The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......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!!!!


AtomicHorror
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.

.........waiting with bated breath!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the heart of the matter.

Its funny when faced with the world around them and a book about the world around them some people take the book and throw out the world.

.....yes it is indeed funny that Evolutionists take the 'just so' stories in various Evolutionist books and throw out the world by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that all life was CREATED.......and all logic and objective evidence points towards a Creator of enormous power and intelligence!!!!

The Sight Cascade above is but one of thousands of tightly specified biochemical sequences that are IMPOSSIBLE to produce without an enormous input of intelligence!!!!!

......and the chance of producing such a system using non-intelligent processes such as chance and selection is precisely ZERO!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.........waiting with bated breath!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

It's not high on my list of priorities man.

J C wrote: »

.....yes it is indeed funny that Evolutionists take the 'just so' stories in various Evolutionist books and ignore the fact to all of Creation proclaims itself to have been CREATED.......and all logic and objective evidence points towards a Creator of enormous power and intelligence!!!!

Really... so that's why most of my childhood dinosaur/caveman books are now partially inaccurate. Because we scientists never question ourselves or revise our theories when the evidence demands it. Of course, you find that willingness to accept new findings as a weakness, don't you?

J C wrote: »

The Sight Cascade above is but one of thousands of tightly specified biochemical sequences that are IMPOSSIBLE to produce without an enormous input of intelligence!!!!!

But somehow this complex intelligence came into being without intelligent input. That must have taken... billions of years?

J C wrote: »

......the chance of producing such a system using chance and selection would be precisely ZERO!!!!:pac::):D

If it's precisely zero, show me the calculations. Otherwise stop blowing smoke.

HouseHippo

http://www.astronomy.ie/perpespective.html

Galvasean

Size =/= power :cool:

Zombrex

HouseHippo wrote: »

http://www.astronomy.ie/perpespective.html

Nonsense, JC and Wolfsbane have already proven beyond all doubt that all that is just dust approx 6 miles outside of the Earth's atmosphere (ie the edge of the known universe) :pac:

AtomicHorror

HouseHippo wrote: »

http://www.astronomy.ie/perpespective.html

I love that page. Seen it several times but each time it blows my mind again. Perhaps I just have a goldfish memory

The attempts creationists have made to try and explain away the vastness of the universe in terms of volume and age are actually very amusing. Whatever we might say of their arguments from lack of imagination when it comes to biology, the way they handle physics is reminiscent of the quacks who invent perpetual motion machines every few years.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Nonsense, JC and Wolfsbane have already proven beyond all doubt that all that is just dust approx 6 miles outside of the Earth's atmosphere (ie the edge of the known universe) :pac:

Then where have we been sending all of those probes!? :pac:

NASA must be in on the atheist materialist conspiracy too!!!!!!

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

the way they handle physics is reminiscent of the quacks who invent perpetual motion machines every few years.

One of them came out last year. I recall the makers were trying to say that it disproved evolution (not quite sure how they reasoned this). They even said a pier reviewed paper was on it's way...

It never came.

AtomicHorror

Gaviscon wrote: »

One of them came out last year. I recall the makers were trying to say that it disproved evolution (not quite sure how they reasoned this). They even said a pier reviewed paper was on it's way...

It never came.

There were a couple around 2006-2007. That company Steorn were one. Irish bunch. Their eventual public demonstration was a total farce. Machine failed to work due allegedly to the very intense studio lights from the cameras.

J C

pH wrote: »

We went through this information argument before, with J C never providing us with a way of measuring the value of 'information', making his claim that information can never increase on shaky ground.

