A literal 6 24-hr days?

Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the DNA molecule) concluded that the information stored in that single molecule was so complex, so vast that it COULD NOT have "evolved". It was a statistical impossibility EVEN if every atomic interaction in the universe were to be dedicated to that one purpose. There was not "enough time and atoms" to statistically account for its existence.

He proposed a kind of "put here by aliens" solution because he could not reconcile the vast complexity of that system with the brainless evolutionary mythologies - the evolutionary "process".

And yet our Evolutionist "bretheren" will toss out God's Word in a heartbeat in favor of "an impossibiliyt" even by atheist standards.

Amazing!!

Bob

 

Paul - you did not consider all the options.

By not considering all the options open to infinite God - you set yourself up as His Judge and the Judge of His Word.

Consider that an infinite allpowerful God did not need to "EVOLVE ADAM" to the point that "He could speak to him about the tree of life".

To look at Adam AS the Bible would have it - ON DAY 6 of this planet. He IS ALREADY fully formed and able to communicate, think and act as an adult - perfect, sinless, human and in fellowship with God - AND capable of marriage on day one.

To listen to your argument above you would "Say well I was looking at Adam and he LOOKED to be an adult so I can not possibly DENY that evidence and BELIEVE God that he was just created on Day 6".

Your logic is flawed in that regard.

So also with the case of the univers. The SUN was FORMED and in perfect working condition on day 4.

When God "created it" how far did He create it from the other stars? You don't know? weren't you there?

When God "created it" DID He extend its light to 1000 other worlds on day 1 or did he simply let the process of light "travel" as "the starting conditions"? You don't know? weren't you there to see how that was solved?

Isn't it just possible - that not being ABLE to create a planetary system yourself - you don't actually "know" all the answers yet?

Isn't that even remotely possible?

Sadly - many Christians take the approach of compromising the bible with what they think of science at the moment. But science is ever evolving. Imagine if the Christians took that approach in the days of the alchemists?

That is not the point. The point is that WHEN the Bible EXPLICITLY speaks of "the Creator" and what "God did" who will be the "source of truth" will it be "the speculation of atheists would LIKE to think of their guessworks as SCIENCE"? Or will it be God's OWN Word?

If you really took the route of integrity then you would let the Bible SPEAK to the topic of WHO is the CREATOR and WHAT did He do.

You would look to science to PROVIDED DETAILS that go BEYOND what is found in scripture. Sure God CREATED land animals in day 6 - but what exactly IS a land animal and how do its organs function? This is a perfect blend of the Bible AND REAL science. (Not guesswork mythology and the Bible).

The problem is that the Bible concepts are LINKED - the NT authors and others LINK BACK to the DETAILS of the Genesis text that our atheist evolutionist friends "Want to VOID out " in favor of their "current and evolving guesswork".

Why would any Christian go for such a trade that in fact undermines the very Gospel itself?

Bob

 

(Barbarian observes that while God tells us He created life by natural means, evolutionary theory makes no such claims)

Nope. For example, if God had used magic instead of nature to create the first organisms, it would be of no consequence to evolutionary theory.

Actually, they don't. You'll find few atheists who claim that they know that there is no god. Most just claim that they see no evidence for one.

There are some "fundy atheists" who agree with creationists that God and science are incompatible. They do so for the same reason creationists do; they want to separate God from reality.

You're very wrong there. The evidence is not yet compelling, but it all points to abiogenesis. But since God has already said that the earth and waters brought forth life, that's no problem for a Christian who accepts His word.

Galation observes:
However, in Genesis, God tells us that's how He created life.

Yep. Like the other animals. The Earth brought forth all animals. However, God breathes the breath of life directly into man, and that makes all the difference. We have an immortal soul directly from God.

Christianity is often not accepted by atheists.

Fortunately, science does not (and cannot) comment on the supernatural, and so this is not a problem for scientists.

There is much common ground between atheists and creationists, since both oppose orthodox Christianity.

(Galation observes that God tells us that He created life by natural means)
And for the time being, that's good enough. It should be good enough for you, too.

