The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Bduffman wrote: »

There were juvenile dinosaurs on the ark?

I haven't looked at this thread is a long time & now I know why. Its evolving into something strange........................

... it also seems to be creating something amazing!!!!!

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

You'd think if it was mathematically proven theists would bring it up more.

... you would ... until you realise that many theists are Materialistic Evolutionists ... who have swallowed the whole 'millions of years molecules to man via time and mistakes' idea ... just because some Materialist told them that it was true!!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

"Accepted by"? What are you talking about, that was DISCOVERED by "evolutionists".

... whatever ... the bottom line is that we now have large mammals (like the Triceratops) appearing millions of evolutionist 'years' earlier than they 'should' have appeared!!!

... and thus Prof Dawkins statement that "We should be very surprised, for example, to find fossil humans appearing in the record before mammals are supposed to have evolved! If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed" ... has effectively come to pass!!!

... and are the evolutionists stepping up to the plate ... and accepting the full implications of this discovery?

... no they are NOT ... instead they are running about laughing at the people who are pointing out this major discovery ... that is the effective death-knell for 'Big Picture' Evolution!!!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... whatever ... the bottom line is that we now have large mammals (like the Triceratops)appearing hundreds of millions of evolutionist 'years' earlier that they 'should' have appeared!!!

... and thus Prof Dawkins statement that "We should be very surprised, for example, to find fossil humans appearing in the record before mammals are supposed to have evolved! If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed" ... has effectively come to pass!!!

Triceratops lived about 65 million years ago, not 500. Stop misrepresenting the palaeontological community.
Of course it wasn't a mammal either so I doubt little things like facts are going to change your mind.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... could you give me a link please??

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/14/2794
Evolution of Biological information.

The salient point being:

"R_sequence approaches and remains around R_frequency (Fig. 2b), supporting the hypothesis that the information content at binding sites will evolve to be close to the information needed to locate those binding sites in the genome, as observed in natural systems (4,6)."

Incidentally, the paper also touches on how such processes can produce "irreducible complexity."

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... whatever ...

Good come back :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

the bottom line is that we now have large mammals (like the Triceratops) appearing hundreds of millions of evolutionist 'years' earlier that they 'should' have appeared!!!

... and thus Prof Dawkins statement that "We should be very surprised, for example, to find fossil humans appearing in the record before mammals are supposed to have evolved! If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed" ... has effectively come to pass!!!

... and are the evolutionists stepping up to the plate ... and accepting the full implications of this discovery?

Sorry what are you talking about? Who has found a human skull 500 million years old?

Back here in the real world JC scientists (the real ones) have been discussing whether dinosaurs were cold or warm blooded since the 50s. All this is is further evidence that dinosaurs were warm blooded and evolved into modern birds. Which is what was suspected anyway.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Triceratops lived about 65 million years ago, not 500. Stop misrepresenting the palaeontological community.
Of course it wasn't a mammal either so I doubt little things like facts are going to change your mind.

OK, Prof Dawkins was giving himself a 'time cushion' in relation to Dinosaurs (including the Mammal Dinos) by using the 500 million year time horizon ... but unfortunately for Prof Dawkins, The Cambrian Explosion was about 500 Million Evolutionist years ago ... and most major phyla supposedly burst onto the scene at this juncture ... and this is a fulfillment of the general thrust of his challenge ... that if there was a simultaneous appearance of supposedly Evolutionary diverse phyla then "our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed".

... and it has come to pass with the Cambrian Explosion 500 million evolutionist years ago ... and with the appearance of large Mammal Dinosaurs 400 million evolutionist years later!!!

... but will the Evolutionists accept the logic of their own words? ...

... the answer seems to not only be NO ... but some actually laugh at anybody who points out this glaring anomaly.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/14/2794
Evolution of Biological information.

The salient point being:

"R_sequence approaches and remains around R_frequency (Fig. 2b), supporting the hypothesis that the information content at binding sites will evolve to be close to the information needed to locate those binding sites in the genome, as observed in natural systems (4,6)."

Incidentally, the paper also touches on how such processes can produce "irreducible complexity."

