The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...antibiotics fight bacterial infections ... and they have no effect on viruses ...

Ah, it was 50/50 and I CBA Googleing at those odds :pac:

J C wrote:

[...]that would make a Medieval Inquisitor blush ?

I haven't tortured anyone today!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...CSI is used to measure the amount of Complex Specified Information ... once you have objectively established that the information is functional and how it is specified ... then the CSI can be established and any information module containing more than 330 Bits is regarded as having a statistical certainty of being intelligently produced

What does "HOW something is specified" mean and how is it established?
Where did the figure of 330 bits come from? What is the mathematical basis for it?
What about things that are designed but don't contain more than 330 bits? How do you establish their design?
Can you provide a reference for the term "statistical certainty"? Seems like an oxymoron to me.
How does CSI account mathematically for the fact that evolution says these complex things formed through cumulative selection? The maths is based on the assumption that complex components must form spontaneously but if this is not the case it all falls apart because formation through cumulative selection is exponentially more likely

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I haven't tortured anyone today!

... I didn't ask you if you had tortured anybody recently.
... BTW, Medieval Inquisitors were never embarassed by the occasional bit of torture ... it was their Standard Operating Procedure in many cases ... although it was generally done in private!!
I actually asked if the Religious 'Sensitivities' of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' means that they will engage in OVERT old-fashioned religious suppression/discrimination that would make a Medieval Inquisitor blush ... like they have done to date in American Public Schools on the 'origins' issue?:)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

like they have done to date in American Public Schools on the 'origins' issue?:)

I think that was more the fault of the guys presenting the case for ID not doing a good enough job. If the oppression you claim were ongoing they wouldn't have even had that chance.

So blame those who cannot meet the standards, not those who set them.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I think that was more the fault of the guys presenting the case for ID not doing a good enough job. If the oppression you claim were ongoing they wouldn't have even had that chance.

So blame those who cannot meet the standards, not those who set them.

...do the Atheists/Materialists and their 'fellow travellers' who set the curriculum, not feel any concern about the obvious conflict of interest involved in producing a curriculum that completely reflects their own unfounded Atheistic/Materialistic worldview on the 'origins question'? ... and then insisting that only their perspectives be taught to Christian children by Chrisitian teachers ... and if any teacher or child disagrees in the slightest, they will be respectively sacked or expelled ...
... these guys must have some neck !!!! :eek:

wolfsbane

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You would completely re-write everything we currently know in every field of science.

No, I would be happy to accept all the observable and repeatable material - I especially love the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It's the just-so stories that you guys fit around the science - that bugs me. Facts are fine. Fantasy may be entertaining, but not a good guide to science.

I appreciate we all need to put up theories to account for the facts, but evolutionists make the jump to assuming their theory is the fact - yet there are many problems with it.

wolfsbane

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You mean like creating antibiotics to fight ever evolving viruses?

You mean some viruses have evolved to become non-viruses? Why has the WHO not been informed?

Oh, I've read you again, and see you are not saying they have evolved as in slime->dinosaur->bird, but just as in wolf->poodle. No problem with that.

What was your point again?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I would be happy to accept all the observable and repeatable material - I especially love the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This again :rolleyes:

Wolfsbane/JC - Evolution breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics!!
Us - No it doesn't, and here is why (long explanation)
Wolfsbane/JC - I didn't understand any of that but hey I don't claim to be an expert. Here is a link that explains it (link to nonsense AiG article)
Us - That article is full of nonsense and here is why (long explanation)
Wolfsbane/JC - Specified complexity blah, Atheist conspiricy blah, Bible infallible blah, I know God blah

Do we really have to do this again?

Evolution does not break the 2nd law of the thermodynamics

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's the just-so stories that you guys fit around the science - that bugs me.

What, like there was a world wide flood because this book says so and I know from talking to a my sky god that this book is infallible.

Yeah, scientists are the ones with the just-so stories :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Facts are fine.

Well clearly they aren't since you guys dispute all scientific facts (such as radio meteric dating) because they contradict the narrative from your Bible that you "know" is infallible

Is the Bible a "fact" Wolfsbane?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You mean some viruses have evolved to become non-viruses?

What are you classifying as non-virus?

You are talking about one of the two fundamental categories of life (viral life and cellular life). Something as major as "slime to man" is still evolution within cellular life, it is not a big a jump as virus to non-virus.

Its like asking when has a cat ever evolved into a rock :rolleyes:

Genghiz Cohen

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I would be happy to accept all the observable and repeatable material - I especially love the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It's the just-so stories that you guys fit around the science - that bugs me. Facts are fine. Fantasy may be entertaining, but not a good guide to science.

I appreciate we all need to put up theories to account for the facts, but evolutionists make the jump to assuming their theory is the fact - yet there are many problems with it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You mean some viruses have evolved to become non-viruses? Why has the WHO not been informed?

Oh, I've read you again, and see you are not saying they have evolved as in slime->dinosaur->bird, but just as in wolf->poodle. No problem with that.

What was your point again?

What the **** are you babbling about?

Did you even read anything I posted?!

Also, 2nd law of thermodynamics, Creationists seem to forget the last line of that "[...] in a closed system."
Good thing Earth doesn't have some form of object pumping kiloJoules of energy into it every second.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, I would be happy to accept all the observable and repeatable material - I especially love the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
This again

Wolfsbane/JC - Evolution breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics!!
Us - No it doesn't, and here is why (long explanation)
Wolfsbane/JC - Hey I don't claim to be an expert, here is a link that explains it (like to nonsense AiG article)
Us - That article is full of nonsense and here is why (long explanation)
Wolfsbane/JC - Specified complexity blah, Atheist conspiricy blah, Bible infallible blah, I know God blah

Do we really have to do this again?

You are the one reintroducing it as a debate. I only mentioned it in passing.

But as you did, your caricature of our position is laughable. You know well that you denied entropy applied to the billions of years increase of specified complexity process alleged by evolution. You wanted entropy to deal only with heat exchange, not increasing order as in the biosphere.

Evolution does not break the 2nd law of the thermodynamics

Yes it does. Non-organic matter evolves to the amazing complexity we have today, contrary to the known law. The law demands a move from such complexity to a more basic state. From specified complexity to simplicity, over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It's the just-so stories that you guys fit around the science - that bugs me.
What, like there was a world wide flood because this book says so and I know from talking to a my sky god that this book is infallible.

Yes, that is my just-so story. Now if you will only admit that evolution is yours, and stop claiming it is scientific fact. Just-so stories may or may not be true.

Yeah, scientists are the ones with the just-so stories

Indeed. Both creationist and evolutionist types.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Facts are fine.
Well clearly they aren't since you guys dispute all scientific facts (such as radio meteric dating) because they contradict the narrative from your Bible that you "know" is infallible

No, because they are not facts. The present decay rates of the materials are facts. What they were in the past is supposition. Can the rates change? Yes, it has been established they can. It remains to be seen if and when they did.

Is the Bible a "fact" Wolfsbane?

It is a fact that it exists.

But can its truth be proved scientifically? Not without full examination of all the evidence and an understanding of how all processes work and have worked.

So, No, the claims of the Bible about history are not fact in the sense of being proved by scientific testing. Neither are they falsified by it.

wolfsbane

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What the **** are you babbling about?

Did you even read anything I posted?!

Also, 2nd law of thermodynamics, Creationists seem to forget the last line of that "[...] in a closed system."
Good thing Earth doesn't have some form of object pumping kiloJoules of energy into it every second.

You seemed to suggest that viruses changing into modified viruses proved evolution. I point out that that is not normally what one understands by evolution - the movement from the first self-replicating cell, over time and millions of stages, into the present biosphere. Viruses remain viruses.

So you suggest that radiation + billions of years = vast increase in complexity of life? Have you seen what radiation does to life over time in the real world? What happens in evolutionary Through The Looking-Glass World is another matter.

Giblet

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes it does. Non-organic matter evolves to the amazing complexity we have today, contrary to the known law. The law demands a move from such complexity to a more basic state. From specified complexity to simplicity, over time.

In a closed system. Take away the sun giving energy, and that will happen. We have a lovely open system here though! So you are wrong. So knowing this, will you now admit you don't know how the law works, or that you didn't understand it. If you want to argue say, the universe is a closed system. Then yes, in time the whole system will enter a state of 100% entropy. The universe isn't uniformly distributed though, so we have areas where energy is being passed to other bodies within the system, creating smaller, more open systems.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

What are you classifying as non-virus?

You are talking about one of the two fundamental categories of life (viral life and cellular life). Something as major as "slime to man" is still evolution within cellular life, it is not a big a jump as virus to non-virus.

Its like asking when has a cat ever evolved into a rock :rolleyes:

OK. Have any of the viruses increased in specified complexity as in slime to man?

And of course the evolution scenario usually requires the rock to evolve into the cat, but you don't like calling the jump from non-life to life 'evolution'. You like to take that as a given and go on from there - but it amounts to the same thing. :pac:

Giblet

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seemed to suggest that viruses changing into modified viruses proved evolution. I point out that that is not normally what one understands by evolution - the movement from the first self-replicating cell, over time and millions of stages, into the present biosphere. Viruses remain viruses.