"Obfuscation" would be denying that the earth and water brought forth life, as God tells us.

Because creationists do not want to accept that statement.

God says it directly in Genesis. Why won't you just accept what He says?

Ah, Bob amends his statement. But Molecular biology, thermodynamics and astrophysics (among others) are major sciences, so it won't do you much good.

Galation observes sciences founded by those who accepted evolution:
Hmm... Molecular biology. (Watson and Crick, Pauling) Thermodynamics (Boltzmann) Evolutionary science. (Darwin, Wallace, et al) Solid-state physics (Shockley) Astrophysics (Penzias and Wilson,Hawking) ...

We know you want us to believe that, but since it's based on evidence, and other sciences, it could be nothing else.

Someone said it was? Evolutionary biology was founded by Darwin. As noted above, only the sciences that were founded before Darwin's discoveries were those that were not founded by men who expressed agreement with evolutionary theory. That should be a wake-up in itself.

Hawking founded an important part of astrophysics, as did Penzias and Wilson. There was no astrophysics per se until the discovery of the microwave background.

You might as well say that all these sciences were founded by men who did not accept resonance bonding. It seems less than honest to complain that people did not accept a phenomenon prior to its discovery.

No, that's wrong. See above.

Biology is now firmly based on evolutionary theory. As Dobzhansky noted, nothing in biology makes sense except in terms of evolution. As the 19th century scientists agreed, it was mere "stamp collecting" until Darwin.

 

It's not just DNA! Take a deck of cards, and shuffle them well. Then deal out the cards, noting the order in which they appear. That order has a probability of less than 1/52!, or about 1/5.2^0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (I think I got the number of 0s right) Anyway, that, too is so unlikely that you wouldn't get the same order once if you dealt one per second for billions of years. That should give you some idea why the probability argument is so foolish.

By they way, you can also do that game, given the genome of your great, great-grandparents to show that you are so statistically unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

Well, you and poker games turn out to be possible, so not too many people take that argument seriously.

However, it should be pointed out that it is creationists who deny God's word in Genesis regarding the origin of life.

 

First of all - the claim that Francis Crick and Emile Borel don't understand basic statistics is absurd.

Secondly your number above is 1/5.2^0 - adding more 0's doesn't matter.

Third the deck of cards DO NOT form into the equivalent of a computer language and ALSO an INSTANCE of a complex PROGRAM in that language as does DNA. This is what Crick was confronted with.

And fourth - why "would a Bible believing Christian" be straining to avoid this obvious point like the plague??? You would have to ALREADY be biased against the word of God to be grasping as you are trying to find "a way out of it" as if Crick "was too stupid to understand basic statistics". You are unwittingly showing your true bias here.

That should give you some idea of why you appear to be so bent on pounding on a brick wall - claiming that "Crick was foolish" regarding basic statistics. Basically you are grasping at straws.

Oh - and by the way - we have not been able to "drop the cards again" and show "ANOTHER ordering" each time we drop them. ONLY ONE system of DNA is known. We have NO WAY to watch MORE successful system emerge in the lab as your ill selected example presumes. Clearly - you are grasping at straws to defend a failed mythology - evolutionism.

But according to your post - you are "supposedly" taking the Bible as true - and then only moving if SHOWN to have a problem. The case above unmasks your supposed starting point.

Again failure to understand the problem - leads to that shallow forray.

The complex system of a computer program that generates 2nd or 3rd generation constructs is "ALSO UNLIKELY" - and points to DESIGN in the system. The DNA program is "UNLIKELY" -- the products that it generates are EXPECTED to be "UNLIKELY" - since it is in fact NOT a system of "RANDOM collissions". Both the printed computer report AND the process of genetics are "UNLIKELY" because both are examples of complex information placed INTO the system INSTEAD of purely random events. This is exactly what Crick observed.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet our Evolutionist "bretheren" will toss out God's Word in a heartbeat in favor of "an impossibility" even by atheist standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the failed argument arleady identified earlier "The airplane exists THEREFORE it must have built ITSELF".

Contrasting the almost infinitely complex systems of the human body to the random state of a deck of cards - merely shows the level to which you are ignoring the obvious.

An organized system works predictably and if complex enough - produces complex results. Hence "biology" can observe the functions of complex systems within your body. They are not "random" (decks of cards falling).

Your equivocation between those two examples - shows a bias to the myths of evolutionism - that is blinded to even the most glaring cases of ordered information placed into complex systems.

Bob

 

As Emile Borel observed any event with a chance less than 1/10^50 will not happen in all of time in all the universe. The DNA problem exceeds that limit by many orders of magnitude. Crick was shown to be correct.

This is because - if the entire universe were a solid cube of electrons ALL capable of producing the desired state IF the right number of collisions occurs - and all the univers for all of time had been trying to produce that state - the 1/10^50th limit would exceed the capacity of the system.

Borel was correct, Crick was correct - your deck of cards illustrations fails to comprehend the magnitude of the problem against the mythologies of evolutionism.

As has been noted by EVEN our atheist evolutionist friends - for "Evolution to be shown in a reliable computer model we will need to discover entirely different systems of math, physics, chemistry and biology".

Entropy doesn't suport it - and statistics shows it to be impossible.

That is not true - "of your deck of cards".

Bob

 

Bob: If life came about as a result of God's laws acting naturally instead of by direct creation of the DNA, then life could not have come from DNA. It is too complex. It would have started from a simpler precuser and evolved to have DNA. Evolution trumps the odds calculations because it builds up things stepwise and then simplifies them stepwise into what would appear to be an irreducibly complex final construction.

 

Meatros

You seem to be laboring under a number of misconceptions. First, did you know that paleontologists can actually be evolutionists? You did not seem to think so in your reply to “A Christian” when you stated, “Also, it's not evolutionists you would be disagreeing with, I believe they would be paleontologists (sp?).”

I did a quick Google search and came up with the fact that water breaks down DNA:
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/newtest.jsp
as does heat at above -80C:
Important DNA isolation points to emphasize are
• -- All tissue samples are frozen immediately after collection in liquid nitrogen or on dry ice.
• -- All tissue and purified DNA are stored at -80°C; use of a -20°C freezer for any length of time can yield DNA with breakdown products that co-chromatograph and interfere with the quantitation of DNA adducts derived from hydrophobic compounds, such as PAHs (Fig. 3). After several months at -20°C, the yield of DNA from tissue samples starts to decline and eventually DNA is not recoverable, whereas, 32P-postlabeling grade DNA can be extracted successfully from tissues stored at -80°C for at least 2 years.
• -- If the DNA samples are stored for an extended period before being postlabeled, storage of whole tissue is preferable to storage of extracted DNA. DNA appears to be stable in whole tissue for at least 2 years and extracted double-stranded DNA is stable in a Tris/EDTA buffer (pH 7.4) for at least 2 months at -80°C.
• -- High quality chemicals must be used for the extraction of DNA. Phenol and m-cresol must be redistilled before use, saturated with nitrogen, and stored at -20°C. However, Boehringer Mannheim sells a molecular biology grade of phenol (No. 100300) that has been redistilled and stored under argon which is suitable for DNA purification. Oxidation of phenol yields quinones that crosslink nucleotides resulting in chromatograms with high backgrounds that are difficult to quantitate.
• From http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm14/dnaisol.html -- in fact, you will find there is a TWO YEAR limit on storage for some types of testing!

In other words, if you did a little checking yourself, you will find that DNA breaks down quite easily and that the idea of ‘checking’ ‘ancient’ DNA against anything modern is a highly questionable undertaking.

And when you say you do not take Genesis literally, I find that interesting. It means that you, with your human brain, are deciding when something in the Bible is correct and when it isn’t. It means you are refusing to take it on its own terms (or reject it on its own terms) and are forcing YOUR terms upon it so that you can attempt to combine God’s mind with man’s mind. That will never work.

