The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Morbert

JC, every time I engage in conversation with you, you either run away (our talk about the evolution of DNA) and return later to repeat assertions I have addressed, or change the subject (misrepresentations of paleontology), or post non-answers (Me "embarrassing myself"). You are a person who believes the ends justify the means, and use these posting tactics to stifle any kind of progression. You are still, for example, discussing odds of 1 in 10^130 when I have already said it is irrelevant. The upper bounds probability regarding sponaneous generation considered by scientists is 1 in 10^40.

So I cannot engage in further discussion with you, and will focus instead on my conversation with Soul Winner.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Still, it's been fascinating from a psychological standpoint to see the lengths someone will go to avoid having to say, "Fair enough - you have a point there."

And what point would that be PDN ?

That someone read a bible for the first time and became a believer. Where's the point ?

So someone reads the Scientology bible or whatever it's called for the first time and becomes a believer. Where's the point ?

So someone reads the Koran for the first time and becomes a believer. Where's the point ?

Someone reads Buddhist texts for the first time and becomes a believer. Where's the point ?

If you handed a child a copy of JRR Tolkeins 'The Silmarillon' (edit out certain parts) and they become a believer in elves. Whats the point ?

There is no point. You have to just sit back and laugh at the logic here.

The Bible is the word of god (Presupposition) -> Someone reads it for the first time and becomes a believer -> WOW!

Scientology is a false religion (Presupposition) -> Someone reads it for the first time and becomes a believer -> Poor deluded fool.

Here on this thread I showed Jakkass that what you claimed the Chinese government says about building new churches and the growth of Christianity in China was wrong, I linked him to a Chinese official church webpage proving what you claimed was wrong and he still refused to accept it.

It really is laughable. I may be hard headed and say the wrong things some of the time but at least I admit when I am wrong.

wolfsbane

Soul Winner wrote: »

I swear I didn't Google this guy or anything. I came across him after just receiving an out of the blue text from a friend of mine to check out: www.darwinsdeadidea.com. So I did, then I Amazon'd his book, and then I Youtubed him and came across these:

His name is John J May and he is Irish and he has written a book entitled: 'The Origin of Specious Nonsense.' My friend who text me doesn't know I'm debating this topic on Boards so the relation between what this guys is saying and how it mirrors my own questions on the subject in this thread is very coincidental.

Anyway, J C you're gonna love this guy

Tears are still rolling down my face from laughing, I love his approach to the subject..

Great! I got an emial from a friend in Dublin yesterday with this:
The worldwide launch of the above book is due to take place this evening in Buswells Hotel in Dublin. Please see the details at the web site below. While the author takes a very anti-evolution approach, he is far from being a biblical creationist.

The launch was due to have been carried out by Conor Lenihan but he withdrew following worldwide protests. The story was covered in a front page article on yesterday’s Irish Times.

I see this launch as a great opportunity to engage others in key issues of the creation/evolution controversy.

http://www.theoriginofspeciousnonsense.com/index-2.html


Looking forward to checking it out.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

Zombrex

LOL

"world wide launch" ... oh my.

In other news a man held the WOLRD WIDE LAUNCH of his book "Why Jews are trying to take over the World and steal my Sandwich" from his kitchen.

As far as I can tell this is a completely self published book by someone who genuinely used skin of unborn babies not wrinkle in the womb as evidence of ID.

The Internet: Allowing crazy people to feel important since 1993

JC, this isn't you buy any chance is it?

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

Here on this thread I showed Jakkass that what you claimed the Chinese government says about building new churches and the growth of Christianity in China was wrong, I linked him to a Chinese official church webpage proving what you claimed was wrong and he still refused to accept it.

It really is laughable. I may be hard headed and say the wrong things some of the time but at least I admit when I am wrong.

Let's look at PDN's post. He can correct me if I have misinterpreted this.

PDN wrote:

The Chinese government also spreads the lie that their State-run churches are sufficient to meet the needs of all the Christians in China and that there is no need for more churches. So no more churches are going to be registered, even if they were willing to abandon their Christian principles and become the mouthpieces of the Communists.