So you suggest that radiation + billions of years = vast increase in complexity of life? Have you seen what radiation does to life over time in the real world? What happens in evolutionary Through The Looking-Glass World is another matter.

What type of radiation, I mean, we could be here all night discussing how sunlight helps with the creation of life.

Giblet

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK. Have any of the viruses increased in specified complexity as in slime to man?

And of course the evolution scenario usually requires the rock to evolve into the cat, but you don't like calling the jump from non-life to life 'evolution'. You like to take that as a given and go on from there - but it amounts to the same thing. :pac:

So here you admit you have ignored the past few thousand posts. The countless times the words "Evolution does not explain abiogenesis" stuff? Surely you remember? You take God as a given and go from there, forgetting the whole "Who created god" part.

equivariant

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you suggest that radiation + billions of years = vast increase in complexity of life? Have you seen what radiation does to life over time in the real world?

Yes indeed we have seen what radiation does. It causes trees to grow, it keeps us warm (and therefore alive). It causes ice to melt and water to evaporate thus allowing life to exist. It reflects off objects, allowing us to see (indeed allowing us to see the effects of radiation, although I guess the irony of your question was completely lost on you).

By thus contributing to the conditions in which life can exist, the sun's radiation allows the mechanism of natural selection to operate.

Your understanding of the word radiation is simplistic. There are many types of radiation that are not at all harmful to life.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

I point out that that is not normally what one understands by evolution

I really don't think you're qualified to say what is normally what one understands by evolution, as you have demonstrated time and again throughout this thread that you don't understand evolution.

Genghiz Cohen

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seemed to suggest that viruses changing into modified viruses proved evolution. I point out that that is not normally what one understands by evolution - the movement from the first self-replicating cell, over time and millions of stages, into the present biosphere. Viruses remain viruses.

What I was suggesting was that the infections that Antibiotics fight are constantly evolving to overcome the effects of the antibiotics.

Also, as J C pointed out, I should have said bacteria.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you suggest that radiation + billions of years = vast increase in complexity of life? Have you seen what radiation does to life over time in the real world? What happens in evolutionary Through The Looking-Glass World is another matter.

Have you seen what infra-red radiation does to sore muscles?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are the one reintroducing it as a debate. I only mentioned it in passing.

But as you did, your caricature of our position is laughable. You know well that you denied entropy applied to the billions of years increase of specified complexity process alleged by evolution.

Groan :rolleyes:

I did not "deny" that. I attempted, at length, to explain to you that you what you were talking about (complexity) is not the same thing as entropy and that billions of years of evolution, just like all chemical reactions, increases the entropy of the universe as a whole (which is what the 2nd law is dealing with, ALL of the universe, not just something happening under your fridge).

From the context of the 2nd law of thermodynamics the universe doesn't care if the chemical reaction is fire converting oxygen and carbon into CO2, or joining salt together or DNA replication.

The universe doesn't care if the reactions (that use heat and thus increase entropy) are turning things into disordered chaos or creating highly ordered structures like a diamond.

What you have (spectacularly) failed to realize, or have realized and are just being (spectacularly) stubborn, is that entropy is not the same thing as structural complexity.

If it was salt would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well. As would the Empire State Building.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is nothing to do with what forms natural or by design. We can no more break the 2nd law than nature can. If structural complexity was actually what it was talking about the Empire State Building would be impossible due to the laws of physics, just like a popetual motion machine is.

Of course all this was pointed out to you before and you and JC started on again about this nonsense of specified complexity. Of course that has nothing to do with anything either.

I wonder why every year or so we have to have the exact same debate with you Wolfsbane. You claim you are open minded and prepared to look at the possibility you are wrong, but then you act the exact opposite.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You wanted entropy to deal only with heat exchange, not increasing order as in the biosphere.

Entropy only deals with heat exchange, it has nothing to do with increasing order in the biosphere.

That is not what I want Wolfsbane, that is what it is.

You not understanding entropy is not entropy's problem, it is not a requirement that we refine the term in order for it to match what you want it to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Again if increasing order (in the biosphere or where ever) actually broke a fundamental law of physics we couldn't do it any more than nature could. And since we obviously do do it all the time it clearly isn't what entropy means.

There is nothing in the law that says unless you are an intelligent being

If what you are saying is true we could no more break the law than we could build a perpetual motion machine.

