The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

And a man who stands up and says that the sun has risen in the west shares the same evidence as a man who says that the sun has risen in the east. Only the interpretations of the evidence are different.

No, my analogy better suits one man saying the sun is stationary and the earth revolves, giving the impression the sun moves; and the other man says the earth is stationary and the sun actually moves.

Same evidence: different interpretation.

All scientists encounter this, hence the disagreements among evolutionists, and among creationists.

One or the other or all may be wrong. It is natural to favour one's own conclusion, but it is arrogant for any to claim all the evidence is unambiguous.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, my analogy better suits one man saying the sun is stationary and the earth revolves, giving the impression the sun moves; and the other man says the earth is stationary and the sun actually moves.

No, your analagy doesn't better suit that. In that example, both claims produce testable predictions, which are both falsifiable.

Neither of those claims involve taking the evidence and saying that the interpretation must be wrong because it contradicts some inviolable truth.

The guy who says that the sun rises in the West is a far more apt example. If necessary, he can redefine what East and West are, just as long as his truth his held inviolable.

Just like yours.

Or are you going to show how Genesis can be falsified?

it is arrogant for any to claim all the evidence is unambiguous.

It is not arrogant to say that the evidence absolutely does not support a specific claim. The (non-analogical) evidence does not support Creationism, no more than the (analogical) evidence supports the sun rising in the west.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by aggresso
Are you a mind reader? What have you detected that I see as "unchallengably obvious"?

How do you know I disagree with Gould on punctuated equilibrium? I don't. I don't know enough about paleontology, geology or genetics to be able to adjudicate between his view and (say) Richard Dawkins' ideas about the same subject.

I bet you don't either. If I'm wrong, you'll be willing to explain what you mean. But be careful, I have read a little bit on the arguments on both sides, and you could get caught out.


wolfsbane
I thought it would be obvious, but it seems I was mistaken - I of course meant you to refer to non-PE evolutionists, not you personally.

So I happily admit our joint scientific ignorance. What we shouldn't be ignorant about is that Gould believed the non-PEers were seeing something that wasn't there.

.....and even the 'PE-eers' (I like that word!!!) were looking for evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design......and failing to find it in either the fossil record .......or their imaginations!!!!:pac::):D

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

As long as it implies both are comparable, you don't really care whether its taken to mean scientific or non-scientific, right?

Because thats all this game is about, isn't it? As long as you can have your beliefs viewed on a comparable level to science...you don't care what that perception really is.

Well, OK - Whatever the definition of science you use, I want creation science to be on a par with evolutionary science.

We exchanged a series of posts, which concluded with you apparently finally considering the possibility that science isn't making any claims about what is, but is rather concerned with modelling...with producing poredictions which will match future observations.

You asked the scientists here whether or not that was accurate, and the only disagreement you got was from JC. Put more simply...the only person who wouldn't agree that it was an accurate description of science was someone who - like you - has a vested interest in redefining what science is in order to promote their own beliefs.

You can refresh my memory, as I might have missed something, but I recall only one other reply agreeing that modeling is the only definition of science. A deafening silence? But I'm open to correction.

You then withdrew for a while, only to return, providing links which repeat the same old fiction that science is some sort of belief-system about what is....and to make your point yet again that Creationism is just as scientific as evolutionary science.

The links were of evolutionist sites! If they don't agree with you, that's your problem.:D

Its almost as though you had never asked that question of the scientists here, or if they had never answered. Its almost as though you had offered some reason why the creationist view of science was the correct one, and that offered by all the other posters was wrong. But no...you didn't do that. You just walked away until that was a page or two behind us, and then returned to teach the same old controversy once again, as though our discussion never occurred.

I apologise for not keeping up - I may indeed have missed something. My time is limited - I work nights, attend to my family and church, and engage in other threads on more directly spiritual subjects.

I make this appeal again - if anyone feels I've neglected their post, please remind me on the thread or by PM and I'll give it priority.

Please remember JC and I are the only creationists engaging here. It may take you x minutes to post a reply to us, but it takes us 10x to answer all the evolutionist posts.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
......because of the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design.....and indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases!!!!!
aggresso
a very classy version (not) of the very silly "argument from personal incredulity". Answer: Speak for yourself. My imagination is a little more creative than yours, it seems.

……could I gently remind you that it was the LEADING EVOLUTIONIST, Professor Stephen J Gould who came up with the opinion that we are unable, even in our imaginations, to construct functional intermediates in many cases!!!!!:D



Originally Posted by J C
......poor Professor Gould must have had such doubts about the validity of ANY form of Evolution when he realised that missing links were not only missing in practice .......but they were also totally impossible to imagine even in theory !!!!

agresso
Ditto

……and ditto to that for me too!!:eek:



Originally Posted by J C
......your faith in 'Agressive Atheism' is indeed on very shaky ground......and the downside if you are wrong is also very serious!!!

aggresso
I have no faith in the sense you mean. I'm an atheist, as it happens. The reference to "aggressive" in my blog URL is an ironic reference to a comment made by our former Taoiseach about people like me. Don't worry, I'm not going to hit you.