This is how I interpreted it. PDN is referring to the fact that other church bodies other than the 2 that the Chinese have considered kosher, cannot register to be churches. For example, lets say the Assemblies of God, the Anglican Church, Presbyterianism, independents etc etc.

The Chinese government does say that their State-run churches are sufficient to meet the needs of all Christians. However, in reality, they aren't. They don't want other churches, such as the Assemblies of God, Presbyterianism etc to exist in China.

You took the limited view of a church as a building and linked to the fact that more state churches are being built. I took the view of a church in the context of his post as being a body or an organisation.

Again, PDN can correct me if I have butchered his post here. I suspect I haven't though.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

It's the nature of internet discussion boards I'm afraid.

A question was asked about the Bible (given that it is the Bible, Creation & Prophecy thread) and how someone would approach the Bible from the standpoint of reading it for the first time with no Christianised background to colour their opinions. I happened to know someone who fitted that description. Everything else on China in this thread since has been a monumental piece of dancing and evasion to try to discredit the fact that the guy approaching the Bible with a clean slate found it to be compelling and convincing.

Still, it's been fascinating from a psychological standpoint to see the lengths someone will go to avoid having to say, "Fair enough - you have a point there."

He must not have ever read a science book so.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

He must not have ever read a science book so.

Expecting a link to Dawkins and the Boeing 747 gambit again? Despite the notion that it itself is based on assumptions about its opposition, and incomplete science.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

Expecting a link to Dawkins and the Boeing 747 gambit again? Despite the notion that it itself is based on assumptions about its opposition, and incomplete science.

You STILL don't get it??:pac:

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

This is how I interpreted it.

Ah Christianity.

PDN is referring to the fact that other church bodies other than the 2 that the Chinese have considered kosher, cannot register to be churches. For example, lets say the Assemblies of God, the Anglican Church, Presbyterianism, independents etc etc.

1. There are 4 church bodies, not 2.

2. A four second google resulted in this; http://www.beijingchurchofchrist.com/profile.html

A (foreigner-centric) Church which just registered itself in 2008.

Actually since you won't believe anything I say and you seem to believe anything anyone with the word 'pastor' or 'reverend' in front of their name says. Perhaps you'd listen to this woman, a Rev Judith Sutterlin. She's easily searchable on google if you want to contact her.

She's been in China since 1992 and she wrote this FAQ about the church in China.

http://www.amitynewsservice.org/page.php?page=1150

Oh and would you look at that. She seems to think that churches can get registered fairly easily.

You took the limited view of a church as a building and linked to the fact that more state churches are being built. I took the view of a church in the context of his post as being a body or an organisation.

Ok so he's double wrong on both interpretations as I've shown above. Are you going to try and interpret it differently now ?

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

...will focus instead on my conversation with Soul Winner.

Hi Morbert, in case you're wondering where I've vanished to, I thought I'd better quickly log in and let you know that I've been temporarily taken out by a physical condition that hit me just as I was responding to your last post. Abdomen area, treatable, has been treated, still in hospital now, a few days more recovery should suffice, I will get back posting proper as soon as I'm back fit and healthy enough to do so. Apologies for the delay, but there is nothing else for it I'm afraid.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hi Morbert, in case you're wondering where I've vanished to, I thought I'd better quickly log in and let you know that I've been temporarily taken out by a physical condition that hit me just as I was responding to your last post. Abdomen area, treatable, has been treated, still in hospital now, a few days more recovery should suffice, I will get back posting proper as soon as I'm back fit and healthy enough to do so. Apologies for the delay, but there is nothing else for it I'm afraid.

Just wishing you a speedy recovery back to full health. Take care of yourself.:)

Zombrex

Hope you are getting better Soul Winner

In other news a group of apparent "scientists" with fancy titles after their names are coming together to combat a terrible materalistic/atheist lie

Evolution you say? Nope, the scourge that is geocentricism, dun dun dun

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/



No this isn't a piss take, yes people actually believe this stuff.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Hope you are getting better Soul Winner

In other news a group of apparent "scientists" with fancy titles after their names are coming together to combat a terrible materalistic/atheist lie

Evolution you say? Nope, the scourge that is geocentricism, dun dun dun

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/



No this isn't a piss take, yes people actually believe this stuff.