You asked what a ‘kind’ is. You have been told. It is the original population of created organisms and their descendants.
Paul of Eugene
The point was NOT whether or not good science can be done regardless of one’s religious beliefs, but that the fact was that Darwin was not a Christian, as some claim, but was, in fact, in rebellion against his Creator, as his own letters show. In the meantime, however, the idea that you stated that religious beliefs don’t matter where good science is concerned really should be applied to creationist Christians as well, don’t you think?

About Barry’s material – if you have to define a theory as ‘complete’ before you are willing to consider it, then I’m afraid you are out on a limb where evolution is concerned as well! It most certainly is NOT a complete theory, but is altering constantly, trying to accommodate all manner of contradicting evidence where evolution is concerned. In addition, it is astronomical evidence as well as our own (human beings’ own) data collection which indicates within all statistical frameworks that the speed of light has slowed, and that Planck’s Constant and atomic mass have both increased even in the last few hundred years. You can ignore the data, but that does not mean these things have not changed. By saying these things have not changed over millions of years, you are denying the work of some very intelligent and incredible scientists of the past, as well as pronouncing Birge, the Berkeley physicist who kept track of those constants through the years, a liar! That does take gumption – I have to hand it to you there!

I enjoy one of the jokes Barry often uses to get a point across. It goes something as follows:
A mathematician and an astronomer were friends. One day the astronomer rushed into the mathematician’s office in a state of high excitement.
“I have discovered something remarkable!” he announced.
“What have you discovered?” asked his friend, the mathematician.
“I have discovered that all odd numbers are prime!” said the astronomer. “Look, one is prime, three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, eleven is prime, thirteen is prime…”
“Hold everything!” interrupted the mathematician. “What about nine? It is divisible by three. It isn’t prime.”
“Oh that,” countered the astronomer, “that’s just observational error.”

Data counts, Paul. You can choose to ignore it, but it is still there. The speed of light has slowed through time. In the meantime, I have told you and Mark and the others to contact Barry himself for responses to your challenges. For the most part I think he has answered them quite thoroughly. You just don’t seem to understand.

You asked why salts aren’t present in the ice cores of Greenland. Because the ice in those cores is the result of precipitation, and I’ve yet to taste salty rain or snow! As far as them being the result of storm cycles rather than seasonal cycles, you are right in that it might be impossible to tell the difference – which is exactly why storm cycles should be seriously considered rather than just assuming things have ‘always’ gone on the way they do now.

You then stated that coal had to form over vast eons of time as there was too much of it for a catastrophic origin. I disagree.

As far as the Hawaiian chain and coral reefs are concerned, you have simply swallowed the long ages explanation hook, line, and sinker. That is your choice, too. You can either research the data or believe what you are told. I used to do the latter. I now do the former. I realized we were being lied to by evolutionists.

I had to chuckle when you told me “Mainstream science is not my "particular" interpretation. God's word is true when properly interpreted, and the evidence from science is your interpretation is wrong. This has happened before in the history of science and religion. I am not alone in this, many christians agree with the findings of science. This is going to be how Christianity survives, should our Lord tarry.” I have a funny feeling, Paul, that not only does God know how to communicate without depending our our feeble attempts at ‘interpretation’ of His communication, but that Christianity will survive despite science because it is of God. The Christian faith depends upon Christ, not man.

You said you don’t see any problem for you with Genesis 1:29-30 and cited the food chain idea that all life EVENTUALLY depended upon plant life. But that is NOT what the Bible is saying there, is it? It is stating directly and succinctly that land animals and birds would depend upon vegetation for their food – directly and not indirectly. Same for man. In order to accept that statement, you had to impose the ‘food chain’ concept on it and say that what it ‘really meant’ was that all things ‘either directly…or indirectly’ are dependant on plant life. You had to change the clear meaning of the passage. Tell me, what do you do with Isaiah 11:6-9?

You then stated that it has been documented that a cell can produce and then use a de novo (brand new – not previously known to the cell before) protein. I would REALLY like reference to that one, as several geneticists I know claim that this has never been seen. So references please, on that one.

You also seem to think positive mutation rates can keep up with natural selection. References, please, with the data. While I am waiting, I might mention that the very term ‘genetic load’ indicates that your claim is wrong.

