Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
Your speculative account of the 'knicker eating bacterium' is full of could haves, would haves and should haves.....
Scofflaw
Yes, that is because it is speculative. Hopefully it's not too hard to follow, though.
The salient point is that your statements about the ’evolution’ of the 'knicker eating bacterium' is speculation on your part…..and completely unfounded speculation, at that!!!:eek:
It is, like the rest of Evolutionary Mythology……easy enough to follow……..but logically and scientifically invalid!!!!:D
Oddly enough, speculation is a big part of science - indeed, it is hard to see how it could possibly proceed without it. For that speculation to be scientific, it need only be scientifically testable, which the above speculation quite deliberately is.J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
......but the old 'Knickers Muncher' is just an example of a frame shift 'leveraging' an infinitesimal fraction of the bacterium's existing information base.....and so it is actually an example of micro-Evolution in action!!!
Scofflaw
OK, interesting new definition of 'micro-evolution' there. I think I was reasonably clear on how after the frameshift, point mutations could easily produce improved versions of the nylon enzyme by changing random amino acids.
Both frame shifts and recombinant gene jumbling during sexual reproduction CONTINUOUSLY produce traits that are new and (sometimes) beneficial…..but these mechanisms work by ‘leveraging’ the existing genetic information ‘platform’ of the organisms concerned……and they are NOT the mythical macro-Evolutionary process that supposedly changed Pondscum into Man!!!!:D
Stop! You appear, to my surprise, to be making a very foolish error here. The genetic shuffling that takes place during sexual reproduction does not introduce any new traits.
If an organism with genes:
A0-B0-C0-D0-E0-F0
mates with another with genes:
A1-B1-C1-D1-E1-F1
the resulting offspring will have some combination of those genes. At no point are new genes introduced, unless there is a copying error. Copying errors are mutations, and whether they take place during the copying for sexual reproduction or during some other copying is irrelevant - they are not specific to sexual reproduction, and are certainly not part of the shuffling.
In fact, you have this completely back-to-front. Frameshift mutations result from new DNA (a new base pair, or two) added to the genome by a mutation - and can add new and beneficial traits such as the ability to digest nylon. Sexual reproduction does not add new traits, but merely shuffles the existing ones.
Whatever field your expertise may be in, it clearly does not cover the basic biology you are so keen to comment on.J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
.....and as I have already pointed out such events are to be expected in complex living organisms that have been Intelligently Designed to exploit environmental changes and opportunities........but frame shifts cannot explain how these organisms developed their vast information bases in the first place!!!
Scofflaw
And, I have to remind you once again, evolution does not attempt to. Evolution can explain how changes in the genetic information base lead to the diversity we see today, but does not cover how that information base arose initially. That is the speculative topic of abiogenesis, separate from evolution
Could I then re-state my point as follows:-
Events such as frame shifts and genetic recombination, are to be expected in complex living organisms that have been Intelligently Designed to adapt to environmental changes and opportunities....
Strange, then, that you did not expect it, still equally clearly don't understand it, and continue to argue against it in a muddled and hopeless way, as you demonstrate above. You have repeatedly argued, throughout this thread, that mutations cannot add new information to the genome, and that new proteins can apparently only arise by randomly assembling DNA - both of which we have clearly shown not to be true. If you need a refresher, I'll certainly oblige.J C wrote:....but frame shifts or recombination cannot explain how these organisms supposedly developed their vast information bases along the supposed continuum between Pondscum and Man.
Sigh:
1. not pondscum or pondslime
2. no continuum
3. neither pondslime nor man need capitals
Given that we clearly can add new information to a genome by mutation, I can't see what your problem is with the 'vast information bases' of genomes being produced by the long slow process of adding information by mutation, and taking away those organisms that have damaging mutations. After all, we have billions of years to work in.J C wrote:As I have previously said, the Evolutionist fallacy is like someone observing a particularly sophisticated Robot 'adapting' to environmental stimulii.....and then concluding that such 'adaptation' was the mechanism which produced the Robot, in the first place!!!:eek:
And as I've said before, you're incapable of producing an analogy that isn't self-servingly based on design. Think outside the (designed) box, JC!J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
Your REAL problem isn’t little old me……it is the Theory of Evolution ITSELF….. which is essentially an unfounded faith-based belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime.
Giblet
Ah the age old adage, that if faith can be undermined by science, what better way to level the playing field, by referring to evolution as a faith.
Faith could be either undermined or verified by Science!!
The Evolutionist Faith is essentially an unfounded belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime……
….while the Judeo-Christian Faith in the Direct Creation of the Universe and all life therein, is scientifically verifiable !!:eek:
If it is, you have shown no evidence for it. Nothing you have ever put forward on this thread has been anything other than an attack on other theories. You have yet to put forward one single piece of positive evidence for the Judeo-Christian God as the Creator of the Universe.
I don't even mean by that that you have offered what you believe to be such evidence. Everything you have put forward would, at best, if it actually worked the way you appear to to think it does, invalidate our current scientific models - but that's all. Not one bit of it would actually show that the Biblical God, as opposed to Shiva, or Allah, or the Great White Spirit, was the God with his hand in the cookie jar. Flaws in a scientific theory cannot be taken, of themselves, to validate Jehovah.
dismissively,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Robin
I've suggested it before and I'll suggest it again -- with expertise like that, you're wasted posting here. You should write to the Nobel committee instead:
Being able to demolish the most well-attested theory in the history of biology must be worth at least one prize!
It ought to be worth one prize.......but I won't be 'holding my breath' in expectation !!!!:D
…….in any event, I freely give all of the credit to Jesus Christ…..and I doubt if the Nobel Committee would award Him a prize!!!!!:eek:
5uspect
Did you have a chance to dig up any peer reviewed scientific papers to support your claims about evolution?
I was actually hoping that the Evolutionists on this thread might have dug up some peer reviewed scientific papers, to support THEIR claims about evolution!!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
speculation is a big part of science - indeed, it is hard to see how it could possibly proceed without it. For that speculation to be scientific, it need only be scientifically testable,
……which is where macro-Evolution comes completely unstuck!!:D
……because it isn’t observed in practice and it cannot even occur in theory ………
……….as Prof Stephen Jay Gould said, the absence of “intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
Scofflaw
The genetic shuffling that takes place during sexual reproduction does not introduce any new traits.
If an organism with genes:
A0-B0-C0-D0-E0-F0
mates with another with genes:
A1-B1-C1-D1-E1-F1
the resulting offspring will have some combination of those genes. At no point are new genes introduced, unless there is a copying error. Copying errors are mutations, and whether they take place during the copying for sexual reproduction or during some other copying is irrelevant - they are not specific to sexual reproduction, and are certainly not part of the shuffling.
Actually, the main source of genetic diversity is outbred sexual recombination.
Mutation is of secondary importance and it carries significant risks of phenotypic abnormalities for the organisms so afflicted.
Indeed, the risk of copying errors is so significant that the genome comes complete with in-built sequence checking systems to CORRECT copying mistakes when they occur!!!!!:eek:
Originally Posted by JC
Events such as frame shifts and genetic recombination, are to be expected in complex living organisms that have been Intelligently Designed to adapt to environmental changes and opportunities....
Scofflaw
Strange, then, that you did not expect it, still equally clearly don't understand it, and continue to argue against it in a muddled and hopeless way, as you demonstrate above. You have repeatedly argued, throughout this thread, that mutations cannot add new information to the genome, and that new proteins can apparently only arise by randomly assembling DNA - both of which we have clearly shown not to be true.
Firstly, I would draw a distinction between frame shifts and copying errors.
Copying errors always degrade information……otherwise there would be no need for a spell-checker on your computer!!!
Frame shifts ‘leverage’ pre-existing information …….just like sexual recombination also ‘leverages’ pre-existing information!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
....but frame shifts or recombination cannot explain how these organisms supposedly developed their vast information bases along the supposed continuum between Pondscum and Man.
Scofflaw
Given that we clearly can add new information to a genome by mutation, I can't see what your problem is with the 'vast information bases' of genomes being produced by the long slow process of adding information by mutation, and taking away those organisms that have damaging mutations. After all, we have billions of years to work in.
……but frame-shifts and recombination (which act as ‘jugglers’ of information) are FUNDAMENTALLY different processes to the process that produced the information in the first place……..it is the difference between the (relatively simple) process of using a Kaleidoscope ……..and the (much more difficult) task of producing the Kaleidoscope, in the first place.
Twisting a Kaleidoscope in a simple, random, unspecified way can produce amazing complex patterns of colour combinations …….but the manufacture of a Kaleidoscope is observed to be tightly specified and to require a significant input of intelligence!!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
As I have previously said, the Evolutionist fallacy is like someone observing a particularly sophisticated Robot 'adapting' to environmental stimulii.....and then concluding that such 'adaptation' was the mechanism which produced the Robot, in the first place!!!
Scofflaw
And as I've said before, you're incapable of producing an analogy that isn't self-servingly based on design. Think outside the (designed) box, JC!