As well as your reference to aggressive Atheism in your blog URL, your Boards User Name also indicates 'aggression' on your part……

……in any event, whether your Atheism is aggressive or passive it is still on very shaky ground......and the downside is very serious if you are wrong……and God exists!!!:eek:



Originally Posted by J C
....my faith is well grounded in the observable Universe.....and there is no downside if I am wrong and there is no God!!!!!

aggresso
Your faith is (sadly for you) grounded in nothing but your own personal selective credulity. The very idea of believing for insurance purposes is just too cheap and tawdry to be taken seriously.

Christians have faith because we love God……..but for those who don’t love Him……..the ‘Insurance Policy’ dimension to faith could be a good starting point on their road to their salvation …… and it no more ‘cheap and tawdry’ than taking out any other Insurance Policy actually!!!!!!!!!!!!:)



Originally Posted by J C
...but Evolutionists DO claim that it occurred spontaneously.......i.e with no external intelligent input!!!!

Rockbeer
You propose a false dichotomy - either high genetic complexity arose fully formed or was created by the application of intelligence. There are alternatives you don't include which have been explained at length on this thread - hence my suggestion that you either admit you are winding us up or admit you don't understand the theory of evolution.

I ALSO include any putative gradual build up to high genetic complexity as ‘evolution’…..and I similarly declare it to be IMPOSSIBLE!!!!



Rockbeer
It's really quite extraordinary how somebody who claims to be a scientist has failed so utterly to come up with a single piece of credible science, or even a clue that they understand what science actually is, in over 500 pages. Aren't you ashamed?

…..I have the sackcloth and the ashes……..and I am covering myself in them as I write!!!!!:D:o



Originally Posted by J C
The fact that NOBODY can show how muck could evolve into Man using purely Materialistic processes......is actually quite a good proof that it DIDN'T happen!!!

aggresso
That's exactly what Darwin did show. That's what's all the fuss is about, don't you know?

Darwin discovered Natural Selection / Speciation in operation within Created Kinds…and this has been invalidly extrapolated by Spontaneous Evolutionists to explain how the Kinds themselves came to exist!!!!
It’s like finding that you can run at speeds of up to 20 mph and claiming that it is therefore possible for people, given enough time, to run at 6,000 mph!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:



Originally Posted by J C
.....and the idea that specified complexity can arise by using a random generator and selecting from the resultant material is a 'pipe dream'......because the quantity of non-functional material would be effectively infinite and the functional material so rare as to require all of the time and material in the 'Big Bang' Universe to spontaneously generate the sequence for just one small protein molecule!!!!

aggresso
Now you're waffling.

………it’s the same reason why manufacturing processes do not use random processes to produce nuts and bolts ……even with a quality control / selection process in operation to try and undo the damage!!!!!

The combinatorial space for useless bolts is effectively infinite…..and usually only one specific bolt type will perform a specific function within a specific machine………so using randomly produced bolts and a quality control system would be so grossly wasteful that any company using such a system would go rapidly bankrupt as the mountain of useless bolts and machines piled higher and higher…….without a functioning machine EVER emerging from the pile of useless scrap that such a process would generate!!

…..ditto with Spontaneous Evolution!!!:)



Originally Posted by J C
.....and I will graciously refrain from identifying whose stamina is floundering on this thread!!!

aggresso
It's easier to keep repeating yourself without reading your opponents' views properly and padding everything out with exhausting emotions and exclamation marks than it is to be at the other end of your effusion and keep from having an epileptic fit.

Speaking of exhaustion. I'm off to bed. Write whatever rubbish you like, with as many emotions and exclamation marks you like. It won't win you converts. It'll just succeed in boring half to death the people (like myself) unfortunate enough to blunder into it.

……imagine that ……..Atheists losing sleep over a Christianity Forum Thread!!!!:eek:



Originally Posted by J C
...but Evolutionists DO claim that it occurred spontaneously.......i.e with no external intelligent input

aggresso
You're right there, genetic mutations are generally spontaneous and are the engine of evolution, but what evolutionary theory can very easily do is provide a model for explaining how such spontaneous mutations can over time lead to seemingly purposeful structures.

Atomic Horror
That's not what spontaneous means. It means without external influence. It says nothing about intelligence. We maintain that external influence is essential to evolution. So once again- we don't believe in "spontaneous evolution". Can we stop talking about it now?

…..so aggressio agrees with me that Spontaneous Evolution is the correct descriptor of the Theory of Evolution…..while Atomic Horror disagrees!!!

