The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

falsifiable predictions, Wolfsbane.

Like this? -
Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creationby D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/329/

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Like this? -
Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creationby D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/329/

In contrast, many evolutionists had predicted that Uranus would have a much smaller field, or none at all.

I am not aware of any evolutionist with expertise on Uranus. He seems a very confused chap.

I conceed one point to you, Humpries 'theories' tend to prove very falsifiable indeed.

Scofflaw addressed this particular one a while back

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51709057&postcount=2339

PDN

Given the history of this thread, I am issuing a moderator's warning. Any off-colour Uranus jokes will merit an automatic infraction.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
and even if you had two digestive systems ......you would STILL die if ONE of them failed.....

.......and I certainly wouldn't like to be sitting beside you if you had eaten a dollop of Beans...and you had twin 'exhausts'!!!!!


AtomicHorror
Relevance? Just another chance to be puerile?

....the Puritan in the Atheist strikes again.......so must we now assume that Atheists have 'hang ups' about Flatulence as well as Sex??????:)

wrote:

AtomicHorror
I know you're just dying for a chance to drag us down into the gutter again J C, but you've got one yellow card so please do yourself a favour and try debating the science.

....it is indeed ironic to accuse me of dragging the debate down into the 'gutter'.....when you believe that all people are spontaneously 'evloved' from GUTTER, in the first place!!!!:D

......I was very discreet in my references to your apparent belief that two 'alimentary exhausts' would be better than one!!!!:eek::)

wrote:

AtomicHorror
How about you refute my comments. On both an organ level and a biochemical cascade level, why are some systems redundant (proof of intelligent design you say) while equally important systems are not (also apparently proof of intelligent design)? How does this equate to anything more than poor planning or moronic design? No more tangents, no more toilet humour, no more morality of the theory. Answer the question, J C.

.....ALL Designed Systems come with BOTH redundant parts and non-redundant parts and the choice of whether a part has a backup part or not, is actually an inherent aspect of Intelligent Design.....

.........as I have already said, your argument is like a person who looks at a Super Computer.....and attacks the designer because they don't like the colour of the outer housing!!!!!


MBEEP!!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....the Puritan in the Atheist strikes again.......so must we now assume that Atheists have 'hang ups' about Flatulence as well as Sex??????:)

Such hang ups I'm sure would not be limited to atheists. However in a (perhaps I am being too hopeful here) civilized conversation such as these it would be nice not to have to read your attempts at toilet humour.

J C wrote: »

....it is indeed ironic to accuse me of dragging the debate down into the 'gutter'.....when you believe that all people are spontaneously 'evloved' from GUTTER, in the first place!!!!:D

Evolutionary theory makes no reference to a gutter. Stop making stuff up.

J C wrote: »

.....ALL Designed Systems come with BOTH redundant parts and non-redundant parts and the choice of whether a part has a backup part or not, is actually an inherent aspect of Intelligent Design.....

So why do we have a tail bone? It serves no real function other than to hurt a lot if it takes a knock.
Why does the male scrotum have to be outside the body in such a vulnerable position? I'm aware that it is to keep the sperm cool but surely if they were intelligently designed in the first place they could have been made not to require being kept so cool in order to prosper.
Also the appendix, what use is it to us? why is it so prone to bursting?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....so what 'testable models' and/or 'falsifiable predictions' show that Pondslime 'morphed' into Man over 'Zillions' of years???



marco_polo
Here are just a few

1) A feature which leaps from one branch of the evolutionary tree to another
2) A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species
3) A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.
4) Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era
5)Prove that mutations do not occur.
6) Prove that if mutations do occur they are not passed down through the generations

Stop wasting your time here, grab your shovel and get digging for that rabbit

1. The 'Evolutionary Tree' (and it's supposed branches) are figments of the Evolutionist's Imagination.....so any supposed 'leaping' between 'branches' is equally illusory!!!:D

2. A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species SHOULD be eliminated by Natural Selection......and therfore is inconsistent with Evolution .....but it could still be present in a recent Creation!!!!.:D

3. A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.....is actually an example of Irreducible Complexity.......which rules out its spontaneous evolution on mathematical grounds.....and is PROOF of Intelligent Design!!!!:D

4. The so-called Pre-Cambrian Era is a 'long ages' construct......and its rocks are identified by Evolutionists BECAUSE there are no fossils of animals, like Rabbits in them.......
If I laid down some concrete yeaterday.....and it had now set into the equivalent of sandstone rock.....
......even though there are no rabbits in it.....it ISN'T Pre-Cambrian in age or origin!!!!!!
......the absence of Rabbits in so-called Pre-Cambrian rock ISN'T evidence of absence of Rabbits at the time that these rocks were laid down.....and is based on Evolutionist Circular Reasoning......whereby rocks with Mammalian Fossils present will NOT be classified as Pre-Cambrian, in the first place!!!:D

5. Mutations do occur.....and they are invariably information losing events!!!!
.....in line with the predictions of Creation Science of a declining biosphere, due to the Fall......and NOT in accordance with 'upwards and onwards' Evolution!!!:D

6. As I have said, mutations DO occur and the ones that are not corrected by the cellular correcting machinery ARE passed down the generations.......as degraded genetic information.......WHY do you think there is such concern nowadays about losing biological diversity in our ecosystems.....IF such diversity can be restored by muagenesis??????

MBEEP......................................MBEEP!!!!:eek::D

marco_polo

2. A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species SHOULD be eliminated by Natural Selection......and therfore is inconsistent with Evolution .....but could still be present in a recent Creation!!!!.:D

Exactly. So if you demonstrated an example of one then ...?

3. A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.....is actually an example of Irreducible Complexity.......which rules out its spontaneous evolution on mathematical grounds.....and is PROOF of Intelligent Design!!!!:D

Exactly. So if you demonstrated an example of one then ....?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Such hang ups I'm sure would not be limited to atheists. However in a (perhaps I am being too hopeful here) civilized conversation such as these it would be nice not to have to read your attempts at toilet humour.

.....you guys raised a serious question about why God didn't give us two Alimentary Canals.....and I gave you a serious answer.....because if one canal were to fail, you would still die due to accumulated toxins in it.....and I also cited a possible serious increase in anti-social effects......from having two 'Alimentary Exhausts'!!!!!!:D:eek:

Galvasean wrote: »

Evolutionary theory makes no reference to a gutter. Stop making stuff up.

.....Evolutionary theory certainly talks of 'Primordial Soup'.....which approximates to Gutter.......but without any of the complex living organisms currently found in Gutter!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

So why do we have a tail bone? It serves no real function other than to hurt a lot if it takes a knock.

......I am in a bit of a dillemma here ......
.......do I further offend your puritanism.....and your apparent sensitivity about all things 'below the belt'.....
.......or do I tell you the scientific truth....that the Coccyx is anatomically necessary to anchor the musculature of the Anus (and indeed the entire pelvic diaphragm) while facilitating an erect walking posture (which only Humans truly exhibit).....and it is therefore an ESSENTIAL feature of Human Anatomy!!!
.....try removing your coccyx..........and see what happens!!!!

.......on second thoughts.... please DON'T.....I don't want to be responsible for the 'mess' that would result....:D

..and you can read all about so-called 'vestigial organs' here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/setting-record-straight-vestigial

Galvasean wrote: »

Why does the male scrotum have to be outside the body in such a vulnerable position? I'm aware that it is to keep the sperm cool but surely if they were intelligently designed in the first place they could have been made not to require being kept so cool in order to prosper.

........again I am torn between offending your notorious Sexual Puritanism....and providing the scientific facts!!!!
......ye ask leading questions about sex and then cry 'foul' when you get a factual answer....that you don't like!!!!!
.......the Scrotum WORKS perfectly........and if it was in a less vulnerable position you might not be so conscious of it's vulnerability....and it might incur MORE FREQUENT damage as a result!!!!!
.....it also acts as a primary sexual stimulant for members of the opposite sex!!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

Also the appendix, what use is it to us? why is it so prone to bursting?

......the Appendix is essential to the establisment of a healthy immune system and gut flora in the peri-natal infant......thereby dramatically reducing peri-natal mortality from perinatal gastroenteritis!!!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0718appendix.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp
.......even NS would predict that the Appendix MUST on balance provide a useful function......and it DOES!!!!:D

MBEEP....................MBEEP:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
2. A feature which exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species SHOULD be eliminated by Natural Selection......and therfore is inconsistent with Evolution .....but could still be present in a recent Creation!!!!.

marco_polo
Exactly. So if you demonstrated an example of one then ...?