When I was an Evolutionist I always thought outside of the (designed) box………
……but I eventually realised that my thinking was actually in denial of the obvious design exhibited by all aspects of living organisms!!!:D
Scofflaw
You have yet to put forward one single piece of positive evidence for the Judeo-Christian God as the Creator of the Universe.
I could start with YOU yourself, Scofflaw as evidence for the Judeo-Christian God…….
Firstly, you are a highly intelligent, tightly specified and irreducibly complex creature………who could only have arisen as a result of an enormous ultimate input of intelligent design.
Secondly, you have been created with an eternal soul and intellect that is capable of forming a one-to-one loving relationship with God.
Thirdly, even though you show absolutely no gratitude to the God who made you….He still loves you, and allows you to exercise your free will to reject Him, thereby illustrating the magnanimity of God.
Fourthly, if you continue to freely reject God, He will judge your sin when you die and will allow you to live out your rejection of Him in eternal perdition, thereby illustrating the justice of God.
The only God who has claimed to have created all life, wishes to have a personal relationship with individual Humans, loves and forgives us in spite of our sins but will judge us if we don’t rely on Him to save us, is the Judeo-Christian God!!!!
Scofflaw
Flaws in a scientific theory cannot be taken, of themselves, to validate Jehovah.
You are correct that invalidating Evolution doesn’t prove the existence of God……..it merely removes one (very large) stumbling block to placing your faith in Him to save you!!!!
As God might say “before (and after) Evolution, I AM”!!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
........are you 'Rapture Ready', Asiaprod??
Asiprod
Lets see, parachute..check
Crash helmet...check
Altimeter...check
Air sickness pills...check
Big stick...check
Bottle of pond slime for new worlds...check
Ready JC, when do we lift off?
‘Lift off’ is imminent, Asiaprod!!
……but your checklist is missing the most important item…….a saving faith in Jesus Christ……without which you will be literally grounded!!!!!!:D
...and BTW you won't need anything on your checklist......Jesus will rapture all Christians instantly....just as they are, at that moment in time.....and without any personal belongings or safety equipment!!!!:D
With loving thoughts
J C0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
daithifleming
JC, im in the office right now. Im looking at the air vent in the ceiling and i see a trail of dust sprayed around the edges and on the panels of the ceiling surrounding it. Now, the micro-evolution of that process was obviously very small quantities of dust particles gathering over a time period of years in order to build up a visible amount. On the other hand, the macro-evolution of that would be as so: First step, clean ceiling. Second step, dusty ceiling. Now one is the same as the other, its just two ways of looking at the same thing. But to you macro and micro are two completely different things, with no relationship. Why?
The dust particles gathering on the ceiling are analogous to micro-evolution……..
The original manufacture of the fan and the air vent is analogous to Direct Creation.
……….and IF the fan started to slowly change into a computer, that would be analogous to macro-evolution!!!!:eek:
Robin
Anyhow, here's something from the good folks at FSTDT: a medical paper published by the Institute for Demonology Research on the effectiveness of (atheistic) antibiotics:
http://www.fstdt.com/winace/antibiot...ness/index.htm
Enjoy!
OK so, do the Evolutionists who obviously wrote this, believe that bacteria are developing resistance to antibiotics under the influence of demons??
…….more Evolutionist 'wisdom'…..written for Evolutionists by Evolutionists!!!!!
…..it’s almost as funny as the rest of the stuff that Evolutionists write for themselves!!!:D
Evolution is such a joke that one never knows when Evolutionists are serious or just having a laugh!!!!:eek:
Wicknight
If I mean to write -
"I was walking home last night when I saw a scary thing"
and it is copied incorrectly as -
"I saw a scary thing when I was walking home last night"
That new sentence still is valid English.
Copy errors do not do not always degrade information. They can, for example if the sentence came out
"I scary thing saw a when I walking was home night last"
Though even that still contains useful information. But they don't always
Your statement is completely unsupported, as I'm sure you are aware of by now
ALL of the above sentences were produced by the appliance of intelligence by you!!!!:eek:
The correct analogy for spontaneous Evolution would be to allow random errors to be produced and then to expect that your original sentence "I was walking home last night when I saw a scary thing" could gradually evolve into “evolution has been proven to be mathematically invalid on this thread” while retaining meaning at all intermediate stages in-between the two sentences!!!
This is the insurmountable challenge which the vast useless combinatorial space in all languages present to processes like spontaneous Evolution!!!:eek: :cool:
Wicknight
Frame shifts "leverage" pre-existing information BY ADDING NEW INFORMATION.