William Dembeski defines biological information as Complex Specified Information or CSI and he defines CSI as "any string (with a biological function) with a probability of (less than) 10^^-150". Even relatively simple short chain biomolecules fall into this definition and complex tightly specified and highly interactive systems like the Sight Cascade have probabilities against their spontaneous occurrence that are many orders of magnitude greater again!!:)

I think that Dembeski is too conservative with this figure......something with a probability of 10^^-100 would cause any non-intelligently directed system to 'grind to a halt'.......and a specific simple 100 chain protein has odds against being produced of 10^^-130.:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

William Dembeski defines biological information as Complex Specified Information or CSI and he defines CSI as "any string with a probability of 10-150". Even relatively simple short chain biomolecules fall into this definition and complex tightly specified and highly interactive systems like the Sight Cascade have probabilities against their spontaneous occurrence that are many orders of magnitude greater again!!:)

Which proves that God did not spontaneous create them right :pac:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

William Dembeski defines biological information as Complex Specified Information or CSI and he defines CSI as "any string with a probability of 10-150".

10-150 what? If you would use someone else's words as a definition you could at least elaborate or show some glimmer that you understand the concept yourself. Probability is typically measured as either a percentage (0-100) or as a decimal (0-1.0). Also, a string with a probability of 10-150 of what? Being?

Dembski has yet to give us the maths that explain and justify his notions on specified complexity. I believe he's gone so far as to claim that it's not his job to make such a proof. Just about the only half-intelligent person in the world who swallowed Dembski's wishful mathematics was fellow fundamentalist Michael Behe who gave us the laughable concept that is irreducible complexity. Both are nothing more than arguments from lack of imagination founded on a very fuzzy understanding of biology and the scientific method itself.

J C wrote: »

Even relatively simple short chain biomolecules fall into this definition and complex tightly specified and highly interactive systems like the Sight Cascade have probabilities against their spontaneous occurrence that are many orders of magnitude greater again!!:)

Why would an entire biological cascade come into existence spontaneously? Of course that's vanishingly unlikely. I've never heard anyone but you claim that such a thing would occur. It's certainly not what evolutionary theory contends.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

10-150 what? If you would use someone else's words as a definition you could at least elaborate or show some glimmer that you understand the concept yourself. Probability is typically measured as either a percentage (0-100) or as a decimal (0-1.0). Also, a string with a probability of 10-150 of what? Being?

10 to the power of 150 against it occurring!!!!
It's scientific notation.......but if you would like it as a decimal than it is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.
Evolutionists postulate that 'simple cells' underwent random changes that then underwent selection and over a billion years or so the 'simple cell' became 'multi cells'......and eventually Human Beings. The Materialists further postulate that there was no intelligent input into this process......merely the action of selection on chance changes.

So according to this idea we have a 'simple cell' and there are random changes to, lets say, one of it's protein chains. There are relatively few functionally useful proteins known to science......relative to the vast 'combinatorial space' surrounding these proteins. In addition, proteins are all unique......so making minor changes to a functional protein will not produce another functional protein.
The 'useless combinatorial space' surrounding each functional protein is so vast that it is a statistical impossibility to produce a specific functional protein from an existing functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes.
The number of useless protein sequences are in execess of the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe.....and only a handful of useful proteins exist.....and very often there is only one functional combination for a specific functional protein performing a specific function in a cell.
Evolution is equivalent to somebody proposing that you can produce the Encyclopaedia Britannica by making random changes to Darwin's Origins of Species and selecting the changes that make sense......while having a coherent readable book at all points in-between!!!
Could I gently point out that the number of changes that would make sense would be so small and the number that didn't make any sense so large that the project would grind to a shuddering halt.
In addition, to fully reflect what happens with living creatures, the entire book would have to be torn up (i.e. die) when any change made any sentence unreadable......and so any other 'progress' achieved on other pages of that particular book would be lost as well!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
....and no I don't accept that Evolution could be 'progressionless'.......enormous 'progression' would have to be created and preserved in order to move from a 'simple cell' to a Human Being......and those who argue that Evolution is 'directionless' are 'driving a further nail in the coffin' of Evolution!!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Dembski has yet to give us the maths that explain and justify his notions on specified complexity. I believe he's gone so far as to claim that it's not his job to make such a proof. Just about the only half-intelligent person in the world who swallowed Dembski's wishful mathematics was fellow fundamentalist Michael Behe who gave us the laughable concept that is irreducible complexity. Both are nothing more than arguments from lack of imagination founded on a very fuzzy understanding of biology and the scientific method itself.

