The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

monosharp

marco_polo wrote: »

It is the shape in which a protein folds into determines its function not the specific amino acid sequence.

...........

Its a type of madness to try to give scientific evidence to creationists, your likely going to get a Bible passage or silence back to refute your evidence.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your claim is that the eye cannot function at any intermediate stages. We don't have to prove the whole evolutionary process to prove you wrong, we simply have to show eyes functioning at intermediate stages, which we have done.

...you have shown different eye DESIGNS ... that indicate a Common DESIGNER ... and not spontaneous evolution.

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

Sam's,Malty's and my diagrams were about the evolution of the eye taking into account the current intermediate stages of the eye we can see today in living organisms.

FYP:p

...you have shown different eye DESIGNS ... that indicate a Common DESIGNER ... and not spontaneous evolution.

You said intermediate forms of the eye had no function, we proved otherwise : admit it you were wrong!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

FYP:p


You said intermediate forms of the eye had no function, we proved otherwise : admit it you were wrong!

...they're NOT intermediate forms ... they're separate, functional DESIGNS!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...they're NOT intermediate forms ... they're separate, functional DESIGNS!!!

OK JC,

What is an intermediate form/stage then?
You have just admitted that our definition of the intermediate stages of the eye are, and I quote you, "functional".

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Quote:-Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally equivalent amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Most importantly, Hubert Yockely has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on several exhaustive genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey 1986; Hampsey 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254) . . . Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

Apart from the fact that amino acids can be swapped for others without affecting functionality this is the other main reason why this number is so high:

... Cytochrome-c consists of a chain of 112 amino acids, 19 of which occur in exactly the same sequential order positions in all organisms tested. Differences in the identity and positions of the remaining 93 amino acids are considered to be the result of mutational substitution during the course of evolution. The amino-acid constitution of human cytochrome-c differs from that of many but not all other species. There are no differences in the cytochrome-c taken from humans and from chimpanzees, and only one difference between human cytochrome-c (the amino acid isoleucine in position 66) and that from the Rhesus monkey (threonine in that position). The numbers of differences in the cytochrome-c of various species compared with that of humans are: cow, pig and sheep (10), horse (12), hen and turkey (13), rattlesnake (14), dogfish (23), fly (25), wheat (35), yeast (44), etc.
The fact that the cyochrome-c retains functionality when up to 93 amino acid positions are changed means that, if evolution is true, each species should have variable cytochrome-c sequences within itself - but the fact that there is NO DIFFERENCE in cytochrome-c amongst humans indicates a RECENT common designer ... and not common descent from a common non-human ancestor via random mutation.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I follow the normal rules of hermeneutics in deciding what is literal and what is metaphorical. I assume you try to do the same. We all pick and choose - how valid our choice is depends on how clearly we think and how clear the issue is.
Seems odd though when faced with the mountain of evidence for evolution you choose to believe in your own infallibility?

I'm not infallible, but I am able to get the basics of hermeneutics right. That doesn't mean that the Bible is necessarily right (though it is), just that much of its meaning is easy to find using normal linguistic rules.

As to the mountain of evidence for evolution - the mountain is not the evidence but the pro-evolutionary interpretation of the evidence.

Even if you play the card that there is a "debate" going on about evolution (as there is a "debate" about the flatness of the Earth), there are less than a hundred biologists vs millions of biologists on the evolution side. And that is before we get into the mountain of evidence on the evolution side vs the sketchy and grossly incomplete evidence on the Creationist side (if you pulled all the Creationist arguments together you get an incoherent mess of a grand theory)

The arrogance that you guys all believe yourselves infallible seems quite ridiculous. It is a classic case of everyone but me is wrong. Yet you claim to try your best to understand the Bible? Why bother when you are clearly never wrong?

Your figures on the number of biologists on each side ignore the question as to how many of them have really examined the issue. How many just assume the established view? And how many would feel free to question evolution if they had doubts? If your job or prospects depended on it, would you?

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your figures on the number of biologists on each side ignore the question as to how many of them have really examined the issue. How many just assume the established view? And how many would feel free to question evolution if they had doubts? If your job or prospects depended on it, would you?

