The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...did they show the Dinosaur tracks running along with the Human footprints????


Genghiz Cohen
Link
No dinosaur prints, couple of kangaroo and emu prints though.

... good ... wouldn't do for an Evolutionist programme for Evolutionists .... to 'prick their bubble'!!!!

...isn't it great to have 'safe' programmes like that to show your children?


..... wouln't do to let them see a Ken Ham video ... they might even become a Christian!!!:D

PDN

And we've reached another dubious milestone - half a million views for this thread.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

And we've reached another dubious milestone - half a million views for this thread.

I guess that's as good as excuse as any for mod demand part time pay.:)

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And what dates would these be?

(Also, for the geeks among you, first post on page 1337! Eat it!)

...about 130 million 'Evolutionist years' ... 'E-years' for short ... or about 4,500 real years!!!!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10610541&pnum=1
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/130M-year-old_fossil_crocodile_skull_unearthed_on_coast_of_Dorset,_UK

J C

PDN wrote: »

And we've reached another dubious milestone - half a million views for this thread.

...such cynicism ... and in one so young!!!:D

....here's to a MILLION hits!!!!:eek::D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I guess that's as good as excuse as any for mod demand part time pay.:)

...maybe even full-time pay!!!!:D:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...maybe even full-time pay!!!!:D:)

Nah, the AH mods would probably start a protest.

J C

....there now follows a period of reflection ... while the Evolutionists dust themselves down ... and prepare to 'rubbish' my (quite brilliant, even though I say so myself) answers to Emma's questions!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....there now follows a period of reflection ... while the Evolutionists dust themselves down ... and prepare to 'rubbish' my (quite brilliant, even though I say so myself) answers to Emma's questions!!:D

Not at all JC, I'm going to provide better answer to Emma's questions.
(And I'm going to refer to the latest in cutting edge creation research.)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Not at all JC, I'm going to provide better answer to Emma's questions.
(And I'm going to refer to the latest in cutting edge creation research.)

...I can hardly contain myself ... with the excitement of it all!!!! :eek::):D

... a 'died in the wool' Evolutionist ... preparing to quote cutting edge Creation Research!!!!:D

Turtwig

doctoremma wrote: »

Sorry to everyone else, but I'd like to ask a few questions of JC. I'm sure you've gone through it all before but I hope you'll humour me a little longer.

JC: let's start with a gene, a sequence of DNA that encodes a protein.

1. Do you understand that the DNA sequence can be changed?
...it can only be changed via the specified input of an intelligence!:):eek:

2. Do you understand the various changes in DNA that can be observed (deletions, substitutions, additions, translocations etc)?
...creation scientists have been aware of these changes long before evolutionists!!


3. Do you understand the mechanisms that can result in changes of DNA sequence (mutations introduced by mistakes during replication, environmental damage etc)?
If you change one wrong nucleotide you kill people!!!:eek:D)... Such correct mechanisms are only possible via an Intelligence!!

4. Do you accept that changes in DNA can arise from natural processes?
Sure..usually they result in death.
5. Do you understand that recombination and independent segregation simply mixes up existing DNA in the gametes during meiosis?
Simply Mixes???... My dear lady.. you are having illusions common to evolutionists!:D:D
6. Do you understand that phenotypic traits are largely polygenic i.e. the result of the action of many different gene/s proteins, and that new traits are far more likely to emerge in an offspring by different combinations of genes (generated by recombination and independent segregation) rather than gene mutations?
...Either way a protein cannot form spontaneously...it is a logical mathematical impossibility.:eek:
7. Do you understand that the emergence of new traits in an offspring does not therefore require changes in any gene sequence from parent to child?
Yes...this is because of CSI acting on individual genes. :eek::)
8. Do you understand that a random mutation in a specific gene may alter the function of the encoded protein?
Such functions are usually deleterious without the input of an intelligence. :eek::eek:
9. Do you understand that the altered function of the protein may aid organism survival and be subject to natural selection?
The organism may survive but on average they won't!!! ...Normally such increases in Genetic Entropy explodes evolution out of the water!!!:eek::eek:

10. Do you understand that the altered gene sequence may enable the organism to survive in a place or time when other members of the same species cannot?
...It may... but in order for a species to survive it needs MILLIONS of organisms in the population to have mutated!!:eek:
11. Do you understand that population resulting from Q10 will all possess the "novel" gene sequence?