... so here we have an Intelligently Designed computer programme producing Intelligent Designs ... and the so called 'Roman Arches' that are found throughout life are further proof of Intelligent Design ... as these structures cannot be 'built up' and perfected gradually using environmental feedback mechanisms like NS ... because they are useless, indeed a liability, until they are completed ... and they would be eliminated by NS long before they ever approached completion ... even the putative 'scaffolding' for these 'Arches' would also have to be intelligently designed ... and could never arise spontaneously or be 'pefected' by NS as it has no useful advantage (and indeed is a liabilty) ... until the 'Arch' itself is completed!!!
Equally, the combinatorial space that these 'arches' are supposedly 'bridging' is so vast that they could never navigate their way across it using non-intelligently directed processes.
This is yet another superficially plausible idea from the Evolutionist camp that collapses under closer scrutiny.

Ghost Buster

J C wrote: »

A very good question ... and here are a seletion of the answers to your question:-

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
http://carm.org/could-noahs-ark-hold-all-animals
http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

Thanks for that. So . Lots of' perhaps', 'maybe' and ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.. thats hard so God must have intervened at this point.
Thanks again.

J C

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Thanks for that. So . Lots of' perhaps', 'maybe' and ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.. thats hard so God must have intervened at this point.
Thanks again.

Fair enough ... no problem.

Here is what it might have looked like:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk2Kd5QNw0&feature=related

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Back here in the real world JC scientists (the real ones) have been discussing whether dinosaurs were cold or warm blooded since the 50s. All this is is further evidence that dinosaurs were warm blooded and evolved into modern birds. Which is what was suspected anyway.

Like I have already said, the term Dinosaur has been applied to both cold-blooded reptiles and warm-blooded birds and mammals, most of whom are now extinct.

Galvasean

Bad news for your arguments J C, the 'Cambrian explosion' is a very outdated term. As it so happens life existed long before the time of the so called 'Cambrian explosion' and was evolving gradually up until that point.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630171711.htm

Not that little things like evidence will stop you from perpetuating your cherished myths about evolutionary theory.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... so here we have an Intelligently Designed computer programme producing Intelligent Designs ...

The program is intelligently designed. The designs it is producing are not. The designs are being produced by the selection of random mutations.

An analogy would be if the laws of physics were intelligently designed, but the designs they produced were not. And while I don't believe the laws of physics are intelligently designed, it is a proposition I am happy to accept for the purposes of this thread, as it will allow me to focus on demonstrating how selection pressures emerging from the laws of nature, applied to random mutations, can produce functional design.

and the so called 'Roman Arches' that are found throughout life are further proof of Intelligent Design ... as these structures cannot be 'built up' and perfected gradually using environmental feedback mechanisms like NS ... because they are useless, indeed a liability, until they are completed ... and they would be eliminated by NS long before they ever approached completion ... even the putative 'scaffolding' for these 'Arches' would also have to be intelligently designed ... and could never arise spontaneously or be 'pefected' by NS as it has no useful advantage (and indeed is a liabilty) ... until the 'Arch' itself is completed!!!
Equally, the combinatorial space that these 'arches' are supposedly 'bridging' is so vast that they could never navigate their way across it using non-intelligently directed processes.
This is yet another superficially plausible idea from the Evolutionist camp that collapses under closer scrutiny.

Selection pressures are responsible for navigation. And a change in functionality would be what allows the 'scaffolding' to be selected. I.e. Your claim that scaffolding must confer no useful advantage is false, with no evidence to back it up.

Soul Winner

J C wrote:

On the other hand, Creation Science has mathematically proven that life has been Intelligently Designed.

monosharp wrote: »

Can soul winner or some other creationist please give their opinion on the above rubbish ?

Hey watch it with the creationist tag bub, its bandied around too much and has become an all too easy to use wide brush stroke to sweep all who disagree with you up with. I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that the universe was created. How that happened I'm eager to find out and am open to all explanations and so far purely materialistic explanations just don't cut it. But I know that your use of the tag was meant in a derogatory sense so leave it out.

That said, I'd like to know how ID has been mathematically proven by creation science. I prefer the logical deduction method myself. If life absolutely cannot have come about by means of a once off random collision of chemicals that just happened to have the right sequence of bases and amino acids amongst many many other things needed to get it going in all the right places in a pre-biotic pond on a prebiotic earth then how else could it have come about except by a designing intelligence? I want to hear the other options. If chance alone is out then what else could have brought it about? Necessity? How? Chance and necessity working together? How?

I liked the comment left by a reviewer on amazon for Stephen C Meyer's latest book: "Signature in the cell" 600 + pages and yes I have read it and would recommend it to all in here.



This reviewer puts it best:

"Intuitively, for anyone who has written more than 10 lines of computer code that actually did something, considering the DNA code; several billion lines long, written in 3D with chemicals instead of 0's and 1's, error checking, error correcting, very small, very efficient, replicating, and most important a working program (with consciousness and self awareness as a bonus), denying the fact that an intelligence wrote the first code is intellectual prostitution." Mark McNeil

Well said Mr McNeil.

monosharp wrote: »

Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000.[70][71] Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences,[72] and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat earth."

I watched that before. Hovind is a nob, he reads the bible in one language and tries to squeeze all reality (as he sees it) into his one interpretation within a very narrow and flimsy language frame of reference (reminds me of a lot of atheists). I like Hugh Ross though, he knows the languages of the Bible and he presents his arguments with clarity, gives testable models and his theories make predictions. Don't ask me to give you examples though, just go to www.reasons.org and check them out if you're interested. In saying that I think he ventures too far into dimensions of reality that can't be tested yet, and tries too hard to explain in layman's terms things we cannot test for as yet. Keep it simple Hugh but keep it up.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

That said, I'd like to know how ID has been mathematically proven by creation science. I prefer the logical deduction method myself. If life absolutely cannot have come about by means of a once off random collision of chemicals that just happened to have the right sequence of bases and amino acids amongst many many other things needed to get it going in all the right places in a pre-biotic pond on a prebiotic earth then how else could it have come about except by a designing intelligence? I want to hear the other options. If chance alone is out then what else could have brought it about? Necessity? How? Chance and necessity working together? How?

I liked the comment left by a reviewer on amazon for Stephen C Meyer's latest book: "Signature in the cell" 600 + pages and yes I have read it and would recommend it to all in here.

"Intuitively, for anyone who has written more than 10 lines of computer code that actually did something, considering the DNA code; several billion lines long, written in 3D with chemicals instead of 0's and 1's, error checking, error correcting, very small, very efficient, replicating, and most important a working program (with consciousness and self awareness as a bonus), denying the fact that an intelligence wrote the first code is intellectual prostitution." Mark McNeil

To rule out abiogenesis, you must first

A) Know what natural chance event must be considered.
Calculate the probability of that event occuring by chance.

IDers will happily calculate the probability of complex sequences occuring by chance, but they have never established that these complex sequences could not have evolved from simpler, less complex sequences. Indeed, much of abiogenesis is the application of Darwinism to molecular structures. So until IDers have A sorted, they're not really saying anything productive.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

That said, I'd like to know how ID has been mathematically proven by creation science. I prefer the logical deduction method myself. If life absolutely cannot have come about by means of a once off random collision of chemicals that just happened to have the right sequence of bases and amino acids amongst many many other things needed to get it going in all the right places in a pre-biotic pond on a prebiotic earth then how else could it have come about except by a designing intelligence? I want to hear the other options.

Given we already know that molecules can start self replicating, and that these molecules can evolve into more complex forms, that would tend to nip that in the bud if that is the only reason to suggest ID.

The question isn't if this can happen. We know it can happen. Anyone with an odd super computer lying around can model the chemical interactions that lead to self replicating complex molecules.

The big question is HOW did it happen on Earth.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I liked the comment left by a reviewer on amazon for Stephen C Meyer's latest book: "Signature in the cell" 600 + pages and yes I have read it and would recommend it to all in here.

Meyer's work has been roundly criticized by scientists in this field as being inaccurate, misrepresentative and some times stupid

Good example here from a review of The Signature Cell

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=268

Secondly, Meyers’s use of the concept of “information” to describe the workings of molecular biology—though the near-universal idiom of that field—is problematic because it conflates the metaphoric with the literal meaning of the term. While it serves certain explanatory and pedagogical aims to speak as if DNA were “written” in a “language,” these are merely metaphors for what are fundamentally causal, bimolecular relationships. To say that DNA carries information about proteins is like saying that smoke carries information about fire. While this may be true in a very weak sense, it would be absurd to claim that fire transmits information about itself via smoke. Because there is no true “information” in DNA—merely a set of biochemical affinities and molecular mechanisms—Meyers’s argument falters yet again. Thus, only by way of a fundamental misunderstanding of the human genome can Meyers conclude that DNA offers evidence of intelligent design.