The sentence "I like ice cream" is leverage to "I don't like ice cream" by the introduction of the word "don't" The rest of the sentence stays the same, but the new information changes the meaning of the entire sentence.
This is a frame-shift. New information is added which also alters the meaning of the previous information.
The problem for spontaneous Evolution is that your sentence “I don’t like ice cream” was constructed via an input of intelligence to the equally intelligently designed sentence “I like ice cream”..........
Non-intelligently controlled processes would have garbled the sentence into something like “U srht vjts n£@#”;:eek:
Originally Posted by J C
……but frame-shifts and recombination (which act as ‘jugglers’ of information) are FUNDAMENTALLY different processes to the process that produced the information in the first place
Wicknight
It isn't actually (evolution is evolution), but then no one was talking about that in the first place until you started searching for an change of subject because you got stuck having to admit that a frame-shift is a mutation that adds new genetic information that also changes how the rest of the genetic information is processed, something you are refusing to admit because previously you claim that was impossible.
The Evolutionist fallacy is like someone observing a particularly sophisticated Robot 'adapting' to environmental stimulii.....and then concluding that such 'adaptation' was the mechanism which produced the Robot, in the first place!!!
…..and here, for all those who still wonder what the Big Cat Kind ate on Noah’s Ark, is the amazing stories of two VEGETARIAN Lions……..!!!!
…….one lion remained a veggie all her life
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/272
……..and another lion ate mostly pasta and spaghetti for the first seven years of her life
http://www.themauisunnews.org/features/spaghetti-kid.html:eek:
With Love
J C0 -
J C wrote:
The dust particles gathering on the ceiling are analogous to micro-evolution……..
The original manufacture of the fan and the air vent is analogous to Direct Creation.
……….and IF the fan started to slowly change into a computer, that would be analogous to macro-evolution!!!!:eek:
No, not at all. You dont even undertstand the difference between macro and micro in the English language? I dont mean in reference to evolution here, just with regards language. Macro and micro are two ways of viewing the exact same process, they are one and the same, such as micro and macroeconomics. They are inseperatable (sp?). So why do you attempt to seperate them?
I want you to answer this question without making reference to evolution, just for this one post, only in reference to the English language. Thanks.0 -
-
-
-
J C wrote:5uspect
Did you have a chance to dig up any peer reviewed scientific papers to support your claims about evolution?
I was actually hoping that the Evolutionists on this thread might have dug up some peer reviewed scientific papers, to support THEIR claims about evolution!!!!!:eek:
Well then why don't you hop on over to:
International Journal of Organic Evolution
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of Human Evolution
and even the Journal of Biology.
Now there you'll have access to thousands of papers supporting evolution.
Care to review any for us? Show us where any of these peer reviewed Journals support what you claim they say?0 -
-
Scofflaw wrote:Or, taking exactly the same line of reasoning, it is clear that sand dunes can't possibly be made by the movement of individual sand grains, unless each dune is specifically designed, or sand grains are pre-programmed to form dunes. After all, if you randomly throw sand grains around, you just get a sandy mess - what are the odds against forming a barchan dune randomly?
The formation of sand dunes is observed to be complex but NOT specified.....just like daithifleming's dust collection near his fan!!!!:D
Living systems are observed to be BOTH complex AND specified......the unambiguous 'hallmark' of applied intelligence!!!:eek:
You do know, I'm sure, that there is no comparison between inert sand dunes and living organisms.....or do you really believe that 'planting' an (inert) feather in the ground will grow a (living) hen???? 0 -
J C wrote:The formation of sand dunes is observed to be complex but NOT specified.....just like daithifleming's dust collection near his fan!!!!:D
Living systems are observed to be BOTH complex AND specified......the 'hallmark' of applied intelligence!!!:eek:
You do know, I'm sure, that there is no comparison between inert sand dunes and living organisms.....or do you really believe that 'planting' an (inert) feather in the ground will grow a (living) hen????
No, but I'd like you to explain how the formation of sand dunes is "complex but NOT specified", since there are indeed several specific shapes of sand dunes.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I have scanned some of the papers ...... and they all seem to be describing Natural / Sexual Selection or Speciation within Kinds in action :eek:5uspect wrote:Well then why don't you hop on over to:
International Journal of Organic Evolution
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of Human Evolution
and even the Journal of Biology.
Now there you'll have access to thousands of papers supporting evolution.
Care to review any for us? Show us where any of these peer reviewed Journals support what you claim they say?
......which is accepted by Creation Scientists........
........it's the unfounded claims that Pondscum 'morphed' into Man that Creation Scientists don't accept!!!:D
Love
J C0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement