The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

[/B].....so are you saying that Spontaneous Evolution and Darwininan Evolution are both 'bird-brained' ideas????!!!!!:):D:eek:

.....so are you saying that Spontaneous Evolution and Darwinian Evolution are 'not the same thing'????!!!!!:):D:eek:

We could all draw detailed conclusions from throwaway comments. But it's a really silly thing to do in a debate.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Kuhr
I have a question for creationists and christians. What do you believe happened before you lived? I believe being unborn is the same as being dead. I mean before you become a conscious foetus

PDN
No, Christians do not believe that we have any pre-existence prior to conception.

There is no definitive position among Christians as to when our human existence begins. The Roman Catholic Church defines it as at conception, but this is by church tradition rather than by the Bible. Many Christians believe our existence as a human, and the existence of our soul and spirit, occurs at some later stage of development in the womb.

.....the Roman Catholic Church historically spoke about 'ensoulment' considerably AFTER conception......several weeks, if I recall correctly!!!!

Anyway, the answer to Joseph Kuhr's question is that God is bi-laterally eternal.....ie He always was and always will be.
.....Humans are uni-laterally eternal....ie their spirits are created simultaneously at their physical conception and those spirits......and their eventually resurrected physical bodies last eternally.....
......so Humans come into existence at a particular point in time and they then live-on eternally.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

.....so are you saying that Spontaneous Evolution and Darwinian Evolution are 'not the same thing'????!!!!!:):D:eek:

......Darwinian Evolution is Evolution as defined by Darwin......Spontanous Evolution is it's latter-day modern equivalent ........
......and they are both equally invalid.....as mechanisms for how life arose and proliferated!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......Darwinian Evolution is Evolution as defined by Darwin......Spontanous Evolution is it's latter-day modern equivalent ........
......and they are both equally invalid.....as mechanisms for how life arose and proliferated!!!!:pac::):D

No, it is a straw man theory that you invented so that you don't have to debate with us about the modern synthesis.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The false dichotomy of a supposed choice between eternal life and death is so spiritually dangerous that it deserves to be challenged wherever and whenever it appears!!!!!

The Mad Hatter
Firstly, if you pay attention, I didn't write that - George Monbiot did.

Anyhow, as one good turn deserves another, the phrase "I believe on Jesus Christ" in your sig - I assume that that should be literally meant when spoken? If so, how are we supposed to stand on someone who's been dead for nearly two millenia,* and what if anything are we supposed to believe in while we say it?


*I can't see any other literal way of interpreting this than saying "I believe on Jesus Christ" while standing on Jesus Christ.

.......I never claimed that your signature was your own writing.....what I said was that the sentiment (that eternal death is preferable to eternal life) is a false dichotomy.
Apart from the fact that eternal life in Heaven WOULD be eminently preferable to non-existence in eternal death......the claim that a supposed choice exists between eternal life and death is so spiritually dangerous (and untrue) that it deserves to be challenged wherever and whenever it appears...including situations where the sentiment arises from quoting some other person....as is the case with your signature!!!:)

As for my signature....Jesus Christ is ALIVE and in Heaven at the right hand of God......so we can CERTAINLY rely on Him to be as good as His Word......and to save ALL who repent and believe on Him.

When we say the words "I believe on Jesus Christ" we are obviously believing that Jesus Christ has the power to save us and will do so.:)

......try doing it.....and see what happens ......if you believe what you say!!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, it is a straw man theory that you invented so that you don't have to debate with us about the modern synthesis.

......OK....please tell me what the 'modern synthesis' is which explains how, the sight biochemical cascade 'evolved' from 'nothing' to what it currently is in a seeing mammalian eye.......without any external intelligent input????:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If you would like to talk about sex with respect to reproduction in evolution, then fire away. I will happily discuss this with you. However, I don't see why it is necessary for you to use sexual imagery as a means of mocking a point I have made or poking fun at your opponents in general. Perhaps this is yet another method you use to derail us from the issues at hand. Whatever it is, I don't think it has a place here.

......all that is happening is that I'm 'beating the pants/knickers' of the Atheists in this debate........and they naturally don't like the 'irritating' effect this is having on their 'proverbial behinds'!!!!!:pac::):D
.......it is a common mis-conception that Christians are 'up-tight' about sex.......but, as this debate proves it is the Atheists who are puritanical and reserved about discussing sexual issues.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What is the relevance of any of this to the debate about evolution? I have read Nineteen Eighty-Four several times, I understand it just fine and in fact it is perhaps my favourite book. I think it has a lot to say about the power of religious thinking, personality cults and self-deception. However I also think it has no baring on our debate.

'Nineteen Eighty-Four' does indeed have a lot of very insightful things to say about the power of religious thinking, personality cults and self-deception....in an ATHEISTIC society......thereby supporting my contention that some Atheists aren't immune from their own religious thinking, personality cults and self-deception.......while ironically often scoffing at some other believers.......who have these same traits.
......part of the 'religion of Atheism' is their belief in Evolution ....and they have their very own 'high priests' and 'prophets'........who regularly 'worship' at the 'altar of Evolution'......as well as pronouncing 'damnation' on Evolutionist 'heretics'.......like ID Proponents and Creationists!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

[/b].......I never claimed that your signature was your own writing.....what I said was that the sentiment (that eternal death is preferable to eternal life) is a false dichotomy. Apart from the fact that eternal life in Heaven WOULD be eminently preferable to non-existence in eternal death......the claim that a supposed choice between eternal life and death exists is so spiritually dangerous that it deserves to be challenged wherever and whenever it appears...including when the sentiument arises from quoting some other person....as is the case with your sig!!!:)

As for my signature....Jesus Christ is ALIVE and in Heaven at the right hand of God......so we can CERTAINLY rely on Him to be as good as His Word......and to save ALL who repent and believe on Him.

When we say the words "I believe on Jesus Christ" we are obviously believeing that Jesus Christ has the power to save us and will do so.:)

......try doing it.....and see what happens if you believe what you say!!!

Oh, forget it, J C. Clearly - like most other subjects - basic word collocations are beyond your limited understanding.

I took it that you were claiming the words as mine as you used the quote tags with my name in them.

Anyhow, it's not a false dichotomy, whatever the truth of Christianity. There is no choice implied.

I also note that you haven't addressed the other quote in my signature, which is far more pertinent to the topic of this thread.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

......OK....please tell me what the 'modern synthesis' is which explains how, the sight biochemical cascade 'evolved' from 'nothing' to what it currently is in a seeing mammalian eye.......without any external intelligent input????:D

This has been explained to you dozens of times on this thread, making further repititions redundant.

J C wrote: »

......all that is happening is that I'm 'beating the pants/knickers' of the Atheists in this debate........and they naturally don't like the 'irritating' effect this is having on their 'proverbial behinds'!!!!!:pac::):D
.......it is a common mis-conception that Christians are 'up-tight' about sex.......as this debate proves it is the Atheists that are puritanical and reserved about discussing sexual issues.

You have a very loose (not to say wrong) definition of the word 'proof'. But you're not discussing sexual issues. You're using sex in crude analogies and jokes to help cloud your inane (and here I use a term loosely) arguments.

If you actually do want to discuss sex as it's related to evolutionary theory or creationism, I'm sure others would be happy to let you do so.

Galvasean

After reading the last few pages something crossed my mind. 'What the f#ck is J C on about?!'

I want some

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......OK....please tell me what the 'modern synthesis' is which explains how, the sight biochemical cascade 'evolved' from 'nothing' to what it currently is in a seeing mammalian eye.......without any external intelligent input????

The Mad Hatter
This has been explained to you dozens of times on this thread, making further repititions redundant.

.......the sight cascade has NEVER been explained by ANY Materialistic Evolutionist!!!!

.....so IF you do know.......please tell us, how the 'modern synthesis' explains the way that the sight biochemical cascade below 'evolved' from 'nothing' to what it currently is in a seeing mammalian eye.......without any external intelligent input????


.....and here is what the said cascade 'looks like':-

“When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP).
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (cGMP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers it’s concentation by acting as an ‘absorber’.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of Sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows Sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein ‘pumps’ them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and the ‘pump’ keeps the level of Sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentrations of positively charged Sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and Sodium ions would be depleted quickly. Several mechanisms turn off the proteins that were turned on, in order to restore the cell to it’s original state. Firstly, the ion channel also lets Calcium ion in as well as Sodium ions. The Calcium is ‘pumped’ back by a different protein so that a constant Calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, Calcium concentrations also decrease too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP slows down at lower Calcium ion concentrations. Second, a protein called guanlate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when Calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. And this is how the cell limits the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin and is reconverted to 11-cis-retinal which is again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, transretinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol – a form containing two more Hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retionol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added Hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal and one cycle is completed (in about one nanosecond).”

…and BTW the above biochemical sequence is but ONE of many THOUSANDS of equally unique and highly specific sequences found in living cells!!!!:D:cool:

The Mad Hatter wrote:

You have a very loose (not to say wrong) definition of the word 'proof'. But you're not discussing sexual issues. You're using sex in crude analogies and jokes to help cloud your inane (and here I use a term loosely) arguments.

If you actually do want to discuss sex as it's related to evolutionary theory or creationism, I'm sure others would be happy to let you dThe Mad Hattero so.

........but I WAS discussing sex as it's related to evolutionary theory......if you recall this whole section of the debate was triggered by the Evolutionist claim that sexual appendages could have been the precursors of venomous stings in insects like wasps......and I have merely pointed out the illogicality of such a belief!!!!!:D

.......and I 'beat the proverbial knickers' off the Materialists in the process.........:D

J C

Gaviscon wrote: »

After reading the last few pages something crossed my mind. 'What the f#ck is J C on about?!'

I want some

......easy on the expletives!!!!!!

......read the pages again.......and the 'penny may eventually drop' for you also!!!!:D:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......OK....please tell me what the 'modern synthesis' is which explains how, the sight biochemical cascade 'evolved' from 'nothing' to what it currently is in a seeing mammalian eye.......without any external intelligent input????:D

The sight cascade did not evolve from nothing. On a morphological level it has already been explained to you a number of times. As a biochemical cascade I'll take a stab at it when I've had time to write it out. As a general rule though, so-called "irreducibly complex" systems are merely ones in which redundancy has been lost at various points in the cascade creating the appearance of a system which would collapse were the essential element were lost. Typically though, the systems still display considerable robustness.

J C wrote: »

......all that is happening is that I'm 'beating the pants/knickers' of the Atheists in this debate........and they naturally don't like the 'irritating' effect this is having on their 'proverbial behinds'!!!!!:pac::):D
.......it is a common mis-conception that Christians are 'up-tight' about sex.......but, as this debate proves it is the Atheists who are puritanical and reserved about discussing sexual issues.

I hold no such pre-conception about Christians, my "up-tightness" if it were that does not reflect on all atheists and none of this is relevant to the debate. Can we get back to the topic please?

J C wrote: »

'Nineteen Eighty-Four' does indeed have a lot of very insightful things to say about the power of religious thinking, personality cults and self-deception....in an ATHEISTIC society......thereby supporting my contention that some Atheists aren't immune from their own religious thinking, personality cults and self-deception.......while ironically often scoffing at some other believers.......who have these same traits.

No person, atheist or otherwise is immune from this kind of thinking. But Orwell's point had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do totalitarianism. He used Russia as a model for Oceania because at the time he wrote the novel, he perceived Russia as one of the greatest threats to personal freedom in the world at that time. Orwell could just as easily have written such a work about a theistic society. Chances are he would have if he had written his novel a couple of hundred years previously. I imagine we'd never have seen that book mind you.

J C wrote: »

......part of the 'religion of Atheism' is their belief in Evolution ....and they have their very own 'high priests' and 'prophets'........who regularly 'worship' at the 'altar of Evolution'......as well as pronouncing 'damnation' on Evolutionist 'heretics'.......like ID Proponents and Creationists!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Uhuh. Must have made things difficult for atheists in ancient Greece. I wonder what ceremonies they used to worship... nothing.

anti-venom

Scaffolding.....That is one of the key words needed in this argument, is it not?

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The entire universe continued as always, much the same way as it does now, and as it will after I'm gone.

You don't believe in the Big Bang, but in a sort of steady-state universe?