.....most prey/predation relationships......and many parasite/host relationships!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
3. A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed.....is actually an example of Irreducible Complexity.......which rules out its spontaneous evolution on mathematical grounds.....and is PROOF of Intelligent Design!!!!

marco_polo
Exactly. So if you demonstrated an example of one then ....?

.....every functional organ and biochemical cascade known to science!!!!:D

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, here's another:
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICC08_Snake_Hybrid.pdf

Much like your previous example this is a scientific investigation of sorts i.e. they got some different snakes to have sex with each other and documented their offspring. I have no major issues with their findings. However, they have nothing to do with creationism!

The paper begins by setting up a straw man hypothesis. Evolutionary biology does not predict that these species are so distantly related that they can't produce viable offspring. They only ones surprised by the results are the authors themselves. I would like to see a similar investigation using less similar snakes - perhaps a common grass snake and an anaconda, for example. Then we can easily see if this hypothesis holds up to closer scrutiny.

Anyway, the evidence does not support the concept of "kinds" or "baramins" - it merely does not directly contradict it. Two entirely different things. The same results do not directly contradict the flat Earth hypothesis. Does that mean they support the flat Earth hypothesis? Of course not.

So you see, the results of this interesting and erotic snake sex study have little or nothing to say about kinds or baramins, less about the veracity of evolution and absolutely nothing about creation. Ergo, NOT CREATION SCIENCE! :pac:

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

5. Mutations do occur.....and they are invariably information losing events!!!!
.....in line with the predictions of Creation Science of a declining biosphere, due to the Fall......and NOT in accordance with 'upwards and onwards' Evolution!!!:D

Can you demonstrate to me that they are always information losing, using the following example and quantifying the information loss at each stage.

Lets say we have a mini DNA sequence as follows

ATG ACT

At some point we have a point mutation, thus we apparently lose some information

Ending up with the following sequence.

ATC ACT

Now at some point in the future we have a further point mutation losing some more information.

We now end up with the following sequence

ATG ACT

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....most prey/predation relationships......and many parasite/host relationships!!!:D

.....every functional organ and biochemical cascade known to science!!!!:D

What host/prey features have evolved for the sole purpose of benifiting the parasites/predators?

And what parasite/predator features have evolved for the sole purpose of benifiting the hosts/prey?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

......I am in a bit of a dillemma here ......
.......do I further offend your puritanism....

Sorry, exactly where did you get the impression that I am of such a disposition?

J C wrote: »

.......or do I tell you the scientific truth....

As long as you keep everything in it's scientific terms I'm sure no one will mind.

J C wrote: »

that the Coccyx is anatomically necessary to anchor the musculature of the Anus while facilitating an erect walking posture (which only Humans truly exhibit).....and it is therefore an ESSENTIAL feature of Human Anatomy!!!
.....try removing your coccyx..........and see what happens!!!!

Allow me to be more specific. The very end of one's tailbone, the part which can be felt easily which has no muscle attachment, what's it for?

J C wrote: »

........again I am torn between offending your notorious Sexual Puritanism....and providing the scientific facts!!!!

So my alleged puritanism is now notorious is it? Interesting in that if you look back over the thread I have displayed no such hang ups. Perhaps you should be mindful not to misrepresent others (or bear false witness as is a term you may be more familiar with).

J C wrote: »

......ye ask leading questions about sex and then cry 'foul' when you get a factual answer....that you don't like!!!!!

As I said use proper terminology and I'm sure no one will mind.

J C wrote: »

.......the Scrotum WORKS perfectly........and if it was in a less vulnerable position you might not be so conscious of it's vulnerability....and might incur MORE FREQUENT damage as a result!!!!!

Excellent, perhaps the heart and lungs should be located outside too so we will be more mindful as not to let any harm fall upon them.

J C wrote: »

.....it also acts as a primary sexual stimulant for members of the opposite sex!!!!!

I wouldn't call it a primary stimulant. A secondary probably but not a primary.

J C wrote: »

......essential to the establisment of a healthy gut flora in the peri-natal infant!!!!!
.......even NS would predict that the Appendix MUST on balance provide a useful function......and it DOES!!!!:D

Now please answer me why it is so prone to bursting (which kills its owner may I ad) - which I have already asked before.

J C wrote: »

MBEEP....................MBEEP:D

Um yes, good day to you too.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

What host/prey features have evolved for the sole purpose of benifiting the parasites/predators?

And what parasite/predator features have evolved for the sole purpose of benifiting the hosts/prey?

....NONE have evolved but there are many host/prey relationships where a feature exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species....this SHOULD be eliminated by Natural Selection......and therfore is inconsistent with Evolution .....but could still be present in a recent Creation......

.....for example, a Strawberry.....it's fruity 'flesh' is of no benefit to the Strawberry Plant.......but it is very beneficial to any creature eating it!!

......so will it be the humble Strawberry that eventually brings Darwinian Evolution to its knees......rather that the Peacocks Tail.....which gave Darwin such palpatations....that he was unable to look at a Peacock without breaking out in a cold sweat!!!!!:D

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Can you demonstrate to me that they are always information losing, using the following example and quantifying the information loss at each stage.

Lets say we have a mini DNA sequence as follows

ATG ACT

At some point we have a point mutation, thus we apparently lose some information

Ending up with the following sequence.

ATC ACT

Now at some point in the future we have a further point mutation losing some more information.

We now end up with the following sequence

ATG ACT

......your example of a reverse mutation merely restored the information that was lost......but CRUCIALLY it didn't increase the original information ....which is a requirement of any system that is capable of 'evolving' slime into Man!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....for example, a Strawberry.....it's fruity 'flesh' is of no benefit to the Strawberry Plant.......but it is very beneficial to any creature eating it!!

The tasty flesh makes the strawberry an appetizing snack for animals who eat it and end up spreading its seeds far and wide through their dung (fertilizer actually). Having tasty flesh is very beneficial to the reproduction and distribution of fruit.
I taught that would be fairly obvios.

J C wrote: »

......so will it be the humble Strawberry that eventually brings Darwinian Evolution to its knees......rather that the Peacocks Tail.....which gave Darwin such palpatations....that he was unable to look at a Peacock without breaking out in a cold sweat!!!!!:D

The male peacock uses it's heavily ornamented tail to attract mates, helping him spread his genes. Again, fairly obvious stuff.


What's that noise? Ah, it must be J C scraping at the bottom of the barrel!

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

......your example of a reverse mutation restored the information that was lost......but CRUCIALLY didn't increase the information ....which is a requirement of any system capable of 'evolving' slime into Man!!!:D

So the first mutation is the information losing one and the second mutation the information increasing one.

Got it.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....NONE have evolved but there are many host/prey relationships where a feature exists solely for the benefit of another species, with no benefit whatsoever to the host species....this SHOULD be eliminated by Natural Selection......and therfore is inconsistent with Evolution .....but could still be present in a recent Creation......

.....for example, a Strawberry.....it's fruity 'flesh' is of no benefit to the Strawberry Plant.......but it is very beneficial to any creature eating it!!

......so will it be the humble Strawberry that eventually brings Darwinian Evolution to its knees......rather that the Peacocks Tail.....which gave Darwin such palpatations....that he was unable to look at a Peacock without breaking out in a cold sweat!!!!!:D

Even a junior infant probably understands the relationship between fruit and seed dispersal. :rolleyes:

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Allow me to be more specific. The very end of one's tailbone, the part which can be felt easily which has no muscle attachment, what's it for?

....your question is analagous to somebody questioning the function of Eyelashes....and being told their function......only to retort by then asking what the function of one Eyelash Hair is!!!!!!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

So my alleged puritanism is now notorious is it? Interesting in that if you look back over the thread I have displayed no such hang ups. Perhaps you should be mindful not to misrepresent others (or bear false witness as is a term you may be more familiar with).

.....there are so many of you (Atheists/Evolutionists) on this thread that I cannot be expected to know each of your predelictions!!!!
....your colleagues have certainly made quite Puritanical comments about sex on this Thread....and neither yourself nor any other Evolutionist, that I am aware of, dissassociated themselves from these comments.....so it is valid to conclude that you are ALL Puritanical about sex!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

Excellent, perhaps the heart and lungs should be located outside too so we will be more mindful as not to let any harm fall upon them.

.....an external lung certainly wouldn't fulfill the OTHER benefit of an external Scrotum.....i.e. an external lung would NOT act a primary sexual stimulant for members of the opposite sex!!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

.....the poor breathing efficiency of a (collapsed) external lung would also be a design FLAW.....for very active creatures like Mammals!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

I wouldn't call it a primary stimulant. A secondary probably but not a primary.

.......speak for yourself!!!!:D

......maybe an Evolutionist's Scrotum is only a 'secondary sexual stimulant'........the Creationist ones fall into the 'primary' category!!!!:eek::):D:p...............MBEEP!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

Now please answer me why it is so prone to bursting (which kills its owner may I ad) - which I have already asked before.

......the Fall!!!!:D:)

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Even a junior infant probably understands the relationship between fruit and seed dispersal. :rolleyes:

......and HOW does a Strawberry .....which is eaten by Humans.....and it's seeds DIGESTED......allow 'fruit dispersal'??????

.....and in any event, it would still be eaten by various creatures if it only had a TINY FRACTION of the edible flesh which it contains!!!!!

......equally, WHY aren't all immature plants and asexually reproducing ones poisonous to predators........the plant gains NOTHING from it's vegetation being eaten.......but it can lose it's life.....which would kinda stop its 'evolution' in its tracks!!!!:eek::D

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

......and HOW does a Strawberry .....which is eaten .....and it's seeds DIGESTED......allow 'fruit dispersal'??????

Seeds are not digestable. Step two has something to do with poop.

Stop me if I'm going too fast.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Like this? -
Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creationby D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/329/

Well no, because that isn't a prediction

If you look at what he "predicted" it was that the magnetic field would be between 1 x 10^23 and 1 x 10^25 A m2

That is between 10 with 23 zeroes and 10 with 25 zeros. Which is a bit like me predicting that Athy is some where between Dublin and Limerick

It was a pretty safe bet because magnetic fields are related to mass. Humphrey basically worked out (guessed) a ranged based on a safe min and max of what the field would likely be and then stood back and proclaim that he had "predicted" the value when the true value was actually discovered. He later admitted that the actual value was worked out exactly by naturalistic planetary models. That is an actual prediction, something that will either be right or wrong, not something so vague that it will always be right.

It is like me saying that in the next 20 pages JC is going to say something silly and inaccurate.

Would you be impressed by that?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....your question is analagous to somebody questioning the function of Eyelashes....and being told their function......only to retort by then asking what the function of one Eyelash Hair is!!!!!!!!:D

Not really. The individual eyelash serves the exact same purpose as the other eyelashes. The end bit of the tailbone certainly does not serve the same purpose as those sections that are used to anchor muscle.

J C wrote: »

.....there are so many of you (Evolutionists) on this thread that I cannot be expected to know each of your predelictions!!!!

Then how about not making outlandish assumptions about the character of people you don't know?

J C wrote: »

....your colleagues have certainly made quite Puritanical comments about sex on this Thread....

So tar them all with the same brush purely because they believe in evolution. Wow, that is one sweeping generalization.

J C wrote: »

and neither yourself nor any other Evolutionist, that I am aware of, dissassociated themselves from these comments.....so it is valid to conclude that you are Puritanical about sex!!!![/qoute]

Well clearly it is not valid to make such an assumption. If one poster says they don't find something tasteful it is not my duty, nor that of anyone else, to jump in and give my own opinion on something as off topic as that.

J C wrote: »

.....an external lung certainly wouldn't fulfill the OTHER benefit of an external Scrotum.....i.e. an external lung would NOT act a primary sexual stimulant for members of the opposite sex!!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

You'd be amazed. There are some odd fetishes out there. I'm sure those (I forget their collective name) who gain sexual gratification from asphyxiation would find a way to implement an external lung to their own means.

J C wrote: »

.......maybe your Scrotum is only a 'secondary stimulant'........mine falls into the 'primary' category!!!!:eek::):D:p...............MBEEP!!!:D

How childish.

J C wrote: »

......the Fall!!!!:D:)

That is your explanation for burst appendixes? I was hoping for something a little bit more insightful, even by your argumentative standards.

J C wrote: »

......and HOW does a Strawberry .....which is eaten .....and it's seeds DIGESTED......allow 'fruit dispersal'??????