Aggressio please talk to Atomic Horror…….who seems to think that ‘evolution’ isn’t supposed to be spontaneous!!!!!


Robin
You've said that over 80% of scientists are creationists who stay silent, while a "very brave" 1% speak up. That means that around 1.2% of creationists overall are brave, while the remaining 98.8% of creationists -- yourself included -- are too frightened to speak their minds in public, even though (bizarrely) you say that you are in a massive majority anyway.

If you're right about the 80%, then creationists are a pack of scaredy-cats.

The 80% who are ‘creationists’………include within their ranks everyone from ID advocates and Theistic Evolutionists to Old Earth Creationists!!!!

The Young Earth Creationists make up a significant percentage of this number and many DO bravely speak up…….both on this forum and elsewhere!!!!!!!!


Atomic Horror
…..functional intermediates (I'll give you a hint on that one- they don't need to be functional and they can even be detrimental and survive multiple generations)

…….so we are NOW expected to believe, for example, that a ‘light sensitive spot’ became light insensitive or worse, perhaps a deleterious 'boil on the behind' of its host…….as it underwent the changes necessary to become a proto-eye…….
……this certainly blows apart the nice comfy continuum of ‘upwards and onwards evolution’ presented in various Evolutionist textbooks!!!!

…..and what did the creature do when its ‘light sensitive spot’ became just a ‘sensitive spot’ ......on it's behind?????!!!!!!!!

…….answer…..it became totally blind……and with a sore butt!!!!!

……..and it apparently survived to become an ancestor of Atomic Horror!!!!

Anyway, if intermediates become detrimental they will almost invariably kill the organism concerned……..or else such intermediates will load the organism down with such deleterious characteristics that it won’t successfully reproduce…….either way, this will eliminate intermediates that are deleterious!!!!!!!!



Atomic Horror
random recombination of proteins does not occur and is not a part of evolutionary theory. Nor does random recombination of genetic material occur in evolution. Mutation works on a single-nucleotide level. Proteins are translated from genetic material. You have grossly over-stated the probabilities associated with the evolution of function.


I agree that proteins are observed to be so specific that ANY recombination is likely make them functionally useless!!!

You are also correct that mutation works on a single-nucleotide level…….BUT proteins ARE translated from this genetic material….and any changes to the nucleotide sequence …..that isn’t corrected by the cell nuclear ‘machinery’…….WILL significantly (and usually catastrophically) alter the resultant protein’s amino acid sequence and its functionality.

…..and unfortunately for Spontaneous Evolution, the probabilities associated with the evolution of function AREN’T overstated…..and the spontaneous development of only one simple functional protein would require all of the matter and time in the Known Universe!!!!


Eschatologist
It's tiring re-reading what is esentially is your delighted incredulity at why we won't accept the wonderful 'explanatory' power of creationism that's based on no rational evidence whatsoever; fancy that

……..and its tiring for me to have to re-state the obvious.........but you DO accept that Muck can spontaneously morph into Man……..funny that!!!!!:)


Eschatologist
That's fine, belief is belief, it doesn't require evidence. How easy it is though, to accept things with belief and faith without looking at what science can actually tell us.

…..I wouldn’t know how easy it is to accept a faith-based explanation for life ……because I’m not an Evolutionist……I’m an empirically focussed Creation Scientist…….looking at the purposeful, functional, high density information and complex specificity present in all living creatures……....
.......which objectively proves that there was an intelligent origin for life…….
…..actually the kind of objective physical evidence that convinced the leading Atheist of the 20th Century, Professor Anthony Flew……to become a Theist!!!:eek:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html


AtomicHorror
Not exactly, evolution works with or without abiogenesis. It's an independent theory. Abiogenesis is still mostly in the realms of hypothesis- just due to a lack of experimental data and the variety of conditions that may have allowed the process (it seems we're somewhat spoiled for choice in that regard). The evidence building towards a nice theory, but it's not there yet.

Could I gently point out that Evolution DOESN’T work…..with or without Abiogenesis.

Secondly, Abiogenesis is still in the realms of FANTASY ……and “the variety of systems that may have allowed the process” are only limited by the fertility of the Evolutionist imagination…….which is right up there with the fertility of a buck Rabbit ……..by all accounts!!!!:)



Originally Posted by J C
.....I suppose NOTHING counts if Evolutionists use self-serving definitions of the words Scientist, Creationist and Journalist

rockbeer
Perhaps you would like to share with us the definitions of these words that you would prefer evolutionists to use.

The self-serving definitions of these words which are used by Evolutionists are as follows:-

A ‘Scientist’ is a person with a Science Degree who believes in Spontaneous Evolution!!!

A ‘Creationist’ is somebody who DOESN’T believe in Spontaneous Evolution…..

