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
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
We can wave the phrase 'homologous recombination' about like a magic wand, but if we're clinging to a spar from a sunken Ark, it doesn't actually explain away what I've described.
........but it fully explains how we have MHC DRB1 and DQB1 genes, nonetheless!!!!:D
....did somebody carry out a census on them .....or something????Incorrect. Estimates put human ancestor populations at around 10,000 minimum.
:cool:If you look at the throughbred studbook, you'll see a tiny handful of individuals from the last couple of centuries representing most of the modern gene pool. This doesn't mean that there were only a handful of horses in the breeding population. A primer on genetic drift will help you see the error of your ways.
There was only a handful of foundation stallions......with many mares, before they closed the Stud Book!!!:)Rather more. 140,000 vs 60,000-90,000 years. It would require an extraordinarily literal-minded view to think that evolution required the two to have got it on.
......methinks that it would require a miracle........but then Evolution requires multiple miracles.......and therefore another miracle shouldn't cause the theory to be rejected for over-reliance on miracles!!!!:D:)You know, if I didn't have a broken leg, I'd be doing something much more worthwhile right now. I hope your excuse is as robust.
.......my excuse is that I am trying to help Evolutionists to discover the truth....
.......something which seems to be almost as painful as a broken leg......for ALL concerned!!!:eek::D0 -
Advertisement
-
I notice this is just a re-hash of your first post and has probably already been debunked, but what the hey. Since you reposted it clearly you haven't learnt anything:1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
Clearly you have never heard of Chaos Theory. I direct you to the excellent book Chaos by James Gleick. If that's too hard a read, Deep Simplicity by John Gribbin is an easier read on the subject of chaos.2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
Ah classic attempted creationist misdirection. You sound like Kent Hovind. An inanimate object, though complex, does not reproduce - a basic tenet for classification as life. Note also that complexity does not automatically indicate design. And because you say otherwise doesn't make it true.3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
Astronomical observations strongly indicate that the mean energy density of the Universe is exactly what would be expected if there was zero initial energy at the start of the Big bang and would require no violation of the laws of energy conservation.4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
Doesn't prove a thing.5. The fact that all mutations are observed to be 'information losing' phenomena means that mutation doesn't provide any mechanism for increasing genetic information in living organisms indicates. This indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information potential than it now possesses.
As a creationists you like to believe that the founding population for a given species (the ones saved on the Ark presumably) already contained the information necessary to produce the diversity in beak sizes among for example, the Galapagos Finches. Your argument is that only the environmental pressures allow this information to express itself so that diversity occurs within the species only, and that no new information is created or necessary... Antibiotic resistance anybody? Creationists attack this by saying that bacteria pass resistance to each other by exchanging plasmids that have nothing to do with mutations. That is a lie. The bacteria which first spreads the plasmid for new resistance to new drugs had to experience a mutation in the gene which produces plasmids, which it can then exchange with other bacteria; but it had to undergo a useful mutation first. As the creationists would have us believe, bacteria are genetically encoded with all the possibilites for different plasmids, just waiting for an antibiotic to come along so they can select the appropriate plasmid and spread the goodwill! This doesn't explain resistance to human-engineered medicines, unless they had an industrial microbiology laboratory on the Ark and a knowledge of modern genetics based on evolution, which I highly doubt. Sequence the genome of a culture before and after introducing a medicinal agent and you will see a gain in information.6. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
I direct your attention to the discovery of organic molecules on Titan (Capone et al., 1981), http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071128151808.htm7. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God
Just because you didn't see it happen doesn't make it untrue. At least science can attempt to explain origins rather than resorting to the supernatural. Could I gently remind you that science doesn't preclude a supernatural origin either, but because that is outside the realm of science it is not relevant to the mechanisms of how things occur. You're perfectly entitled to believe in a divine creator but you also cannot prove it so stop spouting 'scientific' nonsense.Each science discipline provides incontrovertible evidence for Creation as follows:-
1. Geology shows that all fossils are less than c. 7,000 years old with the vast majority of fossils dating from Noah’s Flood 5,000 +/- 500 years ago.
Where are the peer-reviewed geology papers on these dates? Where are the creationist papers which show every other consistent date (all several hundred thousand of them) are wrong? Geology also shows that the Jack Hills zircons are ~4.4 Gyr old.The assumption that the millions of so-called “annual micro layers” observed in deep sedimentary rock layers ... was disproved during the Mount St Helens volcanic eruption in 1980 when hundreds of thousands of “micro layers” were observed to be laid down in newly formed sedimentary rocks in a matter of hours.