Soul Winner wrote: »

"Intuitively, for anyone who has written more than 10 lines of computer code that actually did something, considering the DNA code; several billion lines long, written in 3D with chemicals instead of 0's and 1's, error checking, error correcting, very small, very efficient, replicating, and most important a working program (with consciousness and self awareness as a bonus), denying the fact that an intelligence wrote the first code is intellectual prostitution."

I have written more than 10 lines of code but I've also written genetic algorithms which I suspect this reviewer knows little about.

You can evolve computer programs to perform a task without the you knowing how they are going to perform this. This is in essence removing the intelligence from the computer code. You don't know how it actually works and thus you cannot have designed it, and the computer doesn't know how it actually works since it is a dump computer and couldn't have intelligently designed it either. You produce a dumb program that still manages to produce the desired output. No intelligence, the intelligence is removed, thus it is not intelligently designed.

How do you do this?

You introduce Darwinian principles of course. By allowing the code to evolve based on a set of feedback (taking the place the environment would in the real world) you can create computer code that can perform a function without you (the intelligence) actually knowing what it is doing. Thus it is not intelligently designed, it is evolved.

Which is where Meyer's analogy with computer software falls apart. Without Darwinian evolution it might be tricky to explain DNA, but with knowledge of Darwinian evolution and computer programming it actually becomes simple and the obvious answer.

This problem was solved 150 years ago, Meyers simply ignores this and the ponders on how mysterious DNA is. It is only mysterious if you don't have Darwinian evolution, which we do. Then it isn't mysterious at all.

Which is why the only people who think it is a great mystery are either people don't have little experience or exposure to Darwinian evolution or Creationists who for theological reasons would like to pretend Darwin never existed.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Bad news for your arguments J C, the 'Cambrian explosion' is a very outdated term. As it so happens life existed long before the time of the so called 'Cambrian explosion' and was evolving gradually up until that point.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630171711.htm

Not that little things like evidence will stop you from perpetuating your cherished myths about evolutionary theory.

Your linked article in Science Daily starts:-
"The discovery in Gabon of more than 250 fossils in an excellent state of conservation has provided proof, for the first time, of the existence of multicellular organisms 2.1 billion years ago. This finding represents a major breakthrough: until now, the first complex life forms (made up of several cells) dated from around 600 million years ago."
So what Evolutionists, up to now, thought to have happened 600 million Evolutionist years ago ... turns out to have happened 2,100 million Evolutionist years ago!!!!

With such 'elasticity' in Evolutionist time measurement ... it could just as eailiy be less than 10,000 Evolutionist years ago when all life exploded onto this planet ... at the Creation!!!!

... I can confirm that it was less than 10,000 actual years ... and God only knows what figure the Evolutionists come up with for it next!!!

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Selection pressures are responsible for navigation. And a change in functionality would be what allows the 'scaffolding' to be selected. I.e. Your claim that scaffolding must confer no useful advantage is false, with no evidence to back it up.

How can selection pressures operate when it is observed that intermediate sequences generally don't confer any functionality?

There is no 'yellow brick road' of increasing functionality that allows NS to 'navigate' across combinatorial space between different functional biomolecules.

In fact, selection pressures eliminate mutations because mutations generally destroy genetic information and degrade functionality. Selection largely acts as a conservation mechanism ... conserving, in so far as possible, the original perfectly created genetic information ... and eliminating any mutations thereto!!!

There is quite simply a vast 'ocean' of non-functional combinatorial space between small 'islands' of functional biomolecules ... and therefore non-intelligently directed process (like Natural Selection) have no means of navigating across this 'ocean' because a sequence of 95 'correct' Amino Acids out of 100 is just as non-functional as a sequence of 50 'correct' Amino Acids.
Equally, even if a particular functional sequence were to be 'stumbled upon' by undirected processes, it would invariably be a locally functionally useless 'square peg for a round hole' ... for example, even if the sequence for keratin were to be accidently produced in the sight cascade it would result in blindness ... and not a useful fingernail!!!

J C

Morbert wrote: »

To rule out abiogenesis, you must first

A) Know what natural chance event must be considered.
Calculate the probability of that event occuring by chance.

IDers will happily calculate the probability of complex sequences occuring by chance, but they have never established that these complex sequences could not have evolved from simpler, less complex sequences. Indeed, much of abiogenesis is the application of Darwinism to molecular structures. So until IDers have A sorted, they're not really saying anything productive.