…..and for some bizarre reason, only known to Evolutionists………they say that all Creation Scientists are ‘Journalists’!!!!!:eek:



Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
A definition of "Evolutionist" would be nice too. The term seems to suggest a philosophy rather than a science. Or some form of equality with creationism

rockbeer
Evolutionist? …..... someone who believes muck turned into man! Spontaneously!!!!!!

….that just about sums it up…….I couldn’t have said it better myself……......you even included the exclamation marks......thanks rockbeer!!!:)

iUseVi

^ ^ ^ ^
A gold star to anyone who managed to read that whole post.

Ekancone

iUseVi wrote: »

^ ^ ^ ^
A gold star to anyone who managed to read that whole post.

I have him on ignore, so I thankfully dont have to.

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

Yes, scientists differ between themselves. But this is how the bad theories are discarded, and the good theories remain. Good theories are supported by evidence and experiments can be devised to test the theories in a repeatable manner. This was explained, many, many post ago.

I suppose it is progress........ to see Atheists embracing metaphysical concepts like 'good' and 'bad'........

.....unfortunately, they seem unable to understand the difference between 'good' and 'bad' theories......as they continue with the completely defunct theory of Spontaneous Evolution.....that even a four year old would instantly dismiss as illogical!!!!!:eek::)

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

^ ^ ^ ^
A gold star to anyone who managed to read that whole post.

.....great to see Spontaneous Evolutionists incentivising their colleagues to improve their reading skills......as well as broadening their (narrow) knowledge base!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite so. What they are open to is having to admit they have no evidence to support their claim of a 6-Day recent creation. If that ever happened, if the present interpretation of evidence suggesting a young earth were shown to be not possible, then I would expect them to so say. Since the young earth interpretation is supported by the evidence, they say that too.

The evidence is refuted by scientists from multiple independent fields who have neither the motive nor the means to falsely discredit solid, if controversial, science. Despite these major issues, the creation "hypothesis" proceeds utterly unmodified. Even Evolutionary Theory has been changed, refined, partially discarded where appropriate. Not so Creationism.

wolfsbane wrote: »

A brief overview:
Evidence for a Young World
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1842/356/
They don't disregard the data, just the interpretation of the data. Not the same thing.

That simply isn't so. They disregard the data presented in mutliple independent radiometric experiments which support an old earth, effectively attempting to undermine the entire field of modern geology. They have instead invented the field of radiohalo geophysics to present alternate data on the matter. Data which has failed to convince the overwhelming majority of geologists and have been refuted numerous times. They seek to discredit the fields of paleantology and pretty much all of molecular biology, effectively casting aside centuries of data. There is no conceivable way that the data that has been collected over this time can be interpreted to support a young earth- instead new science must be present and the old discarded. This is what creationists have attempted, and failed, to do.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't think creationism has a problem with the scientific method, unless you equate that with naturalism:
Scientific Naturalism as Science
http://www.icr.org/article/422/

Creationism is quite pleased with its progress.

On naturalism... Creationists maintain that a supernatural being may have measurable effect on the observable universe. This would bring said being within the realms of the observable universe and thus within the realms of nature. The concepts natural and unnatural are meaningless. There is only the observable.

As for the scientific method... it demands the adoption only of testable hypotheses. How does creationism propose that we conclusively test the identity of a creator intelligence, assuming we detect it? How can we measure transendence of the observable universe?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm happy with weaknesses being attacked. Not with personal ridicule and/or persecution.

I would never condone personal attacks, nor persecution based on personal belief where it does not conflict with ones profession. However, attacks on personal and professional credibility, competency, bias... all fair game. We're talking about a world which informs government policy, technological development, medical development. There are human lives in the balance. This is not a game.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I use it for convenience, as I use creationism for creation science, not implying either are non-scientific.

It is a word now used exclusively by creationists. Convenient or otherwise, it has implications in that context which I find rather offensive. If creationists wish to engage with scientists as fellow scientists, it would help if they used the correct terminology. For us to use an effectively invented term which implied that creationism were a myth would be considered offensive and inflammatory.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

All the seem to be saying there is, 'well the evidence says one thing, but we know (somehow) the evidence is wrong'.

.......that's how the 'Theory of Muck to Man Evolution' operates alright !!!:eek::pac::):D

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Should I leave my work to get a degree in geology, biology, physics, etc.? No, I have a different calling. Does this leave me unable to challenge your dogma? No, with the help of JC and the many scientists whose material I point you to, I am content we have exposed the nakedness of Evolution.

An unbiased observer would concede at least that we have called into question the nature of its clothes - is it a body-stocking or bare-nakedness?

.......or would silk stockings .......and no knickers...... be a better descriptor of Evolution?????:pac::):D

MrPudding

daithifleming wrote: »

I have him on ignore, so I thankfully dont have to.

How do you put someone in ignore? At first reading his posts was kind of funny. Then they became a bit annoying as he continued to ignore pretty much anything anyone posted. Now I find them kind of creepy and a little scary.

MrP

J C

robindch wrote: »

And a man who stands up and says that the sun has risen in the west shares the same evidence as a man who says that the sun has risen in the east. Only the interpretations of the evidence are different.

The Sun rising in the East is a repeatably observable (i.e. scientifically validated) phenomenon.

The Sun rising in the West (and Spontaneous Evolution) is a figment of your imagination!!!:eek::pac::):D

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm happy with your explanation rather than theirs. Your's does not rule out a spiritual dimension that acts/acted upon the material universe. That we have no material means to measure or test that dimension does not mean it cannot be known or experienced.

If a thing acts upon the material universe, we are observing it and it becomes a part of science. The goal is to explain all that may be observed. That which may not be observed directly or indirectly is a matter of faith but must never be used as a basis for science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think creationism has no problem with that as the rule. It just says the rule does not always apply. For all practical purposes, day to day processes go by the rule, but exceptional circumstances in space or time can change the rules.

Such changes would be meaurable by science and be incorporated into a new theory. Circumstantial changes to established rules don't break or defy science, they merely re-define it. Science is intended to be perpetually self-revising.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....great to see Spontaneous Evolutionists incentivising their colleagues to improve their reading skills......as well as broadening their (narrow) knowledge base!!!:pac::):D

There are no Spontaneouss Evolutionists on this thread.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

How do you put someone in ignore? At first reading his posts was kind of funny. Then they became a bit annoying as he continued to ignore pretty much anything anyone posted. Now I find them kind of creepy and a little scary.

.......feeling sacred is quite natural........if you haven't been saved .......but the good news is that Jesus loves you and wants to save you and all you need to do is to repent and believe on Him!!!!:)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There are no Spontaneouss Evolutionists on this thread.

GOOD .......that's progress .....I suppose!!!!!!!!:pac::):D

BTW it's also great to see you adopting Professor Gould's devastating comments on the invalidity of Evolution....and no .........qualifying it by explaining that Prof Gould was a PE advocate doesn't make any difference to it's devastation for the Evolutionist cause.......because our inability, even in our imagination, to establish intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design or to construct functional intermediates in many cases, is a persistent and nagging problem for punctuated equlibrium AS WELL!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The story of Jesus in the bible essentially boils down to this: God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself.

Another example of an Evolutionist taking the evidence and completely mis-interpreting it!!!!

God became MAN.....and sacrificed Himself as a perfect sinless MAN in atonement for ALL of the sins of MEN since Adam and Eve.....so that God's justice could be satisfied through His loving perfect atonement as a MAN.....for our sins.

We are still free to reject that love.....and to live apart from God for all eternity.......which is the eternal equivalent ........of shooting yourself in the foot or cutting off your nose to spite your face......but a lot more painful!!!!!!:)

.....and BTW Jesus didn't die to save us from Himself......He actually died to save us from ourselves.....i.e. from our OWN sinful nature!!!!

J C

robindch wrote: »

Can you point me, please, at the creationists who have rebutted the truth of the genesis tale?

.

Certainly OEC's, Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive/Gap/DayAge Creationists have all tried to rebut many literal interpretations of Genesis....and failed !!!:)

Ekancone

MrPudding wrote: »

How do you put someone in ignore? At first reading his posts was kind of funny. Then they became a bit annoying as he continued to ignore pretty much anything anyone posted. Now I find them kind of creepy and a little scary.

MrP

Go into his profile, you can do it there.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

…..so aggressio agrees with me that Spontaneous Evolution is the correct descriptor of the Theory of Evolution…..while Atomic Horror disagrees!!!

Aggressio please talk to Atomic Horror…….who seems to think that ‘evolution’ isn’t supposed to be spontaneous!!!!!

It isn't- it requires external influence. Agresso is mistaken and you are deliberately misleading.

J C wrote: »

Atomic Horror
…..functional intermediates (I'll give you a hint on that one- they don't need to be functional and they can even be detrimental and survive multiple generations)

…….so we are NOW expected to believe, for example, that a ‘light sensitive spot’ became light insensitive or worse, perhaps a deleterious 'boil on the behind' of its host…….as it underwent the changes necessary to become a proto-eye…….
……this certainly blows apart the nice comfy continuum of ‘upwards and onwards evolution’ presented in various Evolutionist textbooks!!!!

Are you capable of imagining that certain traits may be deleterious to hugely varying degrees? The human appendix kills humans at a fairly high frequency and yet it persists in the population. The CFTR mutation that causes cystic fibrosis is leathal and yet it persists. What if it persists long enough that a second mutation in the germ line confers function?