If you apply this to all sedimentary layers everywhere gross inconsistencies pop up. The decadal cycles in aeolian Navajo Sandstone, Utah (Chan and Archer, 2000), Milankovitch cycles in British Jurassic mudrocks (Weedon, Jenkyns, Coe and Hesselbo, 1999) and condensed sections clearly mean nothing to you.Equally, polystrate tree fossils are observed ‘standing up through’ sedimentary rock layers that supposedly took millions of years to lay down – the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years. It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!
-Lol! Extensive root systems reached into deeper layers.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.
AGAIN I refer you to Funkhauser, Barnes & Noughton, 1965. Scientists are well aware to test the appropriate phenocrysts and not the potentially much older xenoliths. You obviously didn't read my earlier post regarding andesites or you would have realised how silly your assertion sounds. And you profess to have geological experience?! Another classic creationist ploy - attack the few examples where radiometric dating has given obviously spurious results versus the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of perfectly fine results. To use a common analogy - your computer occasionally crashes. Do you conclude that all computers do not work? Of course not because that would be RIDICULOUS!2. Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
This is laughable. I will just say that I know someone who recently completed a PhD involving fossilised frogs which are 180 million years old. She successfully extracted collagen from them. Seriously, have you never heard of instances of exceptional preservation?
That was fun
. 0 -
Eschatologist wrote: »Clearly you have never heard of Chaos Theory. I direct you to the excellent book Chaos by James Gleick. If that's too hard a read, Deep Simplicity by John Gribbin is an easier read on the subject of chaos.
When biological systems start behaving chaotically .....'bad things' happen to the organism.......so Chaos Theory doesn't even get to the starting blocks as an explanation for life.Eschatologist wrote: »Note also that complexity does not automatically indicate design. And because you say otherwise doesn't make it true.
An object must be specified as well as complex to infer that it is designed!!!:cool:Eschatologist wrote: »Astronomical observations strongly indicate that the mean energy density of the Universe is exactly what would be expected if there was zero initial energy at the start of the Big bang and would require no violation of the laws of energy conservation.
OK......so our observed tera tera tera tera tera......tera watts of energy in a trillion trillion trillion trillion stars.......indicates that they ALL originated from NO energy at all ........first there was nothing .......and then it blew up with the ferocity of a trillion trillion trillion trillion Suns!!!:)
.......that sure was some 'nothing!!!!:eek::)
.....and I discovered some pretty 'long chain aromatics' eminating from somebody that I shared a seat with on a plane recently.....but neither of us expect any life to emerge from them....in the foreseeable future!!!! :eek::)Eschatologist wrote: »I direct your attention to the discovery of organic molecules on Titan (Capone et al., 1981), http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071128151808.htmEschatologist wrote: »-Lol! Extensive root systems reached into deeper layers.
It is the fossilised (and perfectly preserved) tree trunks sticking up through supposed hundreds of millions of years of stratigraphy that I was referring to.....
......and the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years. It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers with embedded polystrate trees therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!:)Eschatologist wrote: »This is laughable. I will just say that I know someone who recently completed a PhD involving fossilised frogs which are 180 million years old. She successfully extracted collagen from them. Seriously, have you never heard of instances of exceptional preservation?
That was fun.
........so you believe that the collagen in a fossilised frog can be preserved and recovered........after 180 million years!!!!!!!!!!
........now that is some feat of preservation!!!!!
.......and some Dino fossils are so well preserved that you could almost obtain a blood donation from them!!!
......the fact that many fossils contain organic material is actually further proof ......that they have been preserved very recently indeed!!!
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
........so you believe that the collagen in a fossilised frog can be preserved and recovered........after 180 million years!!!!!!!!!!This is laughable. I will just say that I know someone who recently completed a PhD involving fossilised frogs which are 180 million years old. She successfully extracted collagen from them. Seriously, have you never heard of instances of exceptional preservation?
........now that is some feat of preservation!!!!!
.......and some Dino fossils are so well preserved that you could almost obtain a blood donation from them!!!
......the fact that many fossils contain organic material is actually further proof ......that they have been preserved very recently indeed!!!
A pity you missed JC's original comments on this...he had blood squirting across the room from the specimens.
cordially,
Scofflaw0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement