The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

....done it several times already.....but here it is again!!

.....the probability of non-intelligently directed systems producing the SPECIFIC amino acid sequence for a SPECIFIC functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids is 10^^130 to one against it occurring...and this is a number vastly greater than the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe (10^^80)!!!!

Please show how this number was calculated, including your specific definitions of terms such as 'functional'.

And there were no electrons in the Big bang.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....BUT Intelligent Design IS the MOST LIKELY hypothesis for the 'production' of the highly complex tightly specific lifeforms that we observe on Earth...

No it isn't, it adds a huge number of unknowns to the model including invoking non-defined elements. Simple explanations are most often the correct ones, and intelligent design is a massively contorted explanation.

J C wrote: »

in fact, it is the ONLY mathematically valid hypothesis under our current understanding of the physical sciences!!!!

Not according to mathematicians or anyone working within the physical sciences, just according to Behe and his pals. Guys who don't have a good grasp of information theory, according to other information theorists. And who don't have a good grasp of biology, according to me.

J C wrote: »

...you are basically saying that SOME Atheists don't wish to even consider the most likely hypothesis for the origin of life (i.e. its design by an 'Intelligence' or 'Intelligences')...

No, I'm clearly not saying that at all as that notion would not be considered the most likely nor simplest explanation. Inserting another layer of intelligence into the model just leaves us to question the origins of that intelligence.

J C wrote: »

and that is fair enough... and I can understand why a committed Atheist would have personal difficulties pursuing such a course of scientific enquiry...
.....BUT it is not acceptable that these Atheists should be allowed to veto other scientists (of all religious persuasions and none) from scientifically pursuing the Intelligent Design hypothesis ... and 'going' wherever the objective physical evidence leads THEM!!!!

Atheists are not an organised group and have vetoed nothing. The ID crowd don't publish new research. Just books and pamphlets. If ID proponents will not publish in peer-reviewed journals we cannot make them.

J C wrote: »

....could I also remind you that the scientific validation of the 'Intelligent Design' of life isn't an exclusively Young Earth Creationist issue ... because the establishment of such a scientific fact DOESN'T prove that the 'Intelligence' involved was the God of the Bible.

It would be an historic discovery and one which would win a scientist considerable acclaim and fortune. Odd then that no scientist has shown this to be true.

J C wrote: »

....done it several times already.....but here it is again!!

.....the probability of non-intelligently directed systems producing the SPECIFIC amino acid sequence for a SPECIFIC functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids is 10^^130 to one against it occurring...and this is a number vastly greater than the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe (10^^80)!!!!

1. This is not a mechanism for abiogenesis suggested by anyone working in the field. So why do you use it as an argument against it? It's a strawman.

2. Your probability calculation has a massive flaw. It assumes that the amino acids enter a homogeneous probability matrix around the starting residue. It assumes that there are no forces or chemical laws which could compel the acids to react, no influences that could alter that sequence, and that the reaction is occurring only once. Again, none of that represents reality. By the same criteria, the likelihood that a snowflake could form in any given configuration would also be negligible.

3. 10^^80 is meaningless. You mean 10^80, 1x10^80, 10e80 or similar.

J C wrote: »

....if the sequence for a specific functional protein cannot be produced fairly readily by non-intelligently directed chemistry then the production of anything approaching a living cell spontaneously is TOTALLY impossible!!!:pac::):D

As has been pointed out to you perhaps a dozen times, you need to provide full calculations to make a statement of such certainty. The above demonstrates a pretty serious misunderstanding of the requirements of such probability calculations. They are meaningless in describing the likelihood of a given chemical reaction. We consider abiogenesis to be improbable, but it only needed to occur once.

AtomicHorror

The questions you keep avoiding. Or at least not answering.

1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.

2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.

3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.

4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.

5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.

6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.

7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.

8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".

9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.

10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.

11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?

12. Why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

....done it several times already.....but here it is again!!

.....the probability of non-intelligently directed systems producing the SPECIFIC amino acid sequence for a SPECIFIC functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids is 10^^130 to one against it occurring...and this is a number vastly greater than the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe (10^^80)!!!!

....if the sequence for a specific functional protein cannot be produced fairly readily by non-intelligently directed chemistry then the production of anything approaching a living cell spontaneously is TOTALLY impossible!!!:pac::):D

...so Intelligent Design IS the MOST LIKELY hypothesis for the 'production' of the highly complex tightly specific lifeforms that we observe on Earth...
.....in fact, it is the ONLY mathematically valid hypothesis under our current understanding of the physical sciences!!!!:D


.....HAPPY NEW YEAR guys!!!:D

Sorry, you really haven't shown me anything there. You could just be making this all up. I could just as easily say that the probability of life arising through abiogenesis is one, but of course I haven't provided any proof to back it up. Please provide me with the full mathematical proof of your claims.

And Happy New Year!

A Primal Nut

J C wrote: »

....BUT Intelligent Design IS the MOST LIKELY hypothesis for the 'production' of the highly complex tightly specific lifeforms that we observe on Earth...in fact, it is the ONLY mathematically valid hypothesis under our current understanding of the physical sciences!!!!

...you are basically saying that SOME Atheists don't wish to even consider the most likely hypothesis for the origin of life (i.e. its design by an 'Intelligence' or 'Intelligences')... and that is fair enough... and I can understand why a committed Atheist would have personal difficulties pursuing such a course of scientific enquiry...
.....BUT it is not acceptable that these Atheists should be allowed to veto other scientists (of all religious persuasions and none) from scientifically pursuing the Intelligent Design hypothesis ... and 'going' wherever the objective physical evidence leads THEM!!!!

....could I also remind you that the scientific validation of the 'Intelligent Design' of life isn't an exclusively Young Earth Creationist issue ... because the establishment of such a scientific fact DOESN'T prove that the 'Intelligence' involved was the God of the Bible.

If the Intelligent Design of life was to be accepted by most Biologists tomorrow ... Creation Scientists would still have a very serious scientific challenge to prove that the God of the Bible was the 'Intelligence' involved.:D


.....and here are a few 'brain expanding' quotes on the subject at hand:-
Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
"At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief." Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

"The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107


Phillip Johnson (b. 1940) Professor of Law at Berkeley
"Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith. " Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990

"If some powerful conscious being exists outside the natural order, it might use its power to intervene in nature to accomplish some purpose, such as the production of beings having consciousness and free will. If the possibility of an "outside" intervention is allowed in nature at any point, however, the whole naturalistic worldview quickly unravels.

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? " Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990

None You seem to think that because some esteemed Scientists think God is a possibilility doesn't mean anything or add anything to the argument. I'm sure I could come up with Scientist who believe in all kinds of crap - why not make a persuasive argument against evolution instead? Might be more useful to the debate. Besides for every one scientist who believes god is a serious possibility i could name ten or a hundred who don't. Also, well done choosing quotes that are between 18 and 30 years old - thankfully evolutionary theory has moved on since then.

Also the quote in your signature - "Nothing comes from nothing in evolution" actually helps disprove Creationism. Creationism says something comes from nothing. Evolution proves Nothing comes from Nothing. So why is it in your signature, as it supports evolution.

A Primal Nut

J C wrote: »

....done it several times already.....but here it is again!!

.....the probability of non-intelligently directed systems producing the SPECIFIC amino acid sequence for a SPECIFIC functional protein of a chain length of just 100 amino acids is 10^^130 to one against it occurring...and this is a number vastly greater than the number of electrons in the 'Big Bang' Universe (10^^80)!!!!

....if the sequence for a specific functional protein cannot be produced fairly readily by non-intelligently directed chemistry then the production of anything approaching a living cell spontaneously is TOTALLY impossible!!!:pac::):D

...so Intelligent Design IS the MOST LIKELY hypothesis for the 'production' of the highly complex tightly specific lifeforms that we observe on Earth...
.....in fact, it is the ONLY mathematically valid hypothesis under our current understanding of the physical sciences!!!!:D


.....HAPPY NEW YEAR guys!!!:D

I bet a hundred euro none of that has appeared in a scientific journal...therefore its irrelevant. The probability of it happening at least once in the history of the earth is actually pretty good.

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Atheists are not an organised group and have vetoed nothing. The ID crowd don't publish new research.

Or old research either! In fact, I remember asking for evidence of peer-review bias against creation science on this thread, i.e. rejection letters from journals, and no examples could be put forward. They simply aren't producing any science. There's no atheist conspiracy, only a self-inflicted creationist vow of silence. Even J C won't tell us the findings of his research! :pac:

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The questions you keep avoiding. Or at least not answering.

Keep up the good work, AH!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It would be an historic discovery and one which would win a scientist considerable acclaim and fortune. Odd then that no scientist has shown this to be true.

....up to now it got them sacked .... in many cases!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

2. Your probability calculation has a massive flaw. It assumes that the amino acids enter a homogeneous probability matrix around the starting residue. It assumes that there are no forces or chemical laws which could compel the acids to react, no influences that could alter that sequence, and that the reaction is occurring only once. Again, none of that represents reality. By the same criteria, the likelihood that a snowflake could form in any given configuration would also be negligible.

...unfortunately 'chemical predestination' in relation to protein formation has NEVER been observed...and unlike (non-functional) snowflakes .... proteins MUST be functional for organisms to survive ... and critical proteins must be FULLY functional...and that is why they are highly specific!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We consider abiogenesis to be improbable, but it only needed to occur once.

...abiogenesis is NOT improbable...it is technically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!:D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...abiogenesis is NOT improbable...it is technically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!:D

Prove it.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....up to now it got them sacked .... in many cases!!!!

There isn't a single example of someone who scientifically validated ID and then lost their job. :pac:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....up to now it got them sacked .... in many cases!!!!

Someone published a proof of intelligent design in a peer-reviewed journal and got sacked? Who?

J C wrote: »

....unfortunately 'chemical predestination' in relation to protein formation has NEVER been observed...

Who is talking about pre-destination? I'm talking about peptide bonds, hydrogen bonds, disulphide bridging. I'm talking about amino acid concentrations, reaction conditions. I'm talking about reactions occurring on a massively parallel scale. You know? The stuff you're leaving out of your neat little non-equation.

J C wrote: »

and unlike (non-functional) snowflakes .... proteins MUST be functional for organisms to survive ... and critical proteins must be FULLY functional...and that is why they are highly specific!!!!

Not my point. My point is that the method you use to determine the probability of a chemical reaction makes no sense, as evidenced by a simple example. The likelihood that all off those specific water molecules could come together in exactly that specified order is negligible. So using your method even the simplest of chemical reactions become improbable if not impossible.

J C wrote: »

...abiogenesis is NOT improbable...it is technically and mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!!!:D

So you keep saying, but you won't show us the numbers.

J C

...and here is further evidence for a VERY young Earth...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081228/ts_nm/us_time_seconds

.....the addition of 24 seconds over the past 36 years (to compensate for a corresponding 'slow down' in the Earth's rotation / angular momentum may not seem a lot ....but over an 'Evolutionist Timescale' of billions of years it is very significant indeed...

....do you realise that a rate of slow down of 0.666666 seconds per year would mean that daylength would be stretched out to over 21 current 'Earth Days' in a billion years time .... with devastating consequences for living organisms ... and if the orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun remained constant over this period, there would only be about 17 days in a year by then!!!

....it is even more amazing when we extrapolate backwards by accellerating the rotational speed of the Earth at a rate of 0.666666 seconds per year.....

....we find that the average day length would be halved to just 12 hours about 23 million years ago ... and the Earth would be spinning like centrifuge less than 50 million years ago!!!!

.....yet another reason that the Earth is NOT billions of years old!!!!:pac::):D

.....so I'm sorry guys .... the one second added to all your watches last night means that you NOW have less than 50 million years from the formation of the Earth in which to do all the feverish 'Evolving' that you all continue to dream about!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...and here is further evidence for a VERY young Earth...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081228/ts_nm/us_time_seconds

.....the addition of 24 seconds over the past 36 years (to compensate for a corresponding 'slow down' in the Earth's rotation / angular momentum may not seem a lot ....but over an 'Evolutionist Timescale' of billions of years it is very significant indeed...

....do you realise that a rate of slow down of 0.666666 seconds per year would mean that daylength would be stretched out to over 21 current 'Earth Days' in a billion years time .... with devastating consequences for living organisms ... and if the orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun remained constant over this period, there would only be about 17 days in a year by then!!!

....it is even more amazing when we extrapolate backwards by accellerating the rotational speed of the Earth at a rate of 0.666666 seconds per year.....

....we find that the average day length would be halved to just 12 hours about 23 million years ago ... and the Earth would be spinning like centrifuge less than 50 million years ago!!!!

.....yet another reason that the Earth is NOT billions of years old!!!!:pac::):D

.....so I'm sorry guys .... the one second added to all your watches last night means that you NOW have less than 50 million years from the formation of the Earth in which to do all the feverish 'Evolving' that you all continue to dream about!!!:eek::D

I suspect the bit in bold is why you're wrong yet again. That's a big if and your "extrapolation" is a very simple-minded effort indeed. Next please.