J C wrote: »

…..and what did the creature do when its ‘light sensitive spot’ became just a ‘sensitive spot’ ......on it's behind?????!!!!!!!!

…….answer…..it became totally blind……and with a sore butt!!!!!

……..and it apparently survived to (eventually) become an Atomic Horror!!!!

A little bit of putting (highly speculative) words in the mouths of your opponent combined with a veiled insult. I'm not interested in having that kind of a debate and if you wish to be taken seriously, neither should you.

J C wrote: »

Anyway, if intermediates become detrimental they will almost invariably kill the organism concerned……..or load it down with such deleterious characteristics that it won’t successfully reproduce…….either way, this will eliminate intermediates that are deleterious!!!!!!!!

So, why is the CFTR gene so common? Or the dominant gene which causes Huntington's disease? New mutations of these genes are improbable, which means that in the majority of cases the deleterious genes are persisting in the human gene pool by inheritence. The answer is that survival on a population scale is a probability- not a yes or no absolute. A percentage of organisms expressing a deleterious gene (or by extension a deleterious transitional organ) will survive long enough to reproduce.

J C wrote: »

Atomic Horror
random recombination of proteins does not occur and is not a part of evolutionary theory. Nor does random recombination of genetic material occur in evolution. Mutation works on a single-nucleotide level. Proteins are translated from genetic material. You have grossly over-stated the probabilities associated with the evolution of function.


I agree that proteins are observed to be so specific that ANY recombination is likely make them functionally useless!!!

A good thing then, that proteins do not have that capacity and are never observed to recombine randomly in the manner you suggested.

J C wrote: »

You are also correct that mutation works on a single-nucleotide level…….BUT proteins ARE translated from this genetic material….and any changes to the nucleotide sequence …..that isn’t corrected by the cell nuclear ‘machinery’…….WILL significantly (and usually catastrophically) alter the resultant protein’s amino acid sequence and its functionality

Usually yes. Always no. Nobody is disputing that strictly beneficial mutations are in the minority. How to get this across to you... assuming you actually want to know...

Let's imagine that we may measure the benefit of a mutation on a scale of 1 to 100. 1 suggests a mutation that is entirely leathal, and 100 is a gene which confers the strongest possible increase in survival rate. At 50 we have a mutation which has no impact either way. Every mutation that is possible for a given gene will fall somewhere on this scale. For every gene the distribution pattern will differ with the common element being that the vast majority of mutations will appear on the scale below 50. Closer to 1 we see plenty of mutations (these wont be seen in organisms as they'll cause such things as failure of zygote viability, spontaneous abortion etc). A minority, varying dependent on the gene in question, will be above 50. A very few will approach 100. The peak of our distribution might sit somewhere around 15. For some genes that peak is tight, for others, loose. The most important point being that the distribution below 50 is varied and dispersed. Although survival-benefit mutations are in the minority, theres a huge range of possible mutations which are not leathal within one generation which need only persist until the next mutation or a change of environment to move up or down in that scale.

J C wrote: »

…..and unfortunately for Spontaneous Evolution, the probabilities associated with the evolution of function AREN’T overstated…..and the spontaneous development of even a simple functional protein would require all of the matter and time in the Known Universe!!!!

If we for a moment put aside that you have overstated the probabilities (maybe you could give us an actual figure- it's nowhere near "effectively infinite") and that the emergence of a functional protein from random atoms is not a feature of abiogenesis, let alone evolution; it just so happens that we actually have all the matter and time in the known universe.

J C wrote: »

……..and its tiring for me to have to re-state the obvious.........but you DO accept that Muck can spontaneously morph into Man……..funny that!!!!!:)

You keep telling us we believe in spontaneous evolution but we say that we agree with you that it's crap. You say we think muck morphed into human beings spontaneously, but we say that we don't believe that and that it is as silly as you make it sound. If you wont listen to us when we agree with you, how can you expect us to believe that you have read our arguments, let alone understood them?

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
Not exactly, evolution works with or without abiogenesis. It's an independent theory. Abiogenesis is still mostly in the realms of hypothesis- just due to a lack of experimental data and the variety of conditions that may have allowed the process (it seems we're somewhat spoiled for choice in that regard). The evidence building towards a nice theory, but it's not there yet.

Could I gently point out that Evolution DOESN’T work…..with or without Abiogenesis.

Can I un-gently as you to prove it? If you're going to be this blunt, please don't dress it up as "gentle".

J C wrote: »

Secondly, Abiogenesis is still in the realms of FANTASY ……and “the variety of systems that may have allowed the process” are only limited by the fertility of the Evolutionist imagination…….which is as fertile as Rabbit on heat……..by all accounts!!!!:)

The mechanisms are dependent on which of the various measured conditions present of the Earth around 2.5 billion years ago gave rise to life, or if any of them were capable of doing so. It currently looks as if several common environments of the time wouldm have been conducive to the formation of the various required building blocks. If we find that they were not, we will have to consider alternate hypotheses. The creationists will see this as some kind of victory and scientists will see it as "business as usual".

Also, we thank you for complimenting our imaginations. Imagination is the first step in making a hypothesis. Hypotheses are tested and discarded if found not to fit observation. Imagination allows us then to find a new alternative to test. If you were possesing of adequate imagination, you might be open to exploring the various possible alternatives to "God did it". You might actually be a real scientist.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

GOOD .......that's progress .....I suppose!!!!!!!!:pac::):D

Then we'll see no more references to them or their theory, since they aren't here. Any future references can only be taken to be deliberately misleading- something which is against the charter of this forum.

J C wrote: »

BTW it's also great to see you adopting Professor Gould's devastating comments on the invalidity of Evolution....and no .........qualifying it by explaining that Prof Gould was a PE advocate doesn't make any difference to it's devastation for the Evolutionist cause.......because our inability, even in our imagination, to establish intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design or to construct functional intermediates in many cases, is a persistent and nagging problem for punctuated equlibrium AS WELL!!!!:pac::):D

On the contrary, PE is seen as a very minor and in some ways over-simplistic modification to standard gradualism. The reality is somewhere in between and even a slight modification of gradualism (which strangely assumes a constant rate of evolution for all organisms) would fit very neatly with the fossil record which contains countless examples of both functional and non-functional transitional forms.

And with that I go to bed!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by iUseVi
^ ^ ^ ^
A gold star to anyone who managed to read that whole post.

daithifleming
I have him on ignore, so I thankfully dont have to.

Why did this posting leave me with visions of a large flightless bird with it's head stuck up to it's Gizzard in the sands of denial........and it's tender loins trustingly exposed to whatever might come it's way?????:eek::)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

........You (JC) might actually be a real scientist.

......why have you doubted me for so long????:)

.........and I love you too.......but in a purely platonic and Christian way.....I hasten to add!!!!:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
There are no Spontaneouss Evolutionists on this thread.

Originally Posted by JC
GOOD .......that's progress .....I suppose!!!!!!!!

AtomicHorror
Then we'll see no more references to them or their theory, since they aren't here.

......OK.....the bold Spontaneous Evolutionists AREN'T here.......but they might be THERE......and don't worry about any of those bold Spontaneous Evolutionists acting spontaneously....although they can become very emotional betimes!!!!:)

wrote:

AtomicHorror
Any future references can only be taken to be deliberately misleading- something which is against the charter of this forum.

Spontaneous Evolution is still alive and well.......and claiming that Muck spntaneously evolved into Man (or some variant of this theme)......and Spontaneous Evolution is the most accurate descriptor that distinguishes Materialistic Evolution from it's Theistic equivalent......so to provide clarity....I'm kinda forced to continue using the term.......unless you can think of a better one!!!!:):D

wrote:

AtomicHorror
On the contrary, PE is seen as a very minor and in some ways over-simplistic modification to standard gradualism. The reality is somewhere in between and even a slight modification of gradualism (which strangely assumes a constant rate of evolution for all organisms) would fit very neatly with the fossil record which contains countless examples of both functional and non-functional transitional forms.

....as I have said poor Professor Gould and his fellow 'PE-eers' must have had such doubts about the validity of ANY form of Evolution when they realised that missing links were not only missing in practice .......but they were also totally impossible to imagine even in theory!!!:)

wrote:

AtomicHorror
And with that I go to bed!

......nighty nite......and sweet dreams....... and don't worry about the bold Spontaneous Evolutionists!!!!!:eek:

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

Another example of an Evolutionist taking the evidence and completely mis-interpreting it

Actually I just interpreted the evidence like a (very literal) Christian.
You agree that God sacrificed Himself, so you contention seems to be:

J C wrote: »

.....and BTW Jesus didn't die to save us from Himself......He actually died to save us from ourselves.....i.e. from our OWN sinful nature

Who decides where you go when you die in the Christian religion? Answer: God. And what does he base His decision on? Answer: the sins you commit. So by sacrificing Jesus (ie Himself) to save us from our sins, he actually sacrifices Jesus to save us from His having to punish us for our sins.
So an intepretation of the story of Jesus in the bible can be described as: God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself.

PS. This is off topic for this particular thread, so if you are inclined to answer, may I suggest starting a new thread.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

.......feeling sacred is quite natural........if you haven't been saved .......but the good news is that Jesus loves you and wants to save you and all you need to do is to repent and believe on Him!!!!:)

I knew you would say that. In fact I specifically left out what scares me to give you an excuse to respond. I love the way you will pick up on posts like that one, not specifically aimed at you, and write some kind of smart ass comment rather than answer the question put directly to you.