The probability of a 100 long functional sequence being produced by non-intelligently directed processes via 100 steps ... or only in one step ... is an identical 10^130 :1 ... which is an impossibility in a 'Big Bang Universe' with only an estimated 10^80 electrons in total ...
... queue 'multiverses' and 'parallell universes' ... which are the rather desperate directions in which some Materialists are now heading in order to overcome the mathematical impossibility of Abiogenesis and non-intelligently directed Evolution in just one Universe ... even on the vast scale of it's currently observed size!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

The probability of a 100 long functional sequence being produced by non-intelligently directed processes via 100 steps ... or only in one step ... is an identical 10^130 :1 ...

No it isn't. The probability of it being produced by 100 steps is the probability of each step. :rolleyes:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

No it isn't. The probability of it being produced by 100 steps is the probability of each step. :rolleyes:

The probability of it being done in 100 steps is the probability of each step multiplied by the probability of the next step for all 100 steps. The probabilty is P^n where P is the probability of getting the 'correct' Amino Acid at each step ... and n is the number of steps.
In the case of a 100 chain biomolecule choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at each step on the chain, it is 20^100 which is 10^130.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I know that your use of the tag was meant in a derogatory sense so leave it out.

You do realise my question was phrased in such a way as to expect better from you and other creationists than believing the rubbish that was just posted ?

I don't have any issue whatsoever with people who believe the Universe was created. I only have a problem with people peddling nonsense to try and maintain faith in absurdities which are so very wrong it's laughable.

If chance alone is out then what else could have brought it about? Necessity? How? Chance and necessity working together? How?

Well first of all this isn't the Theory of Evolution, this is called abiogenesis and frankly speaking, we don't know.

There are some good hypothesis' regarding the origin of life but so far the evidence behind them isn't great and they are far from accepted. Although need I remind you again, this has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Maybe it was God/Zeus/Optimus Prime or simply chance. The fact of the matter is we don't know. I have nothing to argue with you about here.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

How can selection pressures operate when it is observed that intermediate sequences generally don't confer any functionality?

How can the flux capacitor produce enough sodium hypochlorite to clean Marty McFlys hover board to a shiny finish ?

Show me an intermediate sequence which doesn't confer any functionality.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

How can selection pressures operate when it is observed that intermediate sequences generally don't confer any functionality?

There is no 'yellow brick road' of increasing functionality that allows NS to 'navigate' across combinatorial space between different functional biomolecules.

In fact, selection pressures eliminate mutations because mutations generally destroy genetic information and degrade functionality. Selection largely acts as a conservation mechanism ... conserving, in so far as possible, the original perfectly created genetic information ... and eliminating any mutations thereto!!!

There is quite simply a vast 'ocean' of non-functional combinatorial space between small 'islands' of functional biomolecules ... and therefore non-intelligently directed process (like Natural Selection) have no means of navigating across this 'ocean' because a sequence of 95 'correct' Amino Acids out of 100 is just as non-functional as a sequence of 50 'correct' Amino Acids.
Equally, even if a particular functional sequence were to be 'stumbled upon' by undirected processes, it would invariably be a locally functionally useless 'square peg for a round hole' ... for example, even if the sequence for keratin were to be accidently produced in the sight cascade it would result in blindness ... and not a useful fingernail!!!

Yes, selection pressures eliminate mutations. This is how the space of configurations is culled. Your 'ocean' is greatly reduced.

And again, you claim that sequences could not have evolved despite the fact that much of abiogenesis is the application of Darwinism to molecules. A square peg for a square hole becoming a round peg for a round hole, in otherwords.

So either cite your info regarding the necessity of a 100 amino-acid sequence as a starting point or stop spamming the thread with assertions that have been dealt with before.

The probability of it being done in 100 steps is the probability of each step multiplied by the probability of the next step for all 100 steps. The probabilty is P^n where P is the probability of getting the 'correct' Amino Acid at each step ... and n is the number of steps.
In the case of a 100 chain biomolecule choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at each step on the chain, it is 20^100 which is 10^130.

Each advantageous step would be selected, i.e. held for future generations. The next step would be derived from this reference. To use an analogy: If I gave you one hundred chances to guess a number between 1 and 1000000000, your chances would be very slim. But if, after each guess, I told you the number was higher or lower than that guess, then you would find it very quickly.

liamw

J C wrote: »

...because mutations generally destroy genetic information and degrade functionality.

Firstly there is no such thing as genetic 'information' unless your definition of 'information' is a sequence of nucleotides.