This seems to be a Roman Catholic 'initiative'.

So is Roman Catholocism's scientific position now both Evolutionist ... and Geocentric???

.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Hope you are getting better Soul Winner

In other news a group of apparent "scientists" with fancy titles after their names are coming together to combat a terrible materalistic/atheist lie

Evolution you say? Nope, the scourge that is geocentricism, dun dun dun

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/



No this isn't a piss take, yes people actually believe this stuff.

Thanks for the link.

Fascinating stuff, of which I was unaware. Seeing it is given good reviews by well-qualified scientists,
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
it must be worth investigating. Curt dismissal and ridicule is hardly scientific.

If I can get past the religious apostasy of one of the authors, surely you can put aside atheistic prejudices?
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

Fascinating stuff, of which I was unaware. Seeing it is given good reviews by well-qualified scientists,
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
it must be worth investigating. Curt dismissal and ridicule is hardly scientific.

If I can get past the religious apostasy of one of the authors, surely you can put aside atheistic prejudices?
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

I wouldn't ridicule it ... but I would dismiss it.

Geocentricism would imply that the Sun makes an orbit 93 million miles in diameter every day around the Earth ... and the entire universe similarly 'orbits' the earth once every day!!!

... and, by implication, the Earth's gravity field extends to the limits of the Universe and is powerful enough to hold billions of stars in orbit.

The Evolutionists have become Geocentric!!!:eek::D:)

You just couldn't make this stuff up!!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't ridicule it ... but I would dismiss it.

Geocentricism would imply that the Sun makes an orbit 93 million miles in diameter every day around the Earth ... and the entire universe similarly 'orbits' the earth once every day!!!

... and, by implication, the Earth's gravity field extends to the limits of the Universe and is powerful enough to hold billions of stars in orbit.

The Evolutionists have become Geocentric!!!:eek::D:)

You just couldn't make this stuff up!!!!

Sure you could. You just did.

Incidentally, this isn't officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic church, or by anyone.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Sure you could. You just did.

Incidentally, this isn't officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic church, or by anyone.

Perhaps somebody did make it all up ... and it is an 'onion' special.

Taking it at face value, it does seem to be officially endorsed by three popes:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
the following quote is from the above link:-

Following the rule of St. Augustine, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to interpret the Sacred Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense unless the interpretation is untenable or necessity requires otherwise. The Church also dogmatically teaches that it is not permissible to depart from the early Church Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture when they are unanimous (Councils of Trent and Vatican I). What does this have to do with cosmology? Everything, because in interpreting the plain meaning of Scripture, all of the Church Fathers believed in geocentrism (that the Earth is a motionless body in the center of the universe). Moreover, this view was endorsed by three popes in authoritative decrees which condemned Copernicanism as “heretical” and “opposed to Scripture.”

Either way Geocentrism is a load of Pagan Greek baloney that the Medieval Church continued to maintain long after its 'sell-by date'.

... a bit like their new found 'dalliance' with Evolutionism actually!!!

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

Fascinating stuff, of which I was unaware. Seeing it is given good reviews by well-qualified scientists,
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
it must be worth investigating. Curt dismissal and ridicule is hardly scientific.

If I can get past the religious apostasy of one of the authors, surely you can put aside atheistic prejudices?
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

Wolfy, there once was scientist who won the nobel prize in Chemistry and happened to believe in astrology, HIV denial, and attributes his prize to LSD. Scientists are humans, and in every human population there are always a few nutters. Those guys above are deluded beyond delusion. Newton's law of gravity is completely ignored here the only way everything would orbit the earth would be if the Earth was the most massive object in this universe, in which case gravitational forces would have spaghettified your body.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

Fascinating stuff, of which I was unaware. Seeing it is given good reviews by well-qualified scientists,
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
it must be worth investigating. Curt dismissal and ridicule is hardly scientific.