12. Do you understand the process of natural selection to be cumulative?
Cumulatively Bad!!!!

13. Do you understand that, given time, the phenotype of an organism can change signficantly, as result of a series of small changes?
Such changes are usually detrimental!!

14. Do you understand that for a child to have a piece of DNA that neither parents have, it must have been created by a random change during the embryogenic process?
IF the wrong nucleotide in the child's DNA is changed he will die!!! Safe changes are the result of an intelligence!!!
15. Do you understand the processes of DNA sequencing/analysis whereby even if either parent had the extra piece of DNA hidden in their genome somewhere away from the gene under investigation, it would be detectable?
Even if it wasn't detectable...the evolutionists would still claim it to be there.... even it wasn't real!!

I truly hope you will humour me and answer these. But drop the smileys, they make you look mental

*Ran out of smileys*
I can do creation science, me. (:-D)

*Calls on monosharp to go next*

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

*Ran out of smileys*
I can do creation science, me. (:-D)

*Calls on monosharp to go next*

...maith an buachaill!!
...very good ... I have taught the Atheists to fish!!!:D

liamw

malty_t go skuul lern evvoloushun reel bad jc teech him god kreeate lyfe

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

malty_t go skuul lern evvoloushun reel bad jc teech him god kreeate lyfe

Liamw lraent to msisepll wrdos at shcool incrrotcely. Tehy sohuld hvae been msisepllt lkie so, by not uisng ponheitcs.

doctoremma

1. Do you understand that the DNA sequence can be changed? ... yes

Good. 1 point.

2. Do you understand the various changes in DNA that can be observed (deletions, substitutions, additions, translocations etc)? ... yes

Good. 1 point.

3. Do you understand the mechanisms that can result in changes of DNA sequence (mutations introduced by mistakes during replication, environmental damage etc)? ... yes ... but, as the terms 'mistakes/mutations' and 'damage' imply ... these 'changes' always degrade genetic information.

The term "mutation" in no way confers a negative or positive spin onto the change. It simply means "change". Suggest you look up the term "degrade" in a dictionary. It's fair to say that many changes in DNA are "naturally-occurring mistakes". This is obviously preferable to some kind of divinely-induced change. 0 points.

Follow-up question:
JC - what do you view the "purpose" of a gene to be? If a base is altered in a gene but causes no change in the encoded protein, is this a "degradation" of genetic information? Even though there is no functional effect and either state of DNA (before change .v. after change) has exactly the same outcome? In this case, how would one judge which is the "correct" information, given that it could have flipped back and forth lots of times during our genetic history?

4. Do you accept that changes in DNA can arise from natural processes? ... yes ... 'bad' stuff as per Q 3 and 'good' stuff via recombination, isolation, transocation, frame shifts, etc.

So you firmly reject the concept that mutations in DNA can be good for the organism? This is abject lack of understanding on your part. Suggest you go back to your degree notes. Or better, read a few papers. If you're not particularly au fait with the concept of peer-reviewed, published data, try googling "nylonase " and clicking on the multiple journal links that will appear. 0 points.

Also, you might care to note that a "translocation", which you claim to be "good" is a type of mutation; in fact, translocations are probably the most devastating type of genetic mutation, aside from outright mono/trisomies. Translocations are little genetic "bombs" that can absolutely destroy at least two chromosomes. On the other hand, they can be apparently harmless and, you never know, you yourself are probably harbouring a few. You still don't know what a "frameshift" is, but here's a clue - it's the result of a mutation, specifically the addition or deletion of bases within a protein-coding region that causes an alteration in the open reading frame of the gene and subsequent "frameshift" in the protein, which alters the protein sequence after the point of mutation. Still a "good" thing? -1 point.

5. Do you understand that recombination and independent segregation simply mixes up existing DNA in the gametes during meiosis? ...it is a good deal more sophisticated than that ... using very sophisticated transcription and gentic switches, homeotic genes, ncRNA, etc.