.....oh yes, I almost forgot.....the Materialistic Evolutionists are the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method......
.......and their idea that Muck lifted itself up by it's own bootstraps to become Man.....isn't in the least 'fuzzy'......even though Evolutionists are unable to explain how a functional specific simple 100 chain protein could be produced using non-intelligently directed processes!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why would an entire biological cascade come into existence spontaneously? Of course that's vanishingly unlikely. I've never heard anyone but you claim that such a thing would occur. It's certainly not what evolutionary theory contends.

......OK....so HOW DID the entire sight biochemical cascade come into existence then?????

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

So according to this idea we have a 'simple cell' and there are random changes to, lets say, one of it's protein chains. There are relatively few functionally useful proteins known to science......relative to the vast 'combinatorial space' surrounding these proteins. In addition, proteins are all unique......so making minor changes to a functional protein will not produce another functional protein.

That isn't true (as has been explained to you before)

J C wrote: »

.....oh yes, I almost forgot.....the Materialistic Evolutionists are the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method......

Now you are getting it. So we both agree Creationists don't understand the scientific method. That is a start

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....oh yes, I almost forgot.....the Materialistic Evolutionists are the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method......

Based on what I have seen in this thread it would appear so.

J C wrote: »

......OK....so HOW DID the entire sight biochemical cascade come into existence then?????

This isn't the first time you've asked such a question. It has been shown to you numerous times. It is a small wonder you cannot grasp evolutionary theory with such a poor memory.

J C

sdep wrote: »

Let's take an example. JC told us the other day that horses were probably tetraploid:

This may seem esoteric, and entirely tangential to the evolution vs. creationism issue, yet its relevance to your claim is that it goes against all the available science.

Of roughly 5,400 mammal species, only two have been suggested to be tetraploid - a pair of closely-related South American rodent species (original paper here). Subsequent research, however, says this is incorrect (see here), leaving us not one proven tetraploid mammal species.

.....Polyploidy is very common in plants, where it is known to be a major mechanism for INSTANTANEOUS speciation. Over 70% of angispermae are polyploid, but it is thought to be much less common in animals. Indeed up to recently it was thought to be confined to the so-called 'lower animals',
It was thought that polploidy wasn't a viable mechanism in mammals because of the effects that it could have on the sex chromosomes. However, the recent discovery of a viable polyploid rat shows that polyploidy may have been quite a common method of speciation amongst mammals after the Flood.

sdep wrote: »

This paper uses a technique for identifying corresponding parts of the genomes of the horse, zebras and related species. If the horse (32 chromosome pairs) resulted from a doubling-up of the mountain zebra genome (16 pairs), for each stretch of zebra DNA, you'd expect two in the horse. Instead, you find just one.

We now have a near complete horse genome sequence (here). Analysis shows that it consists of 32 distinct pairs of chromosomes, not 16 quartets.

.....The horse genome may have undergone a process of diploidisation after it was formed from the tetraploidisation of the Zebra genome. The present Horse genome may be the result of a number of changes, such as the deletion of chromosome fragments, the silencing of duplicate genes, and/or the recombination of homoeologous chromosome segments ......and this may account for the horse's apparent diploid-like state today.

Some plant species, like Arabidopsis, Zea mays, and yeast that now behave like diploids, are thought to have undergone a doubling of their genome in the past. In some polyploids, chromosomal reorganization is so widespread that the genome is no longer structured as an allopolyploid......and this may also be the case with the Horse

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....oh yes, I almost forgot.....the Materialistic Evolutionists are the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method......

Gaviscon
Based on what I have seen in this thread it would appear so.

.......my comment about Materialistic Evolutionists being the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method was an obvious 'tongue in cheek' comment illustrating the self-serving definition of the Scientific Method adopted by the 'high-priesthood of Materialism'......to conveniently bolster their Atheism, by excluding the scientific evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation.:eek::D
It's the equivalent of Creation Scientists defining the Scientific Method as excluding the evaluation of evidence for Materialistic Evolution!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......OK....so HOW DID the entire sight biochemical cascade come into existence then?????

Gaviscon
This isn't the first time you've asked such a question. It has been shown to you numerous times. It is a small wonder you cannot grasp evolutionary theory with such a poor memory.

......it isn't the first time that I have asked........but I am still vainly awaiting an answer.
As the sight biochemical cascade didn't evolve, but was directly created, I'm not surprised that the Evolutionists are unable to explain how it could arise through purely materialistic processes!!!!:pac::):eek::D

HouseHippo

J C wrote: »

.......my comment about Materialistic Evolutionists being the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method was an obvious 'tongue in cheek' comment illustrating the self-serving definition of the Scientific Method adopted by the 'high-priesthood of Materialism'......to conveniently bolster their Atheism, by excluding the scientific evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation.:eek::D
It's the equivalent of Creation Scientists defining the Scientific Method as excluding the evaluation of evidence for Materialistic Evolution!!!!:D


[/B]......it isn't the first time that I have asked........but I am still vainly awaiting an answer.
As the sight biochemical cascade didn't evolve, but was directly created, I'm not surprised that the Evolutionists are unable to explain how it could arise through purely materialistic processes!!!!:pac::):eek::D

J.C OMG jesus Christ is here, well no point in arguing with him so

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
So according to this idea we have a 'simple cell' and there are random changes to, lets say, one of it's protein chains. There are relatively few functionally useful proteins known to science......relative to the vast 'combinatorial space' surrounding these proteins. In addition, proteins are all unique......so making minor changes to a functional protein will not produce another functional protein.

Wicknight
That isn't true (as has been explained to you before).

.....how Materialistic Evolution supposedly crossed the vast areas of useless combinatorial space within possible biochemical sequences has NEVER been satisfactorily answered by Evolutionists.

......so if you would like to try please go ahead and do so!!!:D:)

J C

HouseHippo wrote: »

J.C OMG jesus Christ is here, well no point in arguing with him so

....assuming that OMG means 'Oh My God' it is indeed good to see you calling upon God.

.......BTW Jesus Christ is risen and sits at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven.
You are correct that there is no point in arguing with God......
.......and don't get into a panic.......just go and believe on Jesus Christ to save you, before it is too late!!!!:)


......would you like to try answering my question about how the sight biochemical cascade supposely evolved???

HouseHippo

J C wrote: »

.....how Materialistic Evolution supposedly crossed the vast areas of useless combinatorial space within possible biochemical sequences has NEVER been satisfactorily answered by Evolutionists.

......so if you would like to try please go ahead and do so!!!:D:)

You are wrong there, it crossed space on an asteroid, which as our planet was forming collided, the "life substance" was then incubated much like growing a plant in a greenhouse, adapting itself to out atmosphere and as teh planet was ever changing in it's first million years of formation evolved itself with the planet.

sdep

J C wrote: »

.....Polyploidy [blah blah blah - my edit]

No. This won't do. I've given the evidence showing why JC's assertion is utterly wrong (here and here). JC has given no evidence to support his claim. As far as I can see, all he has is blind faith and the two times table.

J C wrote: »

.....oh yes, I almost forgot.....the Materialistic Evolutionists are the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method......

All of which is why, as noted by others above, we perhaps ought to take this more literally than intended.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

10 to the power of 150 against it occurring!!!!
It's scientific notation.......but if you would like it as a decimal than it is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Thanks for clearing that up. It really was not clear that you were talking about odds.

J C wrote: »

Evolutionists postulate that 'simple cells' underwent random changes that then underwent selection and over a billion years or so the 'simple cell' became 'multi cells'......and eventually Human Beings. The Materialists further postulate that there was no intelligent input into this process......merely the action of selection on chance changes.

Because there's firstly no need for intelligent intervention and secondly the existence of such intelligence raises more questions than it answers without first justifying why we introduce it.

J C wrote: »

So according to this idea we have a 'simple cell' and there are random changes to, lets say, one of it's protein chains. There are relatively few functionally useful proteins known to science......relative to the vast 'combinatorial space' surrounding these proteins. In addition, proteins are all unique......so making minor changes to a functional protein will not produce another functional protein.

