The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

monosharp wrote: »

I especially like his inference that photosynthesis relies on green skin, I must have missed that day in biology class.

...that must have been the day that your Biology teacher told the class that Chlorophyll is green!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the Bible doesn't say that dust spontaneously turned into Man ... which is completely implausible
...it says that an omnipotent God CREATED Man from dust ... which is completely plausible!!!!

It's funny that you say that. It reminds me of an episode of the simpsons with Lucy Lawless of Xena fame answering questions about the show:

Professor Frink: "Yes, over here, [...] in Episode BF12, you were battling barbarians while riding a winged Appaloosa, yet in the very next scene, my dear, you're clearly atop a winged Arabian! Please do explain it!
Lucy Lawless: Uh, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that... a wizard did it.
Frink: Yes, alright, yes, in episode AG04-"
Lucy Lawless: Wizard!

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Unfortunately, if I choose to sit a French exam and write entirely in English, I don't expect to pass, even though I am exercising my right to write in my first language. Similarly, when sitting my RE exam, I answered how I was coached to, even though I didn't believe it and the majority of the opinion I was required to regurgitate impinged on my right to religious freedom.

To suggest that science examiners are somehow at fault because they only accept scientific answers in a science exam is laughable.

...Emma honey, the correct analogy would be for a teacher that only spoke 'Pidgin English' marking down an exam paper of a highly articulate and gammatically-correct English speaker ... because his English paper wasn't written in Pidgin!!!:eek::):D

doctoremma wrote: »

To back up Monosharp, why do you assume that photosynthesis would be the best method of producing energy for all organisms for all evolutionary history?

...I didn't say that it would be best for all organisms ... but if all animals share a common pondslime ancestor ... then the benfits of being able to directly use solar energy should have meant that many animals would have retained the photosynthesising ability of their supposed common ancestor and animals with sub-cutaneous Chloroplasts should be the rule ... and not the exception ... like this one miserable slug!!!!:D

liamw

J C wrote: »

...the Bible doesn't say that dust spontaneously turned into Man ... which is completely implausible
...it says that an omnipotent God CREATED Man from dust ... which is completely plausible!!!!

Just like it's completely plausible that the God of Thor made thunder. The reason I've used this analogy btw is because science understands thunder now, just like science understand how complex life forms evolved now.

If everyone was like you J.C, I imagine we'd still think the earth was flat...
Thank God (excuse the pun) some people are not satisfied with non-explanations like 'God did it'.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure it does. Even if all CSI was present in the very first forms of life but just not being expressed it would still take a lot of time for all of the apparent complexity and variation we see around us to be expressed. This idea seems to me to be a good compromise between the two positions because you still get to keep the idea that god infused the first life with CSI and you no longer have to deny the plain fact that the genetic code of all living beings shows a clear pattern of descendancy. Our genetic codes and the fossil record to name just two things clearly indicate a family tree, it is a family tree that contains both humans and turnips but that doesn't mean god couldn't have kicked the whole thing off with an infusion of CSI with man as the final goal

...the 'tree of life' was more like an 'orchard'!!!!

http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/02/a-theory-of-cre.html

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...
...the 'tree of life' was more like an orchard!!!!

http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/02/a-theory-of-cre.html

I love how he uses the sentence "which itself evolved from non-living chemicals" and then accuses evolutionists of straw men

That's it creationists, if you can't disprove what evolutionists are saying, pretend they said something else, attempt to refute that and stick your fingers in your ears for 150 years so you never have to let the facts in. That's good fundamentalism

J C

liamw wrote: »

Just like it's completely plausible that the God of Thor made thunder. The reason I've used this analogy btw is because science understands thunder now, just like science understand how complex life forms evolved now.

If everyone was like you J.C, I imagine we'd still think the earth was flat...
Thank God (excuse the pun) some people are not satisfied with non-explanations like 'God did it'.