What could possibly be worth investigating ?

This was proven beyond reasonable doubt to be nonsense hundreds of years ago. You can prove that it's nonsense yourself. Go buy a cheap telescope and a basic astronomy book.

This is the same blind bible/religious based nonsense that keeps yourself and JC going round in circles.

smokingman

So what's all the creationists views on their "pagan" beliefs now that the church in Rome has classified them as such?

Fanny Cradock

smokingman wrote: »

So what's all the creationists views on their "pagan" beliefs now that the church in Rome has classified them as such?

Interesting! Do you have a link?

smokingman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting! Do you have a link?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/17/pope-astronomer-baptise-aliens

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

So what's all the creationists views on their "pagan" beliefs now that the church in Rome has classified them as such?

I doubt if they'll worry very much since none of the creationists on here are Catholics.

(And it was one individual rather than 'the church in Rome' anyway).

wolfsbane

smokingman wrote: »

So what's all the creationists views on their "pagan" beliefs now that the church in Rome has classified them as such?

It rather strengthens my confidence in creationism to have the Papacy oppose it.

But not too much, as they get some things right from time to time.
___________________________________________________________________
Acts 23:7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. 8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

What could possibly be worth investigating ?

This was proven beyond reasonable doubt to be nonsense hundreds of years ago. You can prove that it's nonsense yourself. Go buy a cheap telescope and a basic astronomy book.

This is the same blind bible/religious based nonsense that keeps yourself and JC going round in circles.

Yes, it seems on the surface to be nonsense - but I picked up that the argument involved Relativity, so I allow it may be about more than the obvious.

That's why I regard it as worth investigating rather than dismissing out of hand. The argument may be heavier than one would assume. Not saying it is, just that it merits a careful look.
_________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 1:5 A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,

J C

smokingman wrote: »

So what's all the creationists views on their "pagan" beliefs now that the church in Rome has classified them as such?

If The Roman Catholic Church is now saying that a belief that God Created all things is Pagan, then they will logically have to abandon the Apostles and the Nicene Creeds ... which (clearly and unambiguously) state, as an article of faith, that God CREATED / MADE Heaven and Earth and all things therein, as well as any claim to be a Biblically sanctioned church ... and if they start 'baptising' non-Human entities, like 'Aliens' ... then they will not and indeed cannot do so on behalf of the God-Human Jesus Christ.

The fact that there are many eminent Creation and ID Scientists, who are Roman Catholic, also makes the whole thing quite bizzarre ... and potentially schismatic.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

Fascinating stuff, of which I was unaware. Seeing it is given good reviews by well-qualified scientists,
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
it must be worth investigating. Curt dismissal and ridicule is hardly scientific.

If I can get past the religious apostasy of one of the authors, surely you can put aside atheistic prejudices?

Did you read the article on Bad Astronomy that goes into detail the 2 main claims of these people (using relativity and denying it) and why they both don't work. It is not even like relativity is difficult to imagine or work out like evolution. You can spend 5 minutes explaining how it doesn't work. Curt acceptance is hardly scientific Wolfsbane


If anything this is a pretty good example of how just because you get a bunch of people with PhDs to sound bite for you doesn't mean you aren't talking nonsense. Something Creationists should think about.

You are a curious fellow Wolfsbane. Someone slaps a sound bite and "Joe Blogs PhD" on a flyer and you think there must be something to what ever they are claiming, yet you regularly ignore the consensus of hundreds of thousands of equally (or more) qualified scientists and regularly accept notions of vast scientific conspiracy and wide spread collusion to suppress evidence and theories that conflict with your religious beliefs.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't ridicule it ... but I would dismiss it.

As would the vast majority of scientists. The same scientists who conclude (based on the same theories they use to dismiss geocentrism) that the universe is 12+ billion years old, that the Earth is 4 billion years old, that decay rates don't change in the past etc

Funny that they would be right about this but wrong about all those other things given that they are using the same science, isn't it? :rolleyes:

bridgetown1

just posted this on another thread, but now this one has reappeared!!!! I came to this thread very late but spotted an early post which put forward a number of questions. well, here are some suggested answers:

J C wrote: »

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?