It isn't that much more complicated. Recombination/independent segregation has nothing to do with "transcription" (although you obviously need to transcribe and translate the cellular machinery required for the process). Please look up what "transcription" is and you will see how wide of the mark you are. -1 point.

6. Do you understand that phenotypic traits are largely polygenic i.e. the result of the action of many different gene/s proteins, and that new traits are far more likely to emerge in an offspring by different combinations of genes (generated by recombination and independent segregation) rather than gene mutations? ... yes ... I have already made the point that mutations are mostly deleterious and always degrade genetic information ... while recombination, segregation, expression, etc all produce novel traits, using the enormous levels of very sophisticated CSI infused at Creation!!!

Your first premise is flawed and has been dealt with above. Does your definition of "complex specified information" relate to the possible combinations of genes that can exist in an individual? That's equivalent to shaking a handful of Jellybeans, coming up with a particular colour combination and then calling that "complex" and "specified". Or calling the individual Jellybeans "complex" and "specified". This is clearly nonsense. 0 points.

7. Do you understand that the emergence of new traits in an offspring does not therefore require changes in any gene sequence from parent to child? ... yes ... because such is the sophistication of the multiple layers of CSI present in living organisms!!!

There is nothing sophisticated about a child inheriting genes for "big nose", genes for "small nose" and having an "intermediate nose". If, as you appear to indicate in the previous answer, the "CSI" describes the phenotype of an organism, then in this case, the child clearly has a new amount of "CSI". If you are using "CSI" to refer to the genetic information, then this is easily refuted by our knowledge of genetics. Or perhaps you use the term "CSI" as and when you see fit, with no consistency? 0 points. Try to focus.

8. Do you understand that a random mutation in a specific gene may alter the function of the encoded protein? ... yes ... usually in a 'terminal' direction ... always involving the degradation of CSI!!!

I hope by now that you have googled "nylonase". And then you will see how wrong you are.

It's interesting that you use the term "usually". I can go with the idea that a mutation "usually" causes a negative change, certainly in the field of human genetics. This observation is obviously shaped by a sort of confirmation bias, where we only try to find mutations in humans that have something wrong with them; the mutations that are neutral or of positive effect are under our radar. However, the term "usually" is important, because that means that you accept that "occasionally", the function of a protein is altered in a "non-terminal" fashion. (I assume you are using "terminal" to mean "bad", in which case I use "non-terminal" to mean "neutral" or "good"). This appears to be acceptance that it is possible for a mutation event to result in an advantageous trait. 0.5 points. You're sort of right but you didn't mean to be.

9. Do you understand that the altered function of the protein may aid organism survival and be subject to natural selection? ... sometimes it can ... but always involving the degredation of CSI ... which is NOT the direction you want to be going if you are trying to explain how 'Pondkind became Mankind'!!!!

Again, you've acknowledged that sometimes the function of a protein can be altered in a manner that aids organism survival under selection pressures. Excellent. Contrary to your final shouty statement, this is exactly the direction you want to be going in if you are trying to explain how "Pondslime became Mankind". 0.5 points. Good start but lack of realisation of the implications of what you've accepted.

10. Do you understand that the altered gene sequence may enable the organism to survive in a place or time when other members of the same species cannot? ... yes it could possibly survive as a 'scrawny' CSI-challenged thing ... only to be replaced by 'fitter' specimens when whatever is causing the selection pressure, abates.

You've undone all your good work in the previous two answers, where you accepted that occasionally, a mutation causes a protein to have a positive functional change, by reverting to the position that altered protein functions are always negative. Please try to be consistent in your answers. - 1 point.

11. Do you understand that population resulting from Q10 will all possess the "novel" gene sequence? ... yes, they will be all equally 'scrawny' and CSI-challenged things!!!

See above. 0 points.

Edit: Revised response to Q11. JC - if an individual within a population has a mutation which causes that individual to be "scrawny" (I assume you mean "compromised in their fitness"), how will that mutation spread through the population? If the individual is compromised, they are less likely to reproduce; therefore there is a reduced chance of the novel gene variant being spread through a population. This is the whole principle underlying evolution via natural selection. "Scrawny" individuals do not reproduce and propagate their genes as well as "non-scrawny" individuals.