Your misrepresentation of this subject (which has nothing to do with evolution) is truly shocking, and a perfect example of how Creationist nonsense not just effects evolution but all of science with its pseudo-science mumbo jumbo.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes it does. Non-organic matter evolves to the amazing complexity we have today, contrary to the known law. The law demands a move from such complexity to a more basic state. From specified complexity to simplicity, over time.

If increasing complexity and order breaks a law of physics explain to me how engineers assembling my keyboard didn't cause the universe to end.

BTW where in the 2nd law of thermodynamics does it say "unless you are intelligent"

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that is my just-so story. Now if you will only admit that evolution is yours, and stop claiming it is scientific fact. Just-so stories may or may not be true.

Evolution may not be true. I've no problem with that statement.

It is by far the best supported scientific theory we have explaining biological life, and is one of the most supported theories in science, but it could still be wrong. It would be very very puzzling if it was wrong given that so many predictions based on it have come true. But who knows, maybe there is a supernatural deity that likes jerking humans around who is fiddling the data.

Will you admit that the literal descriptions in the Bible may not be true?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, because they are not facts. The present decay rates of the materials are facts. What they were in the past is supposition. Can the rates change? Yes, it has been established they can. It remains to be seen if and when they did.

Yes but let us look at another fact. Multiple measurements of the same material using different methods arrive at correlating age of the material.

That is a fact

If you date a piece of rock one way and it says it is 6 million years old and then you date it another way and it says it is 6 million years old and then you date it another way and it says it is 6 million years old and then you date it another way and it says it is 6 million years old, it is 6 million years old.

If the decay rates were different in the past this would not happen because the decay rates are different for each form of measurement so you would never get the same result for the same piece of material

That is a fact

So in fact it would actually matter if the decay rates were different in the past because using multiple measuring techniques we can determine this.

So the Creationist argument against decay rates is dead before it even gets started

That is a fact

Again every time this is pointed out to you and JC you simply ignore it. I wonder what you will do this time :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

But can its truth be proved scientifically?

Nothing can be prove, scientifically or otherwise.

I await your inevitable "I've proven God exists and loves me" ... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK. Have any of the viruses increased in specified complexity as in slime to man?

As soon as someone defines specific complexity I can answer that question

JC has had a good number of cracks of it and just ends up in a contradictory mess (specific complexity is something that is specified by JC to be complex :rolleyes:)

You want to have a crack at it, or do you want to just leave it to the "experts"

If you are asking as a virus ever evolved from a cellular life form (slime) into a multi-cellular life form (man) then the answers is not that we are aware of, since viruses don't have cells.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And of course the evolution scenario usually requires the rock to evolve into the cat

Which is a lot easier than the cat evolving into the rock, I'm sure you will agree (if you haven't missed my point)

wolfsbane wrote: »

but you don't like calling the jump from non-life to life 'evolution'.

I don't? Why don't I?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You like to take that as a given and go on from there

No, I've no problem with complex molecules which we would not consider to be "life" evolving into much more complex molecules, which we would consider life, through Darwinian evolution, particularly because we already know how this can happen.

The issue is what was the first self-replicating molecule. That is not a question for evolution, since evolution only starts when something is self-replicating.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Viruses remain viruses.

And "life" remains "life" ... therefore evolution doesn't happen ... brilliant Wolfsbane :rolleyes:

"Virus" is such a ridiculously large classification that saying viruses don't evolve into non-viruses is utterly pointless.

It would be like saying we don't see cellular life evolve into non-cellular life, therefore evolution doesn't happen.

You have already been show examples where single cell life has evolved into multicellular life in a time scale that we could actually observe this. This is examples of one fundamental form of life form evolving into another fundamental form of life form.

You simple ignored that when it was presented to you.

Now you are asking to see what would be the biological equivilant of a cat evolving into a rock.

Ridiculous :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you suggest that radiation + billions of years = vast increase in complexity of life?

Yes, given that radiation + a decade = vast increase in complexity of life

wolfsbane wrote: »

Have you seen what radiation does to life over time in the real world?

Have you see a PLANT? Ever? Or do they not have plants on Planet Creationism?

J C

2Ti 3:1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
10 ¶ But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

2Ti 3:1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
10 ¶ But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

That is the Answers in Genesis's scientific research standards document is it :rolleyes:

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

2Ti 3:1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
10 ¶ But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod sceptre, he shall not die.
-- Proverbs 23:13

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...do the Atheists/Materialists and their 'fellow travellers' who set the curriculum, not feel any concern about the obvious conflict of interest involved in producing a curriculum that completely reflects their own unfounded Atheistic/Materialistic worldview on the 'origins question'? ... and then insisting that only their perspectives be taught to Christian children by Chrisitian teachers ... and if any teacher or child disagrees in the slightest, they will be respectively sacked or expelled ...
... these guys must have some neck !!!! :eek:

This is a baseless question!