Evolution tells us how life evolved, not how life developed/started initially. And on the grounds that all known life is based on the 4/5 base nucleic acid system it seems reasonable to assume that life only developed once, or if it developed more than once, then the other life forms did not survive.

2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?

What is a ‘mathematical impossibility’? Or do you just mean extremely improbable? Never mind. ‘Spontaneous generation’ and ‘random production’ are totally different things. Critical amino acid sequences are NOT produced randomly. No life exists without these ‘critical sequences’ , as you call them, because they cannot survive without them. If, for instance, a human foetus is developing with a certain sequence missing, it miscarries. So the production is NOT random. There is a strict system of quality control In operation, called Natural Selection.

3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutionists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God?

A photograph of a mountain is not reality, merely a representation of the reality, a mountain. But a photograph implies a photographer. Similarly, the transmission is NOT the reality of the code, just a ‘representation’ of it. And it implies somebody actually transmitted the representation of the real code. The existence of the real code does not imply ‘god’ and more that any other part of reality such as mountains or wind imply ‘god’.

4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?

Living organisms present on earth now have NOT evolved from each other, they have evolved from previously existing ancestors. So looking for intermediate forms in living organisms is wrong. Unless you mean in the sense of being more or less distantly related, in which case you could say the apes are intermediate between humans and lemurs. As regards fossils, the process of fossilization is so rare (dead animals and plants are usually eaten!!) that the fact that we have so MANY intermediate forms is verging on the miraculous! Check out whales, ferns and birds.

5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman?

WRONG!!! But you are not the first to make this mistake. It seems that all modern humans in the broadly Asian European group have evolved from a SMALL GROUP of females, between 7-12 individuals. However, humans in Africa show far more variation.

6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man?

See Above. But this time the group is bigger, about 40 individuals. But remember, this applies only to the modern European based 2nd wave of humans to emerge from Africa. There is far far more variation WITHIN Africa.

7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?

You are comparing eggs and whiskey (or whisky, whatever you choose!) One is natural, one is man made. Like trying to work out why there are no rocks in the shape of houses. Totally different.

8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems?

See above. Eggs and Whiskey again. Not comparing like with like. 50 years of development has gone into computers. Millions of generations of evolution have gone into natural systems.

9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design?

Name me ANY scientist who things the human genome is the result of an ‘accident’ of nature!!!! NO SCIENTIST ANYWHERE BELIEVES THAT!!! Evolution is NOT accidental. Every generation is filtered by the environment, those individuals with flaws do not succeed, or are at least less successful than others. Those with slightly better variations reproduce more.

10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?

Who defines ‘perfection’? To an ‘Evolutionist’ it means the ability to survive, thrive and reproduce in your environment. This does not mean an organism does not have crazy design features!!!! In humans, who would design our eyes the way they are!! Or the path of the sperm duct in males?! We are NOT designed from scratch, but evolve from PREVOIUS designs, with the quirks and flaws inherent in them. Hence the reason why we hiccup, or suddenly wake at night with a ‘falling’ sensation. We have a similar fact in the design of cars. Cars are NOT designed from scratch. The width of your average car now is fixed because of the width of roads. Very wide cars, no matter how good, would not sell. And the width of roads is based on the width of cars 80-100 years ago. And the width of the original cars 100 years ago was based the width of roads 100 years ago which were based on the width of horse and carts 150 years ago. Present design dependent on old facts.

11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?

‘Invariably damaging’????? Says who? Look at animal breeders who have produced hairless cats! A random mutation, and NOT lethal. OK, it would probably, in fact, definitely, not succeed in the wild but for the purpose of my argument it is a non-lethal random mutation. And what is ‘’semi-lethal’? It only half kills you?

12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ?