Changes are not made to proteins. Changes are made to DNA. Combinatorial spaces have already been shown to be meaningless with respect to the formation of even simple chemicals such as crystal lattices. This is because a combinatorial space calculation makes only one assumption of the structure to be described; linearity. It ignores the laws of physics and chemistry and most importantly it ignores that notion that the formation event is not singular. It is happening countless trillions of times in parallel.

J C wrote: »

The 'useless combinatorial space' surrounding each functional protein is so vast that it is a statistical impossibility to produce a specific functional protein from an existing functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes.

Utterly untrue. Firstly, "statistical impossibility" is a meaningless term. Secondly, a single amino acid substitution is unlikely to result in a functional protein, but not at all on the scale that you keep claiming. We've done the lab work which shows how such productive changes can occur with a high enough frequency to fit evolutionary theory.

J C wrote: »

The number of useless protein sequences are in execess of the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe.....and only a handful of useful proteins exist.....and very often there is only one functional combination for a specific functional protein performing a specific function in a cell.

Once again, you make the assumption that proteins randomly recombine in terms of sequence and length. They do not. Changes are incremental and so the incredible number of functionless sequences don't really come into it.

J C wrote: »

Evolution is equivalent to somebody proposing that you can produce the Encyclopaedia Britannica by making random changes to Darwin's Origins of Species and selecting the changes that make sense......while having a coherent readable book at all points in-between!!!

Terrible analogy. A book in its entirety must be readable in a given language as a cohesive story. This can not be compared to the formation of an organism. All that is required of the combination of genes in an organism is that they survive. They can look like anything at all, read like anything at all so long as they survive and reproduce.

This is why life is so varied. There are countless solutions to survival.

J C wrote: »

Could I gently point out that the number of changes that would make sense would be so small and the number that didn't make any sense so large that the project would grind to a shuddering halt.
In addition, to fully reflect what happens with living creatures, the entire book would have to be torn up (i.e. die) when any change made any sentence unreadable......and so any other 'progress' achieved on other pages of that particular book would be lost as well!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

It's still a meaningless analogy. It makes assumptions inapplicable to organisms and evolution. I think you need to stop arguing by analogy, you're not very good at it.

J C wrote: »

.....oh yes, I almost forgot.....the Materialistic Evolutionists are the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method......

Scientists understand the scientific method. Adopt a testable initial assumption. Form a hypothesis and test it. When it has been tested, confirmed, and retested, it becomes theory. If a finding contradicts it, and can be reproduced, we return to the first point.

Creationism fails at step 1. Ignores this, and then fails at step 2, 3 and 4.

J C wrote: »

.......and their idea that Muck lifted itself up by it's own bootstraps to become Man.....isn't in the least 'fuzzy'......

That's not a part of the theory of evolution. It's a very rough and inadequate summary of abiogenesis. This would be about the fifth time I have re-explained this to you. So I have to assume that you are willfully ignoring the distinction or have a cripplingly poor memory.

J C wrote: »

...even though Evolutionists are unable to explain how a functional specific simple 100 chain protein could be produced using non-intelligently directed processes!!!!:D

I posted my own speculative version of abiogenesis many pages ago. There are half a dozen other much more detail hypotheses if that doesn't do it for you. The formation of a 100 "chain" (do you mean amino acid?) protein, is really not hard to imagine, if you have an imagination at all.

Why the focus on protein formation though? It's not likely that they are the starting point of life at all.

J C wrote: »

......OK....so HOW DID the entire sight biochemical cascade come into existence then?????

The same way all the other cascades came into existence. Starting with simple cascades, then forming multiple redundancies followed by variation of the components and emergence of new pathways. Deletion of some redundant components gives the illusion that the cascade formed with essential steps. Look through various other species all the way back to single celled life and you can see the same cascades in existence with fewer and fewer components. Some are missing the "essential" components and yet somehow seem to survive. We find that this is because of the presence of a redundant component absent from us or now modified for another purpose.

There's not much mystery left in protein cascades, intracellular or extracellular. They're a huge area of research.