...an atheist thanking God ... whatever next !!!!:D:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I love how he uses the sentence "which itself evolved from non-living chemicals" and then accuses evolutionists of straw men

That's it creationists, if you can't disprove what evolutionists are saying, pretend they said something else, attempt to refute that and stick your fingers in your ears for 150 years so you never have to let the facts in. That's good fundamentalism

...the only people on this thread with their fingers stuck where they shouldn't be ... are the Evolutionists!!!:eek::):D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the only people on this thread with their fingers stuck where they shouldn't be ... are the Evolutionists!!!:eek::):D

Tell me, is the "arrival" of living matter from non-living chemicals a part of the theory of evolution?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tell me, is the "arrival" of living matter from non-living chemicals a part of the theory of evolution?

...if you want to be an intellectually-fulfilled 'hows your father' ... you'd better believe it!!!!:eek::pac:;):):D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...if you want to be an intellectually-fulfilled 'hows your father' ... you'd better believe it!!!!

.
:):eek::D:):eek::D:):eek::D:):eek::D:):eek:
.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

.
:):eek::D:):eek::D:):eek::D:):eek::D
.

...cat got your tongue????;)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...cat got your tongue????;)

That wasn't what I said at all JC. You misquoted me.:pac:

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... I think that Evolutionists have a lot in common with Donald Rumsfeld ...
... evolution is mostly about unknown unknowns ... and the rest of it about known unknowns!!!!:D:)

And I hope no one missed that, he didn't answer a single solitary question I put to him.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... the slug 'borrows' the complete chloroplast from the algae ... and then uses pre-existing CSI to maintain the functionality of the chloroplasts ... it's a kind of an 'App' that this intelligently designed slug 'downloads' from the algae ...

Except the slug already has genes necessary for photosynthesis in its own DNA before it ever eats algae.

Since chloroplast DNA alone encodes for just 10% of the proteins required for proper photosynthesis, scientists investigated the Elysia chlorotica genome for potential genes that could support chloroplast survival and photosynthesis. The researchers found a vital algal gene, psbO (a nuclear gene encoding for a manganese-stabilizing protein within the photosystem II complex[4]) in the sea slug's DNA, identical to the algal version. They concluded that the gene was likely to have been acquired through horizontal gene transfer, as it was already present in the eggs and sex cells of Elysia chlorotica.

So the question remains, what is your explanation for this ?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...that must have been the day that your Biology teacher told the class that Chlorophyll is green!!!:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
:eek::P:pac::rolleyes::D

Photosynthesis (from the Greek φώτο- [photo-], "light," and σύνθεσις [synthesis], "putting together.", "composition") is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.[1] Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria, but not in Archaea.

:pac::(:P:):rolleyes::D:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...if you want to be an intellectually-fulfilled 'hows your father' ... you'd better believe it!!!!:eek::pac:;):):D

Yes indeed. You're told dozens of times that abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution but you still insist it is and you say that others have their fingers in their ears.

I honestly don't understand why you do that so much. When you're told that something is not a part of the theory of evolution and you insist it is, you are no longer refuting the actual theory of evolution, you're refuting you're own made up straw man that you're trying to make people think is evolution. When you do that you're not advancing the cause of creationism, you're making creationists look like idiots.

Seriously, if you're told that something is not a part of the theory of evolution, why insist that it is? Do you think we're lying or something

And more importantly, why say that others have their fingers in their ears while insisting this?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... the slug 'borrows' the complete chloroplast from the algae ... and then uses pre-existing CSI to maintain the functionality of the chloroplasts ... it's a kind of an 'App' that this intelligently designed slug 'downloads' from the algae

As monosharp has already pointed out, the slug actually contains, in its genome, a gene that is required for the photosynthetic process. It is born (if slugs are "born") with this gene. If it doesn't have this gene, the photosynthesis ability will be compromised. The gene is an algae gene.