Oh for petes sake,

Science is about questioning its own established theories, every biologist has the right to question any theory. In fact this has happened to evolution on many an occasion and the model has been modified to take these better predictions into account. It's how you question it that decides whether it is science or not.

You are not allowed to question science using pseudo scientific rubbish crap of methodologies that will ultimately get you fired...or worse destroyed and humiliated in a public forum with great glee by your fellow colleagues..
Science is rough business you, quite literally, live and die by your evidence and predictions.
ID has been dumped out again and again so yes, were a biologist or physicist serious enough to consider backing it then they'd have to go as they quite simply are no longer doing their trained job as scientist.

ID/Creationism =/= science.
Sorry.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your figures on the number of biologists on each side ignore the question as to how many of them have really examined the issue. How many just assume the established view? And how many would feel free to question evolution if they had doubts? If your job or prospects depended on it, would you?

..these figures are indeed highly unreliable ...
...and you can see from the following quote from Malty_T why Creationists don't draw attention to themselves when in an Evolutionist 'Hive'!!!

Malty_T wrote:

You are not allowed to question science using pseudo scientific rubbish crap of methodologies that will ultimately get you fired...or worse destroyed and humiliated in a public forum with great glee by your fellow colleagues..

...ID has been dumped out again and again so yes, were a biologist or physicist serious enough to consider backing it then they'd have to go as they quite simply are no longer doing their trained job as scientist.

..the Medieval Inquisition was the ultimate in 'liberal thinking' and 'academic freedom' in comparison!!!:(:mad::(

...but this is unfortunately how the 'hive minds' of todays pseudo-liberals 'think'!!!

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

... Cytochrome-c consists of a chain of 112 amino acids, 19 of which occur in exactly the same sequential order positions in all organisms tested. Differences in the identity and positions of the remaining 93 amino acids are considered to be the result of mutational substitution during the course of evolution. The amino-acid constitution of human cytochrome-c differs from that of many but not all other species. There are no differences in the cytochrome-c taken from humans and from chimpanzees, and only one difference between human cytochrome-c (the amino acid isoleucine in position 66) and that from the Rhesus monkey (threonine in that position). The numbers of differences in the cytochrome-c of various species compared with that of humans are: cow, pig and sheep (10), horse (12), hen and turkey (13), rattlesnake (14), dogfish (23), fly (25), wheat (35), yeast (44), etc.
The fact that the cyochrome-c retains functionality when up to 93 amino acid positions are changed means that, if evolution is true, each species should have variable cytochrome-c sequences within itself - but the fact that there is NO DIFFERENCE in cytochrome-c amongst humans indicates a RECENT common designer ... and not common descent from a common non-human ancestor via random mutation.

LOL. And yet a few posts ago the absolutely unchangable amino acid sequence was critical to the function of a protein?

Himself upstairs sure is fond of reinventing the wheel over and over again.

As a matter of interest with regard to creation 'science', what sort of predictions does Baraminology make about the similarity of cyochrome-c sequences? Would say zero differences in a sequence, like between like the hen and turkey be a good indicator that two species belong to the same kind?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

LOL. And yet a few posts ago the absolutely unchangable amino acid sequence was critical to the function of a protein?

Himself upstairs sure is fond of reinventing the wheel over and over again.

As a matter of interest with regard to creation 'science', what sort of predictions does Baraminology make about the similarity of cyochrome-c sequences? Would say zero differences in a sequence, like between like the hen and turkey be a good indicator that two species belong to the same kind?

...so tell me how ALL Humans have an IDENTICAL cytochrome-c sequence even though differences would have no adverse effect and it's sequence should be continually changing under mutagenesis ... which is supposed to be the primary motor of Evolution???

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

..these figures are indeed highly unreliable ...
...and you can see from the following quote from Malty_T why Creationists don't draw attention to themselves when in an Evolutionist 'Hive'!!!