AtomicHorror

HouseHippo wrote: »

You are wrong there, it crossed space on an asteroid, which as our planet was forming collided, the "life substance" was then incubated much like growing a plant in a greenhouse, adapting itself to out atmosphere and as teh planet was ever changing in it's first million years of formation evolved itself with the planet.

Panspermia is one possible explanation for the formation of life on Earth but it forces us to ask how the life formed elsewhere. It's not an unfeasible idea at all, but what is most likely is that the water and hydrocarbons needed were provided by such a collision and the life then formed under the more favorable conditions here.

J C

HouseHippo wrote: »

You are wrong there, it crossed space on an asteroid, which as our planet was forming collided, the "life substance" was then incubated much like growing a plant in a greenhouse, adapting itself to out atmosphere and as teh planet was ever changing in it's first million years of formation evolved itself with the planet.

......so HOW did Materialistic Evolution supposedly crossed the vast areas of useless combinatorial space within possible biochemical sequences on the 'Planet Zog' then????
.....you haven't answered the question....you merely moved it to another planet (and a highly speculative one at that)!!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......so HOW did Materialistic Evolution supposedly crossed the vast areas of useless combinatorial space within possible biochemical sequences on the 'Planet Zog' then????
.....you haven't answered the question....you merely moved it to another planet (and a highly speculative one at that)!!!!:D

Citing a creator does exactly the same thing.

A question for you J C. Were there really evidence in our observations of intelligent design, and assuming there is a secularist/atheist conspiracy in science; why then is panspermia, or design by an alien intelligence not the current working theory? That would satisfy "the facts" whilst insulating us from God. The scientific community just love to overturn the current experts so they can have the limelight for themselves, but they seem curiously unable to overturn evolution. The fact is, that our actual observations are so far removed from the notion you are trying to push that the scientific community, conspiracy or not, cannot adopt a theory that even vaguely resembles creationism. There's not even a shred of justification for it.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.......my comment about Materialistic Evolutionists being the only ones who truly understand the Scientific Method was an obvious 'tongue in cheek' comment illustrating the self-serving definition of the Scientific Method adopted by the 'high-priesthood of Materialism'......to conveniently bolster their Atheism, by excluding the scientific evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation.:eek::D

Sometimes when you try joking you inadvertently say something which makes sense.
Bolster their atheism? I'm sure you realise that a very large percentage of the legitimate scientific community believe in God.
Perhaps they viewed this supposed 'evidence' for Creation and deemed it to be miniscule in comparison to the evidence which is opposed to it.

J C wrote: »

[/B]......it isn't the first time that I have asked........but I am still vainly awaiting an answer.

Well Atomic Horror has kindly just answered your questions again. Please be polite and do not ignore him or pretend to forget (again).

HouseHippo

J C wrote: »

......so HOW did Materialistic Evolution supposedly crossed the vast areas of useless combinatorial space within possible biochemical sequences on the 'Planet Zog' then????
.....you haven't answered the question....you merely moved it to another planet (and a highly speculative one at that)!!!!:D

Did you even read the post, wtf are you talking about, you can't argue about astronomical matters if you don't even realise an ASTEROID is NOT a Planet.

Now listen to me carefully, read the post nice and slow now, put on your glasses.....


It traveled through space on an asteroid, the substances which caused evolution are purely chemical a result of radiation from the big bang. When the ASTEROID hit EARTH these substances reacted with the newly formed earth which was a hotbed of chemicals causing a reaction resulting in the formation of the first ever bacteria.


Please show me all this physical evidence you have for creationism. Wow you are going to be a rich rich man. Scientists have been searching years to find physical and scientific evidence for Creationism... and lowe and behold one boardsie has managet to rise through the masses of all those experts to find himslef the missing link :O

PDN

HouseHippo wrote: »

Did you even read the post, wtf are you talking about, you can't argue about astronomical matters if you don't even realise an ASTEROID is NOT a Planet.

Please read the charter concerning swearing or facsimiles thereof.

A friendly warning to all posters - "wtf" is not acceptable on this board.