12. Do you understand the process of natural selection to be cumulative? ... it can be ... but sometimes it runs up a 'dead end'!!!

Ah, you've gone back to the acknowledgement that "occasionally", the cumulative effect of natural selection is not always a "dead end". Excellent although I'm now beginning to worry about your lack of consistency. It's almost as if you don't understand what you're saying and sometimes, just by chance, get it right. 1 point.

13. Do you understand that, given time, the phenotype of an organism can change signficantly, as result of a series of small changes? ... yes ... but always within the genetic limits of its inherited CSI ... AKA its 'selection wall'

If we talk about inheritance, it will be limited to the offspring of a particular fertilisation event. When I talk about the phenotype of an organism changing, I (as I'm sure everyone else understands) am referring to the phenotype of a population of organisms. Which will comprise multiple inheritance events which incorporate multiple potential genetic changes. 0 points.

14. Do you understand that for a child to have a piece of DNA that neither parents have, it must have been created by a random change during the embryogenic process? ... if it was created at random it is a mutation ... or possibly even a carcinoma 'trigger'!!!

I'm not suggesting it is anything other than a mutation. See previous answer on judging the "goodness" or "badness" of mutations. 0 points.

"Carcinoma trigger"? Are you just shouting random biology phrases now? - 1 point.

15. Do you understand the processes of DNA sequencing/analysis whereby even if either parent had the extra piece of DNA hidden in their genome somewhere away from the gene under investigation, it would be detectable? ... yes ... if it was as described by you.

Not just me, hon. I could, with 100 % confidence, get another scientist/you/a street sweeper, to perform the experiment and you'd all get the same result. And you'd get the same result next week. And you'd get the same result with several methods. 0 points.

That'll be a fail then. JC - I don't know how often you argue genetics with people but you really should have at least a working knowledge about what you are discussing. It may be the case that you can get away with using words like "translocation" and "expression" in a non-scientific setting. But I'm another name on the increasingly long list of people here who has more than working knowledge of the processes involved (and all of whom have absolutely brilliant articulation skills) who can try to help you understand where you are going wrong. Maybe you should start reading/listening?

doctoremma

doctoremma wrote: »

It's almost as if you don't understand what you're saying and sometimes, just by chance, get it right.

The irony of this was lost on me the first time around.

I wonder if we can apply the principles of natural selection to evolve JC's intellectual understanding?

token56

You're a strict marker emma,

strict but fair.

liamw

Thanks for that excellent post Emma. However your points system is I used a word the mods don't like & this is the last time I'll be treated so leniently for doing so up!

doctoremma

token56 wrote: »

You're a strict marker emma,

strict but fair.

I've stopped frowning severely, removed my spectacles, hung up my lab coat and released my hair from the hold of one of those magic hairpins that girls on TV have that can hold a whole bun with just one pin

doctoremma

liamw wrote: »

Thanks for that excellent post Emma. However your points system is f**ked up!

Well, like any valid examination process, it really should be double-marked. Please feel free to add comments and revise the marking system as you see fit.

Peer-review is always preferable to the alternative.

doctoremma

doctoremma wrote: »

Well, like any valid examination process, it really should be double-marked. Please feel free to add comments and revise the marking system as you see fit.

Peer-review is always preferable to the alternative.

Arghhhh, I have accidentally edited my long post instead of quoting a part of it. Can it be retrieved?

Edit: Done.

Turtwig

doctoremma wrote: »

Arghhhh, I have accidentally edited my long post instead of quoting a part of it. Can it be retrieved?

If you're using Chrome you can just go back the pages, or try undo in whatever browser you're using.:)

liamw

doctoremma wrote: »

Well, like any valid examination process, it really should be double-marked. Please feel free to add comments and revise the marking system as you see fit.

Peer-review is always preferable to the alternative.

Nah, I'm a computer scientist, I won't pretend to know anything about genetics I think I understand the point system a bit better now... looks like you give him points even when he gets something right and it's blatently opposite to his intentions i.e. by accident

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I've stopped frowning severely, removed my spectacles, hung up my lab coat and released my hair from the hold of one of those magic hairpins that girls on TV have that can hold a whole bun with just one pin

...good ... Creation Science does tend to have that effect on 'up tight' Evolutionists!!!!!