..the Medieval Inquisition was the ultimate liberal licence in comparison!!!:(:mad::(

...but this is unfortunately how the 'hive minds' of todays pseudo-liberals 'think'!!!

I love how you left out the first bit of my post JC,

(because I'm a narcissist) wrote:

Science is about questioning its own established theories, every biologist has the right to question any theory. In fact this has happened to evolution on many an occasion and the model has been modified to take these better predictions into account. It's how you question it that decides whether it is science or not.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your figures on the number of biologists on each side ignore the question as to how many of them have really examined the issue. How many just assume the established view? And how many would feel free to question evolution if they had doubts? If your job or prospects depended on it, would you?

Your theory that everyone in the world is involved in a conspiracy to try to suppress creationism and pretend that evolution is a proven fact for some reason reminds me of a Carl Sagan quote:

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I love how you left out the first bit of my post JC,
Quote:
Originally Posted by (because I'm a narcissist)
Science is about questioning its own established theories, every biologist has the right to question any theory. In fact this has happened to evolution on many an occasion and the model has been modified to take these better predictions into account. It's how you question it that decides whether it is science or not.

...so HOW does one go about questioning Evolution ... and still retain your livelihood????

....do you have to have your questions approved in advance by some 'high priest' of Evolutionism?

...and if you confess your 'sin' to an Evolutionist 'Arch-priest' and promise never to do it again ...can you receive pardon for the 'thought-crime' of being a Creationist???:(:mad::(

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...so HOW does one go about questioning Evolution ... and still retain your livelihood????

By coming up with a repeatable, verifiable experiment to disprove it. Proclamations of irreducible complexity are not verifiable experiments, especially as they have all been shown to be erroneous by repeatable, verifiable experiments.

If you could come up with such an experiment, not only would you retain your livelihood, you'd probably win a Nobel prize for advancing human understanding

Scientists, unlike creationists have no loyalty to ideas that have been shown to be wrong

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your theory that everyone in the world is involved in a conspiracy to try to suppress creationism and pretend that evolution is a proven fact for some reason reminds me of a Carl Sagan quote:

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

... the suppression of BOTH Creationism and ID isn't a (secret) conspiracy ... it's open hostility and overt discrimination of the most crass kind!!!!

.... and yes, I must say that believing onself to be 'monkeys cousin' and a direct descendant of a 'slime ball' is something that even Bozo the Clown would probably laugh at!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

By coming up with a repeatable, verifiable experiment to disprove it. Proclamations of irreducible complexity are not verifiable experiments, especially as they have all been shown to be erroneous by repeatable, verifiable experiments.

If you could come up with such an experiment, not only would you retain your livelihood, you'd probably win a Nobel prize for advancing human understanding

Scientists, unlike creationists have no loyalty to ideas that have been shown to be wrong

...WHY should leading academics of the highest calibre have to take their academic lives in their hands in order to question evolution ... surely they should (at the very least) have the right to make mistakes (in Evolutionist terms) ... and surely the only sanction that should be applied is the open debate/challenge of their hypotheses/ideas ... without any threats to their livlihoods.

...these threats are CONFINED to the 'origins' issue within science ... because it is a also a RELIGIOUS question ... and sadly the pseudo-liberals of today are behaving EXACTLY LIKE some of their 'conservative' ancestors of yester-year!!!!!

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

...so tell me how ALL Humans have an IDENTICAL cytochrome-c sequence even though differences would have no adverse effect and it's sequence should be continually changing under mutagenesis ... which is supposed to be the primary motor of Evolution???

Good point, we should see at least some varience amongst the population as the base mutation rate of mDNA is in the order of 3 X (10^-6) or thereabouts.

With the help of the IUPAC nucleotide ambiguity codes and the Human Mitochondrical database. Lets see what DNA coding redundancy has to say.

Cytochrome c oxidase polypeptide I

Cytochrome c oxidase polypeptide II

Cytochrome c oxidase polypeptide III

What do we find? As expected there are a number of variation in the sequences of the mDNA, but the overall amino acid sequence is the same.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Good point, we should see at least some varience amongst the population as the base mutation rate of mDNA is in the order of 3 X (10^-6) or thereabouts.