Can you please answer these questions explicitly? You've been very obliging so far...:)
1. Is the "CSI" the photosynthetic gene?
2. Are you saying that the slug always had this gene?
3. Is the "CSI" the potential to incorporate new genetic information?
4. Are you saying that the slug always had the potential to incorporate a new gene?
5. Are you saying that the slug only had the potential to incorporate this particular gene?
6. Do you only call "positive" changes "CSI"? i.e. if the slug had incorporated a gene which meant it had to gain energy from an unavailable source and consequently, it died, would this still represent "CSI"?
7. Do you understand that DNA is a chemical - it has distinct properties and we can make accurate predictions about its behaviour?
8. Do you understand that the mechanisms behind the incorporation of new DNA into existing DNA are chemical and physical, with no more an intelligent input that the application of heat to water to make steam?
9. Do you understand that the slug was probably incorporating lots of new sequences into its DNA at any one time, as you and I may well be doing now?
10. Do you understand that the process in Q9 is undirected - the slug has no awareness nor choice about which pieces of DNA are getting shuffled around?
11. Do you understand that many of these DNA rearrangements will be neutral, some may be negative and some may be positive?
12. Do you understand that a piece of the DNA the slug incorporated happened to be distinctly advantageous for its ability to survive and that this is the ability to synthesise a chlorophyll product?
13. Do you understand how natural selection would operate on this "new" slug?
14. Do you think that a god directed the slug and the algae to "fuse"?
15. How do you think god controlled this process?

J C wrote: »

... so I'm at a complete loss to know why you have 'bought into' the myth that you are glorified pondslime ... with nothing added but time and mistakes ...

A fundamental (but common) misunderstanding on your part (and on that of many creationists worldwide). I am manifestly not glorified pondslime with nothing added but mistakes and time. I am pondslime with the addition of "mistakes", time and the most elegant, beautifully-simple natural mechanism ever demonstrated for promoting the selection of advantageous traits while removing those which are positively bad.

J C wrote: »

... BTW your most recent postings show that you are starting to think like a Creation Scientist ... and it can only be good when an evolutionist does so!!!;):)

I'm trying to understand your mindset. It's difficult as it requires me to abandon logic and 15 years of biological knowledge.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...that must have been the day that your Biology teacher told the class that Chlorophyll is green!!!:D

Gee, you must have been absent for the next lesson when the rest of us learned that chlorophyll isn't the only photosynthetic pigment in the world...

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...Emma honey, the correct analogy would be for a teacher that only spoke 'Pidgin English' marking down an exam paper of a highly articulate and gammatically-correct English speaker ... because his English paper wasn't written in Pidgin!!!:eek::):D

Not really. At least English and pidgin English might be recognisable as linked categories. That's not something that can be said about science and creationism.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...I didn't say that it would be best for all organisms ... but if all animals share a common pondslime ancestor ... then the benfits of being able to directly use solar energy should have meant that many animals would have retained the photosynthesising ability of their supposed common ancestor and animals with sub-cutaneous Chloroplasts should be the rule ... and not the exception ... like this one miserable slug!!!!:D

Fail. You have once again demonstrated your lack of knowledge and consistency. Let's go basic here and start with: Plants make sugar via photosynthesis. Animals eat sugar which is quicker, more available and more efficient mechanism of getting sugar into a respiration cycle.

(Now, remember: this example is a model to explain a general principle, heterotrophs didn't evolve overnight)

Say a photosynthetic organism (we can say it's got green skin if you like) finds a better sugar source i.e. by ingestion of some kind. Being stronger/bigger/quicker is obviously a survival advantage so we assume such a trait would rapidly spread through a population. Now we have an organism that can both photosynthesise but can also ingest sugar. Now imagine that a member of this population undergoes a mutation event in one of its photosynthetic genes? What outcome can we predict? Will the organism die? No, of course not, it will simply become reliant on its ingested sugar source. It doesn't matter that it has lost the ability to photosynthesise.

(You will obviously be realising that this type of mutation would be devastating for an organism which relied on photosynthesis as its sole sugar source and such an individual would rapidly die and the population would go on unaffected by the "bad" gene.)