2Scoops

Write it up and submit it to peer review scrutiny - let's see what the experts have to say! :pac: But even a non-expert like me can tell you're assuming a linear relation here.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not my point. My point is that the method you use to determine the probability of a chemical reaction makes no sense, as evidenced by a simple example. The likelihood that all off those specific water molecules could come together in exactly that specified order is negligible. So using your method even the simplest of chemical reactions become improbable if not impossible.

....I accept that 'simple' chemical reactions are entirely predictable ....
.....but the Amino Acid sequence of proteins are NOT predicated on some kind of 'simple predestined chemistry' ... they are actually determined by DNA sequences that are themselves NOT predetermined by chemistry .... no more than the sequence of complex specified letters on this page are predetermined by chemistry ....

......the DNA sequences are observed to be carriers of highly complex tightly specified INFORMATION ... that is used by the cellular machinery to produce the equally complex and tightly spcified FUNCTIONAL proteins that are marshalled in the complex tightly specified bilogical systems that are observed to be innate to all living organisms!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C - are you going to answer AH's questions yet, or continue to ignore them?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

J C - are you going to answer AH's questions yet, or continue to ignore them?

...I have repeatedly answered AH's leading questions .... and I am now ignoring them as spam!!!!

.....anyway, what do you think of the short (Evolutionist) timescale placed on the age of the Earth by the 0.666666 second annual slow down in it's rotational speed????:eek::D

Húrin

I don't even see how the creationism argument is important to either side.

Deicida

get your facts right JC, it is slowing by approximately 0.0015 seconds per century and also the speed is not constant.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...I have repeatedly answered AH's leading questions .... and I am now ignoring them as spam!!!!

You have answered them once, and he explained why each of your answers was invalid.

.....anyway, what do you think of the short (Evolutionist) timescale placed on the age of the Earth by the 0.666666 second annual slow down in it's rotational speed????:eek::D

I cannot say, as swearing isn't allowed on this forum.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

I don't even see how the creationism argument is important to either side.

For why it's important to creationists, go to the largest creationist outlet, AIG -- if you can't trust the first story in the bible, then what can you trust? Religion thrives on certainty and AIG sells that in abundance.

For scientists, it's a matter of honesty and one of objecting to the stream of miserable lies that creationists sell to each other.

kelly1

Rather than start a new thread, can I ask a possibly naive question?

I'm wondering due to huge number of random DNA mutations that have occured in our ancestor's genes, why don't we have some kind of creature which is somewhere between humans and say a chimpanzee?

I suppose this is the same question as asking why Neanderthals don't exist today?

Thanks.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I suppose this is the same question as asking why Neanderthals don't exist today?

Some paleontological research suggests that the last Neanderthals died out relatively recently (around 30k years ago), and may have been wiped out by our own ancestors with whom Neanderthals would have been competing for the same resources in the same ecological niche.

A rather horrible prospect, I have to say.

Flamed Diving

kelly1 wrote: »

Rather than start a new thread, can I ask a possibly naive question?

I'm wondering due to huge number of random DNA mutations that have occured in our ancestor's genes, why don't we have some kind of creature which is somewhere between humans and say a chimpanzee?

I suppose this is the same question as asking why Neanderthals don't exist today?

Thanks.

Its increasingly looking like that we (homo sapiens) are not direct descendants of neanderthals, but instead share a common ancestor, and that we may have actually wiped them out as our species left Africa for Europe.

Simply Google Neanderthal and have a read for yourself.

In addition, there should not be 'some kind of creature which is somewhere between humans and say a chimpanzee' because we are cousins with chimps, we didn't 'come from' chimps.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....I accept that 'simple' chemical reactions are entirely predictable ....

Once again, you're not getting the point I'm making. I'm not suggesting snowflake formation is simple or predictable. I'm saying that by your logic it's impossible.

J C wrote: »

.....but the Amino Acid sequence of proteins are NOT predicated on some kind of 'simple predestined chemistry' ...

Who said they are?

J C wrote: »

they are actually determined by DNA sequences that are themselves NOT predetermined by chemistry .... no more than the sequence of complex specified letters on this page are predetermined by chemistry ....

And again, the only person talking about "predetermined chemistry", by which I assume you mean simple 1:1 chemical reactions, is you. However, you have correctly pointed out that proteins are the end result of an underlying process which makes it very puzzling that you'd think that proteins have anything to do with abiogenesis.

J C wrote: »

...I have repeatedly answered AH's leading questions .... and I am now ignoring them as spam!!!!

You replied to some of them. You didn't answer them. If a question starts with "suggest a natural process..." and you reply with "concrete", that is a reply and not an answer. Plus the list has grown.

J C wrote: »

.....anyway, what do you think of the short (Evolutionist) timescale placed on the age of the Earth by the 0.666666 second annual slow down in it's rotational speed????:eek::D

What the hell are you talking about? The slowdown in the last 200 years has been something like 0.002 seconds. Plus it hasn't been constant at all.

Morbert

kelly1 wrote: »

Rather than start a new thread, can I ask a possibly naive question?

I'm wondering due to huge number of random DNA mutations that have occured in our ancestor's genes, why don't we have some kind of creature which is somewhere between humans and say a chimpanzee?

I suppose this is the same question as asking why Neanderthals don't exist today?

Thanks.

Speciation

J C

kelly1 wrote: »

Rather than start a new thread, can I ask a possibly naive question?

I'm wondering due to huge number of random DNA mutations that have occured in our ancestor's genes, why don't we have some kind of creature which is somewhere between humans and say a chimpanzee?

I suppose this is the same question as asking why Neanderthals don't exist today?

Thanks.

...but so called 'Neanderthals' DO exist today ... they are merely a variety of Human Being ... and they have been regularly overheard boasting that their genes have survived for billions of years ... or maybe it was their jeans that they were talking about!!!:D

..... the 'Neanderthal Story' is a vestige of Victorian Racism ... and it parallells the ridiculous idea that different varieties of people, were different species ... of course, it is a load of 'cobblers' ... with no scientific basis whatsoever!!!:eek:
...we are ALL one race, descended from one pair of common ancestors .... Adam and Eve!!!!

.... and here is an interesting discovery of a supposed 'Neanderthal Human Hybrid' ... when all it was, is simply a Human Being!!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/323657.stm

...and the following article claims that 'Nenderthals' inter-bred with 'Humans' .... but didn't produce 'hybrids' ... which is technically accurate ...as they were both the SAME species ... and therefore matings between them always produced HUMAN children .. and not hybrids!!!:D
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/umans-and-neanderthals-may-have-interbred-but-had-no-hybrids-re-issue_1007932.html

....and BTW, although we don't have some kind of creature that is somewhere between Humans and Chimpanzees ... we do have creatures who think of themselves as glorified Apes ... and they are called 'Evolutionists'!!!:pac::):D

MrPudding

I am getting a bit worried. I have JC on ignore, and have done for quite a while now. Will someone let me know when he answers Atomic's questions so I can take him off ignore to read them. Actually, if someone could just quote them for me that would be better.

MrP

J C

AtomicHorror wrote:

Once again, you're not getting the point I'm making. I'm not suggesting snowflake formation is simple or predictable. I'm saying that by your logic it's impossible.

....and the point that I'm making is that although snowflake shape is extremely COMPLEX ... it ISN'T functional ... and therefore specificity isn't required from snowflakes.
On the other hand biomolecules ARE functional .. and they are therefore BOTH very complex AND highly specific ... and it is their specificity that mathematically rules out their formation by non-intelligently guided processes ...and not their complexity!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror wrote:

...you have correctly pointed out that proteins are the end result of an underlying process which makes it very puzzling that you'd think that proteins have anything to do with abiogenesis.

...I agree that proteins could NEVER be formed by Abiogenesis .... and therefore Abiogenesis could NEVER occur!!!

AtomicHorror wrote:

What the hell are you talking about? The slowdown in the last 200 years has been something like 0.002 seconds. Plus it hasn't been constant at all.

.....the slowdown is 0.002 seconds per day .... which adds up to roughly one second every 1.4 years ... and that is why we had the addition of one second on Wednesday night.

I accept that it varies, but nonetheless it shows how (using the uniformitarian approach so beloved of Evolutionists) billions of years would magnify even something as miniscule as a 0.002 second tidal breaking to the point where the Earth would be spinning at impossible speeds in the distant past!!!

....I accept that a uniformitarian approach is invalid ... but the uniformitarian approach is equally invalid when it comes to interpreting the geological record and radiometric 'dating'!!!!:D:)