I am not scared because I do not believe in your jesus or indeed your god. I am not scared of not going to one imaginary place after I die and spending eternity in another. I am not scared because you have roundly, in your own head I might add, defeated the theory of evolution. Here is why I am scared and creeped out. It is the level of self delusion and denial shown by yourself on this thread that scares me. Scientifically your arguments are total rubbish. It has been pointed out many times that creationism is not science. Bonkey, in particular but not exclusively, has explained in very understandable ways exactly what science is and why creationism is an offence to it. Many other posters, Wicknight, atomichorror, daithifleming, robindch to name but a few have pulled you up on specific things, most of which you ignore or try to pass off with stupid jokes and idiotic punctuation.

Now, don't get me wrong here. Faith in god, whilst not my thing, seems to be good for a lot of people, lets face it, it is apparently the only thing stopping wolfsbane going on some kind of murderous rampage. Personally I find it sad that such a thing is needed, but I am happy for it to be so, as long as it helps people. But what you show is not healthy. You claim to be a scientist (perhaps this forum should have a "conflicts of interest stickie" like the commuting forum where people give details of what they do so that everyone knows what agendas people have and decide whether the opinions they state are qualified) yet your posts and arguments give little indication of science.

I genuinely believe that humans should question their origin and everything that they see. What scares me most in the world is seeing humans that have totally lost the will and the ability to question. Humans that, in the face of massive evidence, cling to the belief of an absurd idea of how the world began simply on the basis of a book the truth of which is confirmed by nothing more than a couple of circular arguments.

That is what scares me JC, the fact that some members of our species seem to be un-evolving and are quite happy to do so.

daithifleming wrote: »

Go into his profile, you can do it there.

Thank you.

MrP

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some scientific models:
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

THE SANDS OF TIME: A BIBLICAL MODEL OF DEEP SEA-FLOOR SEDIMENTATION
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/

DISCORDANT POTASSIUM-ARGON MODEL AND ISOCHRON "AGES" FOR CARDENAS BASALT (MIDDLE PROTEROZOIC) AND ASSOCIATED DIABASE OF EASTERN GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r03/

Firstly, have you actually read these papers (which I unfortunately did over the weekend, an hour I'm not getting back). They aren't scientific models. Far from it in fact. I suspect you simply Googled "Creationist" and "model" and returned the first few entries.

The first one isn't a model at all, I've no idea why they include the word model in the title. It is simply an article on other Creationist "research" and it includes a huge number of "we believe" statements, not a good sign

The second one claims to be a model, but if you actual look at it (which again I unfortunately did) they are producing a system that if the inputs do not produce a prediction that matches a young earth with a flood they simply change the inputs. They got the time since the Flood from Ussher, worked out what the sedimation rate should be, applied that the date from the core samples, found that the ocean in such a model goes through rapid heating and cooling, and then say a Biblical Flood must cause rapid cooling.

There is nothing falsifiable here (there is hardly anything scientific here). They don't even check results with other data to determine if there is any evidence for this rapid cooling exists. They admit that there is no known evidence for this 700 year "ice age", but that searching for it should be given "high priority" .. nonsense :rolleyes:

The third one is simply a criticism of radiometeric dating point out a example of when this didn't work and gave conflicting date estimates.

Secondly, while all this is mildly amusing, it isn't actually what asked for. These are all attempts to explain the Flood. The Flood has nothing to do with evolution or creation or intelligent design.

Zombrex

Actually the second article is a really good example of exactly what Creationist do wrong, while claiming to be doing science.

The mathematical model they use (which isn't there own btw, nor do you get the impression they actually understand it), with all their jumbled data input, says that there should have been a 700 year ice age approx 1000 years after the Flood. Is that an accurate prediction? Does that prediction match observed evidence? No, not in the slightest. There is no evidence ever found that we had a 700 year ice age from 1500 BCE onwards, and a ton of evidence we didn't. Funny how the Chinese and Egyptians and Greeks didn't record a 700 year ice age isn't it. Funny how the core samples don't match a 700 year ice age isn't it.

So what do the Creationists say? We need to keep looking.

Where is the falsifiable prediction here? This "model" doesn't match any observation or evidence. They don't care. The only thing it is is running the traditional geological model (which matches all observation and evidence) with 4500 years as the time frame, a number they got from Usser.

Nonsense.

Its ironic that Wolfsbane likes to go on and on about the materialistic conspiracy in science these days. There is certainly a conspiracy happening, but it is things like this. These Creationists know perfectly well that what they are doing is not science. You can see this in the way they phrase their articles.

It is a conspiracy against science, to pervert the public understanding of what science is, what scientific standards are, and it is very hard to believe they don't know exactly what they are doing. And people like Wolfsbane and JC are clear evidence that it works.