So, we now have an organism with a lot of unecessary photosynthetic genes in its genome. It doesn't now matter if they accumulate mutations because it's not relying on the protein products for survival. And pretty soon (in evolutionary terms), the genes may become almost unrecognisable from their "original" form. And furthermore, in this new scenario, we may find that the first organism to stop displaying green skin has a survival advantage because predators cannot find the individual as easily. So the mutation which stops chlorophyll production in the skin will be advantageous and spread thorough a population....

.. are you getting it yet?

Now, is the loss of chlorophyll pigment in the skin an advantage or a disadvantage for survival? Or is it entirely context-dependent? For one population, it's a sure fire way to rapid death of the individual; for another population, it is at the very least neutral and could also be an advantage.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

And I hope no one missed that, he didn't answer a single solitary question I put to him.

...just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that I haven't answered your questions!!!!:D

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Except the slug already has genes necessary for photosynthesis in its own DNA before it ever eats algae.

So the question remains, what is your explanation for this ?

... it is already known that there is a common protocol right across all lving organisms ... because they have had a common designer.

Genetic engineering has successfully used this common protocol to transfer functional CSI across biological 'kingdoms' ... using all types of donor and recipient species.
The rarity of this slug (it appears to be a singular instance of this phenomenon), as well as its 'trans-kingdom' features, leads to the suspicion that it may be a product of genetic engineering, that inserted the algal DNA into the original slug ... from whom all 'photo-slugs' are descended!!!:D

wolfsbane

del88 wrote: »

I've had many a debate with my brother in law re evolution and I'm always amazed that he except most other aspects of science....why lights turn on...how computers work.....how plastic is made , yet he won't except evolution even thou it's the same scientists and scientific method that produce it......
Do creationist have any issues with the scientific method when applied to other theories unrelated to evolution...
Why not disprove the scientific method in other ares of science.....come up with an alternative theory for electromagnetism .

I see. So can I claim the science that was developed by creationists and you claim that which was developed by anti-creationists? Shall I start with Newton or Bacon?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes indeed. You're told dozens of times that abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution but you still insist it is and you say that others have their fingers in their ears.

I honestly don't understand why you do that so much. When you're told that something is not a part of the theory of evolution and you insist it is, you are no longer refuting the actual theory of evolution, you're refuting you're own made up straw man that you're trying to make people think is evolution. When you do that you're not advancing the cause of creationism, you're making creationists look like idiots.

Seriously, if you're told that something is not a part of the theory of evolution, why insist that it is? Do you think we're lying or something

And more importantly, why say that others have their fingers in their ears while insisting this?

...Abiogenesis is a KEY aspect underpinning the whole Atheistic world-view.
Without Abiogenesis, Atheists become a type of Theistic/Agnostic Evolutionists!!!
In any event, there is no more evidence for Abiogenesis than there is for Spontaneous Evolution ... i.e. NO EVIDENCE!!!!:D

...and that is why I told Sam Vimes that if he wants to be an intellectually-fulfilled Atheist ... he must believe in Abiogenesis ... even though he hasn't a clue how it might have ever occurred!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Abiogenesis is a KEY aspect underpinning the whole Atheistic world-view.
Without Abiogenesis, Atheists become a type of Theistic/Agnostic Evolutionists!!!
In any event, there is no more evidence for Abiogenesis than there is for Spontaneous Evolution ... i.e. NO EVIDENCE!!!!:D

*Sigh*

JC, without knowledge of any sort, atheism is still atheism.

Atheists don't need evolution or abiogenesis, all they have to do is not have belief in a Supernatural Wizard God.

Turtwig

doctoremma wrote: »

Fail. You have once again demonstrated your lack of knowledge and consistency. Let's go basic here and start with: Plants make sugar via photosynthesis. Animals eat sugar which is quicker, more available and more efficient mechanism of getting sugar into a respiration cycle.

(Now, remember: this example is a model to explain a general principle, heterotrophs didn't evolve overnight)

Say a photosynthetic organism (we can say it's got green skin if you like) finds a better sugar source i.e. by ingestion of some kind. Being stronger/bigger/quicker is obviously a survival advantage so we assume such a trait would rapidly spread through a population. Now we have an organism that can both photosynthesise but can also ingest sugar. Now imagine that a member of this population undergoes a mutation event in one of its photosynthetic genes? What outcome can we predict? Will the organism die? No, of course not, it will simply become reliant on its ingested sugar source. It doesn't matter that it has lost the ability to photosynthesise.