Mutations can sometimes allow an organism to exert a phenotype that is beneficial to it's survival in it's current environment. Over thousands and millions of generations it is certainly not improbable that the gene pool will converge towards those beneficial mutations. You seem to accept that sometimes mutations can be beneficial through your use of the word 'generally'?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

The probability of it being done in 100 steps is the probability of each step multiplied by the probability of the next step for all 100 steps

Only if there is no selection of the steps, which there is as you yourself admitted :rolleyes:

If you flip a set of coins the odds that you will end up with 1,000 coins heads are very small.

If on the other other hand you flip a coin and discard any that land tails it is easy to produce 1,000 head up coins. In fact you can't not produce 1,000 coins heads up.

This is what Darwinian evolution produces.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if there is no selection of the steps, which there is as you yourself admitted :rolleyes:

If you flip a set of coins the odds that you will end up with 1,000 coins heads are very small.

If on the other other hand you flip a coin and discard any that land tails it is easy to produce 1,000 head up coins. In fact you can't not produce 1,000 coins heads up.

This is what Darwinian evolution produces.

... but this isn't how the information is stored in DNA (or indeed in any other functional information storage system). It follows the rule of all functional information systems ... a specific complex arrangements of characters that is independently imposed.
Because there is little or no functional information stored in the series AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ... something that selects all As isn't going to increase the functional information content of the series.
Similarly it isn't a matter of having all heads in your analogy (or all A-T bonds in DNA) ... the information is stored in a specific complex sequence of A-T and C-G bonds that is independent of the chemistry of the bonds themselves ... and because of the specific complex nature of functional information storage systems like DNA ... it is mathematically impossible to produce such functional information without the appliance of intelligence to the production of such information.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if there is no selection of the steps, which there is as you yourself admitted :rolleyes:

If you flip a set of coins the odds that you will end up with 1,000 coins heads are very small.

If on the other other hand you flip a coin and discard any that land tails it is easy to produce 1,000 head up coins. In fact you can't not produce 1,000 coins heads up.

This is what Darwinian evolution produces.

... but this isn't how the information is stored in DNA (or indeed in any other functional information storage system). It follows the rule of all functional information systems ... a specific complex arrangements of characters that is independently imposed.
Because there is little or no functional information stored in the series AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ... something that selects for all As isn't going to increase the functional information content of any series of characters.
Similarly it isn't a matter of having all heads, as in your analogy (or all A-T bonds in DNA) ... the information is stored as a specific complex sequence of A-T and C-G bonds that is independent of the chemistry of the bonds themselves ... and because of the specific complex nature of functional information storage systems like DNA ... it is mathematically impossible to produce such functional information without the appliance of intelligence to the production of such information.

Your analogy is the equivalent of proposing that randomly flipping a coin with 'dot' / 'dash' sides could produce the Morse Code for the Encyclopedia Britannica ... and NO ... subsequently selecting only 'dots' won't do it either!!!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Your linked article in Science Daily starts:-
"The discovery in Gabon of more than 250 fossils in an excellent state of conservation has provided proof, for the first time, of the existence of multicellular organisms 2.1 billion years ago. This finding represents a major breakthrough: until now, the first complex life forms (made up of several cells) dated from around 600 million years ago."

Yes. It clearly states that rather than appearing suddenly 600 million years ago, complex life had been evolving up to that point for a very long time.
So in essence the idea of the 'Cambrian explosion' where complex life suddenly appeared (an event often cited by theists as God's intervention) was wrong.

J C

J C wrote:

So what Evolutionists, up to now, thought to have happened 600 million Evolutionist years ago ... turns out to have happened 2,100 million Evolutionist years ago!!!!

With such 'elasticity' in Evolutionist time measurement ... it could just as eailiy be less than 10,000 Evolutionist years ago when all life exploded onto this planet ... at the Creation!!!!

Galvasean
Yes. It clearly states that rather than appearing suddenly 600 million years ago, complex life had been evolving up to that point for a very long time.
So in essence the idea of the 'Cambrian explosion' where complex life suddenly appeared (an event often cited by theists as God's intervention) was wrong.

... and the hint that this is not actually true, is in the inconsitency of the details ... in this case, we are expected to believe that life 'evolved' to the suposed 'multi-cell stage' 2.1 billon years ago ... and then remined totally static for over one thousand five hundred milion years before suddenly 'exploding' into nearly every known phylum in an 'instant of evolutionist time' about 600 million years ago!!!

... go pull the other one, guys!!!!