found in living organisms IS ‘Evolution' ......and NOT 'Abiogenesis'………….
………BUT Evolution DOESN'T explain how all of these information rich systems supposedly developed from putative simple self-replicating molecules or whatever is the latest fashion in Abiogenesis Mythology!!!:D

So you are able to distinguish between evolution and abiogenesis. Interesting. You're correct - evolution doesn't explain the origin of living systems, but it doesn't attempt to. I don't deny for a moment that we don't know how abiogenesis happened, and you are entirely welcome to insert your preferred mechanism - evolution, however, is a proven mechanism.

J C wrote:

EVOLUTON is like a child in a flight simulator randomly 'throwing the switches' to see what happens.......but the simulator could NEVER be built by similar random processes…….and NEITHER could the child or it’s genome, be 'built' using random frame-shifts......even in tandem with a selection mechanism.

You're unable to come up with an analogy that doesn't involve a single pre-specified purpose. Unfortunately, that is not a flaw in evolution, but in your analogies.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Ignoring the issue of how genetic material originated in the first place, do you now accept that mutation can and does add genetic material and information to life through the process of mutation and natural selection?

Because if you do accept that then you have no reason to say that small life forms cannot evolve into bigger more complex life forms through evolution.

I don’t accept that frame shifts add new information to genomes……..they merely ‘leverage’ existing information. Damage to complex systems, like genomes and computer code, can (very rarely) result in new ‘useful’ activities but repeated damage will destroy the activity completely.
It is analogous to a broken toy robot which walks backwards when the broken ‘forwards’ button is pressed…….any more breakages however, and it would ‘pack up’ completely.
The broken ‘forwards’ switch DOESN’T result in new information………..it only produces a ‘new’ imperfect ‘backwards’ movement. Such a movement could even be conceivably ‘useful’ to the Robot……but because it is the result of DAMAGE to the robot any further damage will likely result in NO movement at all by the robot!!!

Oh dear, you're growing forgetful again. If you remember, this is a frameshift mutation. That means that one base pair has been added into the DNA, so that all the subsequent triplets are read differently:

TTT-GGG-CCC-TTT-AAA

could go to:

TTT-AGG-GCC-CTT-TAA

as the result of the insertion of the extra A(denosine) there. The A is entirely new, and has the knock-on effect of changing the reading of all the subsequent triplets. In this case, the new reading produces a novel enzyme that digests nylon - not very efficiently, it's true, but given the amount of nylon (tights and knickers, as you so elegantly put it) in the world, and the lack of other things digesting it, it's pretty useful - new information (the A) in the genome leading to a new enzyme.

There's no point in this continual pretence that this is just a re-reading of existing DNA, because new information has been added to the genome, without which the new enzyme would not be produced.

JC wrote:

Wicknight
You know perfectly well that mutation is random but natural selection isn't.

Using your example it would be life a child in a flight simulator flicking switches at random but every time the child flicks the correct switch it is locked in place by the plane. Eventually (quite quickly actually) the child will manage to get the plane off the ground because the correct switch is given significant placing (selection by the environment). The child just has to flick the right switch once, and this will be set by the environment (ie the plane).

The plane would crash EVERY TIME the switches are flicked randomly …..and so it would NEVER get off the ground. Try typing something randomly on your computer and see what I mean.

Natural Selection can only select advantages that arise…….but no ‘advantage trail’ can arise randomly in a complex system.

So, how could Evolution ‘win’ this particular ‘lottery’ and produce a useful functional protein?

1. It could do so if the number of ‘possible attempts’ more than matched the possible combinations – thereby generating all of the possible protein sequences for NS to select the functional ones. This is the intuitive belief that even though the chances of any aspect of life occurring spontaneously is exceedingly small, the vastly greater size of the Universe would still ensure that life would emerge somewhere via the Law of Big numbers.
However, the odds of 1E+180 for even a small protein are beyond all ‘possible attempts’ – even if all of the matter and time in the universe were used – so this is impossible.