In Ireland the State SUPPORTS religion in schools.
95 percent plus of schools are Christian and almost (maybe 90 per cent) roman Catholic.
The ALL teach evolution as part of the science curriculum in the most christian country in the world!

So the whole "atheist fellow travelers" argument is nonsense!

ISAW

equivariant wrote: »

Yes indeed we have seen what radiation does. It causes trees to grow, it keeps us warm (and therefore alive). It causes ice to melt and water to evaporate thus allowing life to exist. It reflects off objects, allowing us to see (indeed allowing us to see the effects of radiation, although I guess the irony of your question was completely lost on you).

By thus contributing to the conditions in which life can exist, the sun's radiation allows the mechanism of natural selection to operate.

Your understanding of the word radiation is simplistic. There are many types of radiation that are not at all harmful to life.

in fact "cancer" which is caused by specific high energy radiation having an effect on DNA is just a mutation of a "normal" growth pattern. In a sense mutates genes and the offspring are cancerous. In another they are a new species. If the new species survives or wipes out an older one then they are the norm after that.

Sam Vimes

All mutations are bad eh?

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198?currentPage=2

Genetic HIV Resistance Deciphered
Randy Dotinga Email 01.07.05

Throughout the history of the AIDS epidemic, a few lucky people have avoided infection despite being exposed again and again. Now, researchers are traveling back in evolutionary time to understand why some people are resistant -- and in some cases virtually immune -- to the AIDS virus.

Studies released this week and last year suggest that the roots of AIDS immunity extend back for centuries, long before the disease even existed. Our ethnic backgrounds and the illnesses suffered by our distant ancestors appear to play a crucial role in determining whether our genes will allow HIV to take hold in our bodies.

For now, the findings seem likely to inspire more raised eyebrows than cutting-edge drugs. But over time, the research into why some people don't get HIV may help doctors treat those who do. By understanding which genes help people fight off infection, "we might move to a time where we can make more refined decisions about timing or intensity of therapy. Now, it's like a glove where one size fits all," said Dr. Matthew Dolan, an AIDS specialist in the U.S. Air Force and co-author of a new AIDS genetics study in an online edition of the journal Science.

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.

All those with the highest level of HIV immunity share a pair of mutated genes -- one in each chromosome -- that prevent their immune cells from developing a "receptor" that lets the AIDS virus break in. If the so-called CCR5 receptor -- which scientists say is akin to a lock -- isn't there, the virus can't break into the cell and take it over.

To be protected, people must inherit the genes from both parents; those who inherit a mutated gene from just one parent will end up with greater resistance against HIV than other people, but they won't be immune. An estimated 10 percent to 15 percent of those descended from Northern Europeans have the lesser protection.

Using formulas that estimate how long genetic mutations have been around, researchers have discovered that the mutation dates to the Middle Ages. (Similar research in mitochondrial DNA -- passed along by women -- has suggested that Europeans are all descended from seven Ice Age matriarchs.)

J C

ISAW wrote: »

This is a baseless question!

In Ireland the State SUPPORTS religion in schools.
95 percent plus of schools are Christian and almost (maybe 90 per cent) roman Catholic.
The ALL teach evolution as part of the science curriculum in the most christian country in the world!

So the whole "atheist fellow travelers" argument is nonsense!

...all I will say to that is 'if the cap fits ... wear it'!!!:)

The New World Order One-World Religion' is currently at a very advanced stage of formation and it is planned to include practically all religions (including Humanists and the 'New Age') ... as well as many Evolutionists of course!!!

Creationists and Bible-believing Christians are not invited to the 'party' ... and I must say ... that they wouldn't join in ... even if they were invited !!!

http://interfaithorganisations.net/2009/11/09/religions-vow-a-new-alliance-for-conservation/
http://www.worldprayer.net/worldprayer-sharedreading.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrz55xh7cXI&feature=related

I noted from the above article that "Pope John Paul and the other leaders who spoke at the morning session in Assisi repeatedly underlined the need for justice and respect for human rights in building peace. "It cannot be forgotten that situations of oppression and exclusion are often at the source of violence and terrorism," he said.

... so here is an 'acid test' ... on respecting the Human Rights of Saved Christians and their children by respecting their worldview ... and delivering justice to Christian teachers in America by not sacking them for merely mentioning the dreaded ID word in science class!!!

... or does Human Rights and justice not extend to Saved Christians?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the Answers in Genesis's scientific research standards document is it :rolleyes:

...it is the Word of God.