(You will obviously be realising that this type of mutation would be devastating for an organism which relied on photosynthesis as its sole sugar source and such an individual would rapidly die and the population would go on unaffected by the "bad" gene.)

So, we now have an organism with a lot of unecessary photosynthetic genes in its genome. It doesn't now matter if they accumulate mutations because it's not relying on the protein products for survival. And pretty soon (in evolutionary terms), the genes may become almost unrecognisable from their "original" form. And furthermore, in this new scenario, we may find that the first organism to stop displaying green skin has a survival advantage because predators cannot find the individual as easily. So the mutation which stops chlorophyll production in the skin will be advantageous and spread thorough a population....

.. are you getting it yet?

Now, is the loss of chlorophyll pigment in the skin an advantage or a disadvantage for survival? Or is it entirely context-dependent? For one population, it's a sure fire way to rapid death of the individual; for another population, it is at the very least neutral and could also be an advantage.

Heh Heh,

I'm learning biology, I'm learning biology!:D
(At this point, I'd like to thank all the ID'ers and Creationists out there for introducing me to the beautiful world of biology.:) And also for making me realise that I was an atheist.:D If it wasn't for you guys I'd probably have been a wishy washy deist forever! Thanks.)

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

I see. So can I claim the science that was developed by creationists and you claim that which was developed by anti-creationists? Shall I start with Newton or Bacon?

That makes absolutely no sense and I think you already know that but just to spell it out, just because I might disagree with one thing a person said doesn't mean I have to reject everything they ever said. Newton was from a time when everyone was a creationist, when no one knew any better but that does not take away from the other good work he did. Modern creationists no longer have his excuse but even still, that doesn't automatically mean that everything they say is wrong. Only the things where they wilfully ignore, deny or twist insurmountable mountains of evidence in a vast number of scientific disciplines (it's not just evolution you know) because it conflicts with their religious beliefs

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Abiogenesis is a KEY aspect underpinning the whole Atheistic world-view.
Without Abiogenesis, Atheists become a type of Theistic/Agnostic Evolutionists!!!
In any event, there is no more evidence for Abiogenesis than there is for Spontaneous Evolution ... i.e. NO EVIDENCE!!!!:D

...and that is why I told Sam Vimes that if he wants to be an intellectually-fulfilled Atheist ... he must believe in Abiogenesis ... even though he hasn't a clue how it might have ever occurred!!!!

Ah I see the problem here, it's this nonsense that evolution is inextricably linked with atheism. There are millions and millions of religious people who accept evolution, there are atheists who know little to nothing about evolution, there were atheists before the theory of evolution even existed. I don't have to be able to answer all of the questions of the universe to be an atheist, all I have to do is spot that the bible is not very likely to be true, at least no more likely than the qu'ran, the sutras or the Book of Mormon. Contrary to popular creationist opinion, even if you absolutely, unequivocally, 100% disproved evolution, the bible would not win by default. I would remain an atheist because an old story about a guy walking on water and raising from the dead would remain as implausible then as it is today

Also J C, you can argue if you want that "abiogenesis is a KEY aspect underpinning the whole Atheistic world-view", that's you're opinion and you're entitled to it but that does not mean it is a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is a scientific discipline with an extremely precise definition which does not include abiogenesis and your relentless insistence that abiogenesis is a part of the theory shows both that you were never an evolutionary scientist as you claim and that it is you with your fingers in your ears

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

As monosharp has already pointed out, the slug actually contains, in its genome, a gene that is required for the photosynthetic process. It is born (if slugs are "born") with this gene. If it doesn't have this gene, the photosynthesis ability will be compromised. The gene is an algae gene.