2. It could do so if the process wasn’t actually random – but was ‘chemically pre-determined’ to select functional proteins or could otherwise efficiently select functional protein sequences from amongst the effectively infinite useless ‘combinatorial space’ that is 1E+180. Again this is observed to not be the case – the four nucleotide base combinations of DNA can chemically join up in any sequence to produce any amino acid sequence, thereby ruling out any ‘chemically pre-determined’ result.
NS is DEPENDENT on essentially random mutations / replication errors and therefore because NS is dependent upon on the random sequences that random mutations provides it is an essentially a random system, with effectively random results because of the infinite useless ‘combinatorial space’ that is available.

3. NS could also 'win' if practically all combinations of Amino Acids produced ‘useful functional proteins’ – but this is also NOT the case. There are an only an estimated 50,000 'functional proteins' in a Human Being, with chain lengths up to 27,000 amino acids in very tightly specified sequences.
There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence can utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that ALL sequences COULD potentially produce a 'functional protein', it would be impossible for an undirected system to 'discover' for example, a 'functional protein' for blood clotting where and when it needed it, because by definition nearly 1E +180 of the protein sequences 'out there' are in the 'useless combinatorial space' for blood clotting - so 'finding' the ACTUAL proten sequence to incorporate into the blood clotting cascade would defeat any 'blind' system like Macro-Evolution.
It would be like a spare parts company, randomly searching it's enormous warehouse of 1E+180 spare parts for a particular spare part for your car. You would end up with a pile of supplied spare parts the size of the Universe - and still no statistical chance of ever getting the spark plug that you ordered!!!

Equally, it is observed that ALL functional proteins are tightly specified and in turn they perform highly specific tasks in a closely co-ordinated and tightly integrated manner with other proteins and bio-molecules within the living organism concerned – so there is an EXACT hierarchy of multiple layers of tightly specified complexity within which proteins perform their useful functions – and without which they would be functionally useless.

This logically indicates that functional proteins COULDN’T have ANY functionality until practically ALL of the critical sequence is formed and it is fully integrated within the organism and perfectly co-ordinated within for example, whatever cascade it is catalysing.

There are therefore enormous amounts of ‘useless combinatorial space’ between useful functional proteins and the ‘useless combinatorial space’ is so enormous (even in very short 100 chain proteins) that it would defeat all of the time and resources of the Universe to ‘cross’ it using undirected processes such as mutation and replications errors.

However, intelligence can easily ‘cross’ this ‘space’ by possessing the power to logically specify sequences to meet pre-determined, co-ordinated and fully integrated functional objectives.

DNA is basically a ‘chemical language’ that instructs the cellular machinery on how to construct the living organism and keep it alive. Like all languages it logically must have an intelligent source – because all languages (including DNA) are observed to have tightly specified unambiguously unique sequences in the midst of an effectively infinite amount of surrounding ‘useless combinatorial space’.

To illustrate, the 59 letters in the statement that “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” occupy a total potential ‘combinatorial space’ of 3.04E+83 i.e. (1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ………….59 times)
This happens to be an figure that is greater than the number of electrons in the Universe.

In practice, it would therefore be impossible for an undirected computer programme to EVER combine the 26 letters of the alphabet into this statement using undirected processes.
However, by applying very basic Human Intelligence to specifying the exact sequence of the letters, we easily overcome the effectively infinite ‘useless combinatorial’ space surrounding this unique, tightly specified and functionally understandable sequence of letters.

An example of the ‘useless combinatorial space’ within these 59 letters would be “SGFVXY BHESKGDFW BJJGDSDUPWDSBN NHGDFJKK JJHNSMDOOERYNNDK GYUWOQ”
- and a further approximately 10E+83 of similarly ‘functionally useless’ 59 letter ‘sets of gobbledygook’.!!!!