... and now that you are 'chilling out' .... will you give more than the very severe 8 points out of 14 that you gave me ... if you mark me again???:D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

That'll be a fail then. JC - I don't know how often you argue genetics with people but you really should have at least a working knowledge about what you are discussing. It may be the case that you can get away with using words like "translocation" and "expression" in a non-scientific setting. But I'm another name on the increasingly long list of people here who has more than working knowledge of the processes involved (and all of whom have absolutely brilliant articulation skills) who can try to help you understand where you are going wrong. Maybe you should start reading/listening?

...but you gave me 8 points out of 14 ... which is 57% ... which isn't a fail!!!!

... indeed it is very high marks for an Evolutionist marking a Creationist ... given the wide 'conceptual gaps' that exist between Evolutionists and Creationists on origins and other biological issues!!!:D:)

... I thank you for your fairness and intellectual rigour in the marking of my answers.:D

token56

J C wrote: »

...but you gave me 8 points out of 14 ... which is 57% ... which isn't a fail!!!!

... indeed it is very high marks for an Evolutionist marking a Creationist ... given the wide 'conceptual gaps' that exist between Evolutionists and Creationists on origins and other biological issues!!!:D:)

... I thank you for your fairness and intellectual rigour in the marking of my answers.:D

JC, emma can correct me if I'm wrong here, but there was negative marking, some of those were "-1" points. I do believe you ended up with 0 when all was taking into account. Not a good mark indeed. Its ok, we're used to creationists neglecting the important bits of information and just seeing what they want to see.

Again if I'm wrong someone correct me and I apologise.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...but you gave me 8 points out of 14 ... which is 57% ... which isn't a fail!!!!

... indeed it is very high marks for an Evolutionist marking a Creationist ... given the wide 'conceptual gaps' that exist between Evolutionists and Creationists on origins and other biological issues!!!:D:)

... I thank you for your fairness and intellectual rigour in the marking of my answers.:D

token56 has it right - you got a zero, which is a surprisingly good mark.

equivariant

token56 wrote: »

JC, emma can correct me if I'm wrong here, but there was negative marking, some of those were "-1" points. I do believe you ended up with 0 when all was taking into account. Not a good mark indeed. Its ok, we're used to creationists neglecting the important bits of information and just seeing what they want to see.

Again if I'm wrong someone correct me and I apologise.

In the interests of fairness I must point out that a score of 0 equates to 50%, given that negative marking was employed (I am presuming that the range of marks available for each question went from -1 to 1). 50% is a third class honours (in most uni systems), which is not bad, but not great either.

PS I am also taking into account the fact that J C did attempt all questions and therefore his possible range of scores was -14 to +14

liamw

equivariant wrote: »

In the interests of fairness, I must point out that a score of 0, equates to 50%, given that negative marking was employed (I am presuming that the range of marks available for each question went from -1 to 1). 50% is a third class honours (in most uni systems), which is not bad, but not great either.

PS I am also taking into account the fact that J C did attempt all questions and therefore his possible range of scores was -14 to +14

Eh negative marking doesn't work like that? The % score is still calculated from the range 0-14. So, if your score was <1 it would just be 0%.
Well that was my understanding...

token56

equivariant wrote: »

In the interests of fairness, I must point out that a score of 0, equates to 50%, given that negative marking was employed (I am presuming that the range of marks available for each question went from -1 to 1). 50% is a third class honours (in most uni systems), which is not bad, but not great either.

PS I am also taking into account the fact that J C did attempt all questions and therefore his possible range of scores was -14 to +14

This is indeed true, however it does depend on the system implemented. There are some systems where marks are awarded for correct answers, no marks are awarded for a wrong answer but negative marks given as a penatly for answers which are not only wrong but are possibly contradictory to the correct answer or something among this line, so it would not necessarily be the case that is marked from -14 to +14, but from 0 to 14 considering negative marks are just a penalty, and if a negative result is obtained it is capped at 0. There are systems as you described but I thought it was the system I described that was being used. Anyway this is probably getting far too pedantic about it all, sorry.