With the help of the IUPAC nucleotide ambiguity codes and the Human Mitochondrical database. Lets see what DNA coding redundancy has to say.

Cytochrome c oxidase polypeptide I

Cytochrome c oxidase polypeptide II

Cytochrome c oxidase polypeptide III

What do we find? As expected there are a number of variation in the sequences of the mDNA, but the overall amino acid sequence is the same.

...amazing evidence of designed redundancy!!!!

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

...amazing evidence of designed redundancy!!!!

Does that apply to protein function redundancy as well? Because you don't seem to have even been aware of the concept a few pages ago.

J C wrote: »

....all functional proteins are observed to be made up of distinct specific amino acid chains ... and ANY alteration to critical amino acid sequences within these proteins result in a loss of functionality.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...WHY should leading academics of the highest calibre have to take their academic lives in their hands in order to question evolution ... surely they should (at the very least) have the right to make mistakes (in Evolutionist terms) ... and surely the only sanction that should be applied is the open debate/challenge of their hypotheses/ideas ... without any threats to their livlihoods.

...these threats are CONFINED to the 'origins' issue within science ... because it is a also a RELIGIOUS question ... and sadly the pseudo-liberals of today are behaving EXACTLY LIKE some of their 'conservative' ancestors of yester-year!!!!!

Creationism has tried to be taken seriously as science over and over again and it has failed every time. It's not being suppressed, it's simply that it's nonsense and it has been trivial to show that it's nonsense for 150 years. If a serious scientist came out with a paper on creationism or intelligent design it would be looked at like any other but since creationists really only give the same arguments that have already been proven wrong, the initial thoughts of most people would be similar to the thoughts they'd have about a paper entitled "lightning: The pixie and leprauchan theory"

But, and it's a very big but, those initial feelings of skepticism would be dashed if the content of the paper was sound. It doesn't matter how biased they might be, if the paper contains a repeatable experiment to disprove evolution then their case is proven and everyone else has to shut up. It happens every day in science, it's how we've gone from hitting rocks off each other to landing on the moon and evolution is treated no differently no matter what creationists would have you believe. Just look at the number of times that the theory has been updated and you'll see that there is no conspiracy to suppress anything. To everyone except creationists it's just another branch of biology.

Sam Vimes

When thinking about this apparent conspiracy JC and wolfsbane, bear in mind that even if you definitively disproved evolution, I still wouldn't believe in the bible and the same could be said for pretty much every non-believer in the world. There were atheists long before Darwin.

Proving evolution wrong would simply move the orgins of the complexity back into the "unexplained" scientific category, which is still an awful lot bigger than the "explained" one and it would mean we'd have to start looking for a new explanation. It wouldn't automatically mean that intelligent design is true and it certainly wouldn't mean that the bible is true any more than the qu'ran. Contrary to creationist opinion evolution is not the foundation of atheism. And also contrary to creationist opinion, "unexplained" is not synonymous with "god did it"

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...you have shown different eye DESIGNS ... that indicate a Common DESIGNER ... and not spontaneous evolution.

Oh thats great JC, we give a full page worth of scientific evidence which shows you intermediaries for the human eye and you start ranting on about your usual nonsense.

Are you at least going to debate your side of things or just keep spewing rubbish with every single posting ?

You have claimed that intermediaries could not function.

We have shown you that intermediaries CAN function.

If you take the human eye and make it a tiny bit simpler and keep making it a tiny bit simpler there is no stage where the eye is non-functional.

Your claim has been rubbished, please have the common decency to admit it.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...amazing evidence of designed redundancy!!!!

no

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...WHY should leading academics of the highest calibre have to take their academic lives in their hands in order to question evolution ... surely they should (at the very least) have the right to make mistakes (in Evolutionist terms) ... and surely the only sanction that should be applied is the open debate/challenge of their hypotheses/ideas ... without any threats to their livlihoods.