If a short meaningful sentence in the English language cannot be generated by random processes – then a meaningful DNA stretch for a functional protein also cannot be generated by random processes – and Materialistic Macro-Mutation is an essentially random process.

Sadly, all of that is clearly so much rubbish, because we can, have, and are presenting you with a very straightforward example of a mutation producing a new enzyme. So all this stuff about "combinatorial space" is just pseudo-mathematical smokescreen.

JC wrote:

…….and the Irish education system ......it's one of the best in the World……:D

It has its failures.

JC wrote:

….and I came across this very interesting quote in The Scientist 11(14): 10, 1997, about the lack of importance of Evolution within Operative Science:-
“No product, discovery, medical procedure, or advance has come out of evolutionary theory. Without evolutionary theory, all practical biology would just stand just as it is. No major corporation has a ‘Department of Evolution’ because scientists who have to produce results don’t use it.
In fact I would like to challenge the readership of this publication to come up with one practical application of biology that would have been impossible were it not for the hypothesis of evolution.”

I'm glad you're keeping up with your reading. Did you get it from Creation magazine, by any chance?

Creation magazine
Volume 29, Issue 3
Published June 2007

Page 48: Quotable quote
Does science need evolution?
Avraham Sonenthal

Interesting that you have chosen to edit out the name of the author of the quote (it was in the original version of your post, but has now disappeared), and the fact that this was a letter - surely you are not trying to gloss over the fact that this quote appeared on the Letters page, and is from a prominent rabbi and jurist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

scofflaw wrote:

Creation magazine, Volume 29, Issue 3, Published June 2007, Page 48: Quotable quote

Nice catch, Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I don’t accept that frame shifts add new information to genomes……..they merely ‘leverage’ existing information.

You don't accept it?? What does that mean?

What the heck are you talking about? A frame shift cannot take place unless new information is added to the genetic material by mutation. That is what causes the shift. If that doesn't happen there is no frame shift.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

J C wrote:

The plane would crash EVERY TIME the switches are flicked randomly …..and so it would NEVER get off the ground. Try typing something randomly on your computer and see what I mean.

Man its like I'm not even here. A computer DOES NOT WORK BY NATURAL SELECTION.

I can (and I think Scofflaw already did) write a computer program that does work with natural selection that will filter random key presses and end up with an English sentence, exactly as evolution works.

J C wrote:

Natural Selection can only select advantages that arise…….but no ‘advantage trail’ can arise randomly in a complex system.

That is a complete and utter lie, and you know it

Environmental advantages arise ALL THE TIME from mutation. This has been demonstrated to you countless times on this thread.

J C wrote:

A belief in either Evolution or Creation cannot save you.....
You can only be saved by believing on Jesus Christ.

Well that is kinda my point.

How does Jesus feel about those who lie and attempt to deceive others. Pretty sure there are a couple of passages in the Bible that frown upon that. Based on how much of that you have done on this thread, where does that leave your salvation?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Sure - if you gave up Biology at the Junior level, you'd hardly have come across evolution. Clearly, we evilutionists are remiss in our efforts to inculcate the young....at what point did religious education stop, as a matter of interest?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I went to a non-denom secondary school, so I thankfully missed out on all the religion.

J C

bluewolf wrote:

I just thought I'd ask about it (Evolution). Everyone goes on about studying it in school, and I don't recall ever coming across it.

bluewolf wrote:

I went to a non-denom secondary school, so I thankfully missed out on all the religion.

......so you missed out on ALL religion (including Evolutionary Religion) at school!!!

BTW, Christianity isn't a religion ........it is a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Lovingly,

J C:)

Ciaran500

You're starting to troll now.

Ekancone

Ciaran500 wrote:

You're starting to troll now.

Agreed. Ban him.






Please!

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote:

Agreed. Ban him.

For goodness' sake! Of course not. JC's viewpoint is far more legitimate on a Christianity forum than ours. He's just had a bit of a setback, but I'm sure he'll rally magnificently.

minatorily,
Scofflaw