Asiaprod

J C wrote: »

[/b]

........so if a penis can 'morph'
......as I have said, it is yet another 'safe sex' worryt........
......while the Creationist woman enjoys .........
......without the slightest risk of a deadly stinger......or a nasty rash!!!!:)

Come on JC, this post is OTT, and pretty stupid. Get back to defending your position and leave the penis and orgasms for the S&S forum.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There is no evidence for this "loss of information" whatsoever. Completely the opposite in fact. Lenski's 2008 PNAS paper conclusively shows an increase in "information" due to a series of mutations. This direct observation re-confirms what we already know from genetic analysis.



But species can gain new genes, extra genes. New information. This has been conclusively demonstrated. We have seen genes that are duplicates within a species, genes which are duplicates that have changed by 10%, 20%, 50% 90%. When we do multiple comparisons including intermediates we can identify genes which have changed entirely from their parent gene.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,3 which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example. From:
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827/

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

which doesn't make much sense because fossils of zebras have been found before the Flood?

You forget we don't accept the validity of the dating methods, so ascribing an antediluvian date to a fossil is meaningless to the argument that assumes the Flood to be a reality.

The question for Wolfsbane is what stops the accumulation of changes at a certain point? What causes the accumulation to simply stop before it changes the life forms over the kind barrier.

New information, the non-availability of.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,3 which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example. From:
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827/

I thought we were done with quoting other people's words verbatim at each other. How is this better than yet another creationism link? The above is speculation, it is not backed up with any actual data. I guess in terms of Lenski's work the picture will become clearer when he publishes further information on the nature of the mutations involved. Given that the last paper already showed that at least two mutations were involved in the change in function, the above explanations seem rather unlikely. They're certainly not impossible as far as I can tell, but they wouldn't be the first conclusion I'd jump to.

So, the acquisition of a new function is not "new information"? Could you clearly define for me, in genetic terms, what would constitute this new information?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I thought we were done with quoting other people's words verbatim at each other. How is this better than yet another creationism link? The above is speculation, it is not backed up with any actual data. I guess in terms of Lenski's work the picture will become clearer when he publishes further information on the nature of the mutations involved. Given that the last paper already showed that at least two mutations were involved in the change in function, the above explanations seem rather unlikely. They're certainly not impossible as far as I can tell, but they wouldn't be the first conclusion I'd jump to.

So, the acquisition of a new function is not "new information"? Could you clearly define for me, in genetic terms, what would constitute this new information?

The reason I quote scientists is that I am not a scientist.

If you want a scientific prime source, JC is your man.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The reason I quote scientists is that I am not a scientist.

Not being a scientist does not mean you cannot understand science. Far from it. But I assumed that you understand the sources and quotes that you post, are you telling me that you don't? All I'm asking you to do is tell me why you agree with these sources.

You still haven't explained to me what you mean by "new information". As far as I'm concerned, a change in gene function would fit that description, as would the addition of a new gene.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Not being a scientist does not mean you cannot understand science. Far from it. But I assumed that you understand the sources and quotes that you post, are you telling me that you don't? All I'm asking you to do is tell me why you agree with these sources.

I understand a little of their argument, but mostly I understand just enough to see they are addressing the issue and taking a contrary view to yours. I assume that applies to you and me in all the fields we have no expertise in.

You still haven't explained to me what you mean by "new information". As far as I'm concerned, a change in gene function would fit that description, as would the addition of a new gene.

I gave you the definition used of 'new information' -
but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

I can't see how disabling the specificity of a gene so that it is able to do general functions is an increase in information.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:
I understand a little of their argument, but mostly I understand just enough to see they are addressing the issue and taking a contrary view to yours. I assume that applies to you and me in all the fields we have no expertise in.

I would not try to argue from a position I did not understand to be honest. Of all the theories of science, Evolution is perhaps the most approachable and the most concrete. After all, organisms are much closer to our personal everyday experiences than are the subatomic particles of Quantum Theory. I really would advise that you look deeper than just the creationist websites. They are rarely rigorous and have a consistent bias. I'm not expecting you to accept what I say on the basis of authority, quite the opposite, I'm just suggesting you attempt to understand the science- it's far easier than you might expect, and very rewarding.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I gave you the definition used of 'new information' -
but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

I can't see how disabling the specificity of a gene so that it is able to do general functions is an increase in information.