...these threats are CONFINED to the 'origins' issue within science ... because it is a also a RELIGIOUS question ... and sadly the pseudo-liberals of today are behaving EXACTLY LIKE some of their 'conservative' ancestors of yester-year!!!!!

no

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...so HOW does one go about questioning Evolution ... and still retain your livelihood????

Evolutionary Biology IS all about questioning evolution.

Thats what scientists do, they question everything.

How do you think Einsteins theory of relativity replaced Newtons ? Did everyone just accept Newtons explanations as 100% and say "Right lads, thats gravity sorted. Lets move on to something else".

They did research, looked at evidence and performed experiments. If the evidence and experiment results fit into a theory, the theory is supported more. If the evidence or experiments do not fit into the theory then the theory has to be changed.

Its the most simple aspect of science, its on page 1 of most science textbooks in secondary schools.

Darwins theory has been changed multiple times BECAUSE evidence proved that some aspects were incorrect but the theory has also been supported by thousands of examples of new evidence and experiments over and over again.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... the suppression of BOTH Creationism and ID isn't a (secret) conspiracy ... it's open hostility and overt discrimination of the most crass kind!!!!

JC wrote:

the Intelligent Design Movement is a breakaway EVOLUTIONIST GROUP that is somewhere on the faith spectrum between atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists.

So you support Evolution now ?

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Does that apply to protein function redundancy as well? Because you don't seem to have even been aware of the concept a few pages ago.

...different DNA sequences producing the SAME functional protein and the same DNA sequence producing different functional proteins (using the Hox Box genes) are evidence of SOPHISTICATION in DESIGN ... and NOT spontaneous evolution!!!!

...especially when the final protein produced is observed to be essential and EXACTLY like it is to be functional.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

So you support Evolution now ?

....I accept aspects of Evolutionary theory and ID. For example, I accept that Sexual and Natural Selection occur ... what I don't accept is that either phenomenon can account for the development of Man from pondslime.

Equally, when it comes to ID I don't acccept that the intelligence was an Alien ... or that we evolved through successive inputs of ID ... and that is why I classify ID as somewhere between Theistic Evolution (where God provided the ID) and Materialistic Evolution (where Natural Forces provided the ID).

I also fully respect the right of both Materialistic and Theistic Evolutionists as well as ID Proponents to hold the views they do ... and I am deeply interested in their ongoing research - which has added immensely to our scientific knowledge - as well as providing considerably evidence for Creation, ironically.

All I ask is for my respect to be reciprocated which isn't asking too much in any society that wishes to retain the vestages of civilisation and liberality.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Creationism has tried to be taken seriously as science over and over again and it has failed every time. It's not being suppressed, it's simply that it's nonsense and it has been trivial to show that it's nonsense for 150 years. If a serious scientist came out with a paper on creationism or intelligent design it would be looked at like any other but since creationists really only give the same arguments that have already been proven wrong, the initial thoughts of most people would be similar to the thoughts they'd have about a paper entitled "lightning: The pixie and leprauchan theory"

But, and it's a very big but, those initial feelings of skepticism would be dashed if the content of the paper was sound. It doesn't matter how biased they might be, if the paper contains a repeatable experiment to disprove evolution then their case is proven and everyone else has to shut up. It happens every day in science, it's how we've gone from hitting rocks off each other to landing on the moon and evolution is treated no differently no matter what creationists would have you believe. Just look at the number of times that the theory has been updated and you'll see that there is no conspiracy to suppress anything. To everyone except creationists it's just another branch of biology.

...we don't want any special treatment for Creation Science - and we welcome debate on our ideas - unlike the Evolutionists - who often refuse to engage in debate, or even be in the same room with Creation Scientists - because they invariably lose the debate when a Creation Scientist challenges their unfounded assumptions and ideas.

All we ask is that people obey the Equal Status Act and don't sack people or advocate the sacking of people just because they express a WELL FOUNDED scientific opinion that 'God did it'!!!

...and if Creation Science was the 'rubbish' you claim it to be, HUNDREDS of evolutionists wouldn't have spent the past 5 years on this thread debating with ONE Creation Scientist ... and still LOSE every Evolutionist argument that they have put forward!!!