Firstly, there is no up. down, backwards or forwards in evolution. Simple answer: systems which don’t work die. Birds which fly north for the winter freeze to death. Only the south flying ones live and breed onwards. The only life which survives are the ones that WORK. Damaged ones, less successful ones, are not here. They do not pass on their genes. But remember, evolution does not work in absolutes. It is not important that a stick insect looks perfectly like a stick. Just that it looks more ‘sticky’ than the next stick insect along.

13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?

Living systems exist NOW. They are at the end of billions of years of evolution of living systems. The whole living system has evolved. The steps within the living system which exists now do NOT mimic or represent the evolution of the entire system over the last few billion years.

14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?

Now THAT is a good question!! But don’t fall into the trap of assuming that the present DNA/RNA life base was ALWAYS so. Maybe an ancestral ‘System X’ evolved into an ancestral ‘System Y’ which evolved into an ancestral ‘System DNA’. Complex biochemical systems may have been present before the present DNA/RNA system. Remember, it takes oil based machines to drill for oil. But this seeming paradox disappears when you think that the original oil was drilled for using a previous STEAM POWER based system. A previous complex system led to the development of the present complex system

15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?

There is no ‘upwards and onwards’ in evolution, no direction, no forwards, but no backwards either. But if you check out polyploidy you will see that species DO increase their genetic material. But remember, we have only been able to measure genetic change for the last 30 years or so. Give it time!

16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82?

IT IS NOT ACCIDENTAL OR RANDOM!!!! Every cellular generation is filtered by the environment!!!!! Push clay through a hole and the clay which comes out will be the shape of the hole. Not random!!

17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery?

read your question: “…….MAY have formed……” The origin of life is still a mystery. There are many theories, most involving lipid based ‘micells’, but it is still unknown.

18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

‘all major animal groups’!!? Most of the groups in the cambrian explosion are extinct now, and most modern groups have no representatives there.

19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

“beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought” Would like to read about that. Sounds interesting. Reference, please. Speciation in the Galapagos is based on both environmental change AND isolation!!! As is speciation everywhere. But if beak changes reversed after the drought, why are they still there?

20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Hox genes and hopeful monsters!! The mutations here are not in the ‘wing formation’ genes but in the ‘formation control’ genes. A fascinating topic.

21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Ask an art historian!!!

In fact, Jesus Christ died so that YOU TOO could spend eternity with Him in Heaven. All you need to do is to stop believing in the plainly ridiculous idea that people are ultimately descended from muck, repent of your sins and believe on the ONLY person who can save you, Jesus Christ.

Ok, Jesus did ask us to repent and to believe in him, but where did He mention anything about science or evolution? I would say, as a Christian, that I try to obey Christ’s teachings. But as a Human I fail.

I too used be an evolutionist.
I was lost, but now I have found Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savour.

Good lad.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Did you read the article on Bad Astronomy that goes into detail the 2 main claims of these people (using relativity and denying it) and why they both don't work. It is not even like relativity is difficult to imagine or work out like evolution. You can spend 5 minutes explaining how it doesn't work. Curt acceptance is hardly scientific Wolfsbane


If anything this is a pretty good example of how just because you get a bunch of people with PhDs to sound bite for you doesn't mean you aren't talking nonsense. Something Creationists should think about.

You are a curious fellow Wolfsbane. Someone slaps a sound bite and "Joe Blogs PhD" on a flyer and you think there must be something to what ever they are claiming, yet you regularly ignore the consensus of hundreds of thousands of equally (or more) qualified scientists and regularly accept notions of vast scientific conspiracy and wide spread collusion to suppress evidence and theories that conflict with your religious beliefs.

Did I say anywhere that I accepted their case, curtly or not? No. What I did say was, Seeing it is given good reviews by well-qualified scientists, it must be worth investigating.

I have read curt dismissals of the scientific case of one evolutionist by another, so I know ego and power are as much a factor in 'consensus' science as honest investigation. Sad to say, that applies to a lot of Christian theology as well. I learned long ago not to assume anyone is being totally impartial in their apologetics.

Does that make me more open to conspiracy theories than most? Probably. But I apply my rule to the conspiracy theorists as well, so I'm not that gullible.

_________________________________________________________________
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.