Can you please answer these questions explicitly? You've been very obliging so far...:) ... I'm and obliging kind of guy!!
1. Is the "CSI" the photosynthetic gene? ... there is CSI in the photosynthetic gene
2. Are you saying that the slug always had this gene? ... I don't know for certain - it may have ... but it is more likely to have been transferred from algae to the slug by known artificial means or by heretofore unknown natural means.
3. Is the "CSI" the potential to incorporate new genetic information? ...CSI has the potential to produce genetic variety ... but the likelihood of slug CSI producing the exact same CSI as in Algae are effectively ZERO . It Therefore must have been either originally infused in the Slug DNA or (more likely)transferred by a (natural or artificial) recombinant process into the slug DNA.
4. Are you saying that the slug always had the potential to incorporate a new gene? ... such potential exists in all organisms
5. Are you saying that the slug only had the potential to incorporate this particular gene? ... no
6. Do you only call "positive" changes "CSI"? i.e. if the slug had incorporated a gene which meant it had to gain energy from an unavailable source and consequently, it died, would this still represent "CSI"? ... it would be toxic CSI ... but CSI nonetheless.
7. Do you understand that DNA is a chemical - it has distinct properties and we can make accurate predictions about its behaviour? ...it is a 'chemical' means of storing functional CSI ... like a CD is a 'plastic' means of storing functional CSI
8. Do you understand that the mechanisms behind the incorporation of new DNA into existing DNA are chemical and physical, with no more an intelligent input that the application of heat to water to make steam? ...no ... it is observed to be a highly controlled and exacting process ... whether by sex or genetic engineering
9. Do you understand that the slug was probably incorporating lots of new sequences into its DNA at any one time, as you and I may well be doing now? ... no ... this genetic information wasn't due to a mutation ... it was either pre-existent in the slug ... or it was taken directly from the Algal genome.
10. Do you understand that the process in Q9 is undirected - the slug has no awareness nor choice about which pieces of DNA are getting shuffled around? ... the process outlined in question 9 is not a viable means of generating functiona CSI
11. Do you understand that many of these DNA rearrangements will be neutral, some may be negative and some may be positive? ... true ... but all of them will a degradation of the slugs DNA CSI ... and that is why EVERYBODY avoids mutagenesis!!!
12. Do you understand that a piece of the DNA the slug incorporated happened to be distinctly advantageous for its ability to survive and that this is the ability to synthesise a chlorophyll product? ...yes
13. Do you understand how natural selection would operate on this "new" slug? ... it might favour it ... then again it might be more efficient to eat the algae (thereby availing of an ocean-full of the stuff), rather than carrying a few plasmids around on its back ... that would be an energy 'liability' when not in direst sunlight!!!
14. Do you think that a god directed the slug and the algae to "fuse"? ...no ... the most likely candidate is a Molecular Biologist!!!
15. How do you think god controlled this process? ... He most likely didn't


A fundamental (but common) misunderstanding on your part (and on that of many creationists worldwide). I am manifestly not glorified pondslime with nothing added but mistakes and time. I am pondslime with the addition of "mistakes", time and the most elegant, beautifully-simple natural mechanism ever demonstrated for promoting the selection of advantageous traits while removing those which are positively bad. ... the problem with such an idea is the well know phenomenon of 'rubbish in - rubbish out' ... i.e. natural or sexual seletion will not 'save the day' if they have nothing useful to select ... and 'rubbish' is unfortunately all you are going to get with mistakes and time!!!

... you are actually the product of a magnificient loving Creator God who created the first woman from whom you have inherited your Mitochondrial DNA asexually ... as well as your wonderful femininity...
... and "the most elegant, beautifully-simple (and enjoyable) natural mechanism ever demonstrated for producing advantageous traits" ... is all of the sexual reproduction and recombination that has occurred amongst the two hundred or so generations of men and women in your 'family tree'!!! :eek:;)


I'm trying to understand your mindset. It's difficult as it requires me to abandon logic and 15 years of biological knowledge ... Emma, what you need to abandon is all of the Evolutionist baloney that you have assimilated to the point where you now actually believe it unquestioning, like some kind or religious acolyte !!!:D

.