Because the seeds are notoriously hard to digest and make it all the way through. Since many of the hardy seeds are ingested, statistically speaking, a few are bound to make it all the way through. As I have stated earlier the animal dung acts as fertilizer which helps the seed grow.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

So the first mutation is the information losing one and the second mutation the information increasing one.

Got it.

.....your example is just going around in information circles.....just like the Evolutionists on this Thread!!!!:D

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

......your example of a reverse mutation restored the information that was lost......but CRUCIALLY didn't increase the original information ....which is a requirement of any system that is capable of 'evolving' slime into Man!!!:D

J C wrote: »

.....your example is just going around in information circles.....just like the Evolutionists on this Thread!!!!:D

Restore in this context = gain

Of course all of this is pointless without a meaningful measurement for DNA 'information content' which doesn't seems to be forthcoming from creationists.

Thanks for playing though.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....your example is just going around in information circles.....just like the Evolutionists on this Thread!!!!:D

The only reason they go around in circles is because you bring up tired old arguments against them (eg: the peacock's tail) taht have been done before.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Not really. The individual eyelash serves the exact same purpose as the other eyelashes. The end bit of the tailbone certainly does not serve the same purpose as those sections that are used to anchor muscle.

.....just like an individual Lash Hair is a small part of the total Eyelash.......the bottom of the Coccyx is a small part of the total Coccyx!!!!

Galvasean wrote: »

Then how about not making outlandish assumptions about the character of people you don't know?

.....NOBODY on the thread disassociated themselves from the Puitanical remarks......so YES it can be safely assumed that they hold the same views.....and indeed many Atheist Regimes have had quite puritanical official censorship on sexual issues......George Orwells bleak 1984 novel gives a hint as to why such Puritanism may exist......an all powerful state may not be actually all powerful at all......IF its citizens have divided loyalties.....to their sexual partners.....and to the state!!!!!
.....so Puritanism can raise it's head in the most unlikely places.....and it certainly isn't the sole preserve of small groups of consevative seventeenth century Christians ......as this thread has amply demonstrated!!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

You'd be amazed. There are some odd fetishes out there. I'm sure those (I forget their collective name) who gain sexual gratification from asphyxiation would find a way to implement an external lung to their own means.

.....I'm pretty sure that even these guys would 'draw the line' at an EXTERNAL Lung!!!:D

Galvasean wrote: »

How childish.

....a fully developed Scrotum is technically an ADULT feature!!!!:D:):eek:

Galvasean wrote: »

Because the seeds are notoriously hard to digest and make it all the way through. Since many of the hardy seeds are ingested, statistically speaking, a few are bound to make it all the way through. As I have stated earlier the animal dung acts as fertilizer which helps the seed grow.

.....Creation by a loving omnipotent God ......is a much more LIKELY explanation!!!!

.....and you haven't explained WHY it is in the interest of asexual and sexually immature plants to have VERY NUTRITIOUS leaves.......
.....Creation by a loving omnipotent God ......is a much more LIKELY explanation here AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!:D

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Restore in this context = gain

Of course all of this is pointless without a meaningful measurement for DNA 'information content' which doesn't seems to be forthcoming from creationists.

Thanks for playing though.

.....Creation Scientists and ID Proponents have made considerable progress in developng measurement systems for DNA 'information content'......watch this space!!!!:D

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.....and you haven't explained WHY it is in the interest of asexual and sexually immature plants to have VERY NUTRITIOUS leaves.......
.

Using the same logic, in what sense is asexual and sexually immature plants having nutritious leaves good design?

Plants require leaves in order to create energy from sunlight. Being organic this has the unfortunate side effect of being edible to some animals, but it is clear that the benefit of being able to create energy outweighs the price of some of them getting eaten. Indeed some leaves go to great length to avoid being eaten.

Also it is useful to bear in mind that leaves existed before animals adapted to eat them. You selected a fine example of evolution in all its glory there JC.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like me saying that in the next 20 pages JC is going to say something silly and inaccurate.

Would you be impressed by that?

........I would......IF it actually happened!!!!!!:pac::):D

........and predicting that the Evolutionists will be roundly defeated on every issue that they bring up isn't so much a prediction......as a CERTAINTY!!!!:D