You haven't really. The quote says that "information" specifies proteins etc... but it does not define information itself, only what it influences. It implies that they mean genes, but why not simply say genes?

As for "disabling the specificity" of an enzyme, this does not really make sense in this context. It is not possible to disable the specificity of an enzyme in order to allow it to bind something new. Specificity in enzymes and other proteins refers to the range of substrates or ligands that it can act upon. A substrate is that substance which an enzyme acts upon to produce "product". A ligand is a substance to which a protein may attach in another manner, for example a neurotransmitter binding to a receptor protein.

To disable specificity would be to remove the protein's ability to bind any ligand at all, which is not what happened here. Aside from this, a specificity may be widened to encompass more ligands or narrowed to allow binding to fewer.

Which of these situations do you think would constitute new information?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I would not try to argue from a position I did not understand to be honest. Of all the theories of science, Evolution is perhaps the most approachable and the most concrete. After all, organisms are much closer to our personal everyday experiences than are the subatomic particles of Quantum Theory. I really would advise that you look deeper than just the creationist websites. They are rarely rigorous and have a consistent bias. I'm not expecting you to accept what I say on the basis of authority, quite the opposite, I'm just suggesting you attempt to understand the science- it's far easier than you might expect, and very rewarding.



You haven't really. The quote says that "information" specifies proteins etc... but it does not define information itself, only what it influences. It implies that they mean genes, but why not simply say genes?

As for "disabling the specificity" of an enzyme, this does not really make sense in this context. It is not possible to disable the specificity of an enzyme in order to allow it to bind something new. Specificity in enzymes and other proteins refers to the range of substrates or ligands that it can act upon. A substrate is that substance which an enzyme acts upon to produce "product". A ligand is a substance to which a protein may attach in another manner, for example a neurotransmitter binding to a receptor protein.

To disable specificity would be to remove the protein's ability to bind any ligand at all, which is not what happened here. Aside from this, a specificity may be widened to encompass more ligands or narrowed to allow binding to fewer.

Which of these situations do you think would constitute new information?

That's beyond my ability to assess.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's beyond my ability to assess.

I don't mean to sound harsh about this Wolfsbane, but if you cannot tell me what "new information" actually constitutes in some manner that we can measure then I don't think you can really use it as a point of argument.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

The reason I quote scientists is that I am not a scientist.

If you want a scientific prime source, JC is your man.

Oh how I laughed when I read that statement!

Let me get this straight. Of all the scientists in the world you regard the opinion of the one whose claim to being an actual scientist is most HIGLY dubious in the highest regard? Not to mention the fact that he can't seem to write with proper grammer. If one can't even grasp the basics of the english language what hope does one have at figuring out complex scientific theories.
It would seem the only reason you source him is because he is telling you what you want to hear, utter nonsense which vaguely supports your own warped world view. Sounds a little bit too selective if you ask me.
No wonder the Creationists are regarded so lowly in the realms of the scientific community, not to mention right thinking members of society.

Galvasean

For those interested, AH discussion on such matters:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055363053

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

You don't believe in the Big Bang, but in a sort of steady-state universe?

No.

PDN

J C wrote: »

......so a stinger.....could arise from a modified set of genitals.....
.....another reason, I guess, for evolutionist women to keep their knickers on......and for evolutionist men to keep their their 'flies' tightly zipped!!!!:eek::)

........on the other hand, Creationist women can relax and confidently look forward to multiple orgasmic convulsions...........rather than being stung to death by their husbands!!!!!!!!!:eek::pac::):D

Grow up! Yellow card awarded for being unbelievably stupidly annoying, even by this thread's standards.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's beyond my ability to assess.

So you can't say what "new information" is in a genetic sense but you can say that "kinds" exist and that species cannot evolve into a different "kind" because that would involve new information, which evolution cannot produce.

Brilliant :rolleyes:

If a mutation or series of mutations produces physical genetic in coding (a new gene for example) that was not present in the DNA of the previous non-mutated organism, how is that not new information?