You denied your faith is in man where evolution is concerned and stated that your faith is in God. The God who is responsible for the Bible? That’s interesting. You really think that He couldn’t get the message right where it disagrees with what modern science has said? What is that other than depending on man more than God?

As for the rest of that post, I am not going to respond to your personal insults.

You next post, on the following page, stated that mainstream science stated the earth was 4 billion +/- years old and the universe itself 14 billion. This is not from the data, Paul. This is from interpretation, and interpretation alone. That is why the ‘age’ keeps changing!

You wrote: ” So I'm not left with the alternative you suggest, to disbelieve the evidence and believe that the earth is only 6 to 8 thousand years old. I'd have to sacrifice my intellectual integrety to do that.” No, you don’t have to sacrifice your integrity to do that. You only have to sacrifice your gullibility. Search for yourself, Paul, and quit going with the herd. Please, please, start thinking for yourself.

In the meantime, I have started another thread on abiogenesis, for to separate it from biological evolution is, as I stated in my closing, creating a false dichotomy.


Galatian
Regardless of your twisting and distortion of the Word of God, Genesis presents creation ex nihilo for time, space and matter, for intelligent life, and for mankind. Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27. That’s good enough for Bible-believing Christians; if it is not good enough for you there is nothing that I know of that can be done to change that.

By the way, Penzias became a believer in the Bible during his work:
From Barry’s notes at a recent lecture:
1965 – Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson – found a microwave background radiation @ 3 K.
Even though temp. of radiation - much lower than predicted – this background radiation -
accepted as proof – cosmos - initially superhot/superdense - & was then expanded out
Arno Penzias - looked at Scripture - God stretching out - heavens.
As a result – ended up accepting Hebrew Scriptures as true. - He said his discovery -
Was to be “expected from the book of Genesis, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”


[please see http://icu.catholicity.com/c02305.htm for confirmation of this from your own Catholic church]

In the meantime, you stated that Linneaus was ‘on record’ as believing humans and apes should be in the same genus. Reference please.

Incredibly, you stated, ” There is much common ground between atheists and creationists, since both oppose orthodox Christianity.” I thought about that, then I had to start laughing. You consider orthodox Christianity to be Roman Catholicism! Many of us do not even consider that religion to be Christian! So with your idea of ‘orthodox Christianity’, of course almost everyone disagrees with you!

You said evolutionary theory is based on evidence. No, it’s not. It’s based on an interpretation of the data which often runs directly contrary to other data (which is conveniently ignored), and is based primarily on the desire to eliminate God from the equation. Your stance as a theistic evolutionist is inherently illogical, unbiblical, and definitely unscientific!

Nor is biology “firmly based on evolutionary theory”. It is taught that way; it is not practiced that way, however! And, actually, no evolutionary ideas are needed at all for classification, identification, cellular mechanisms, genetics, or a host of other areas of biology. It is only in Evolutionary Biology where evolutionary ideas are indispensable.

In your attempt to ‘prove’ the statistical impossibility of any one individual being here, you are misusing statistics to the point of the ridiculous. If someone were to look AHEAD and predict any one individual, then the odds would be enormously against them! However to do as you are attempting to do and look BACK and say that you are here despite the odds is bizarre. The fact that you are here means you had a probability of ONE (it had to happen; necessity) when postdicted. It has nothing to do with prediction based on probability. The fact is that SOME individual will happen.

In the same way, with the cards, the fact is that SOME hand will happen. That probability is 1. Unless you are going to PREdict a specific hand appearing, the probability of some hand appearing is simply 1. AFTER the fact, the probability that that hand would appear is also 1.

However, in dealing with abiogenesis, which has NOT been seen to happen (and therefore cannot be postdicted), the probability argument still stands. There are specific combinations of elements required and predicting them to happen in natural and material circumstances does have direct implications on probability. Thus, the probability argument stands, and it is good. You will note that even the esteemed mathematician Hoyle thought so! Are you as esteemed a mathematician? It was because of this probability argument, which he approached from his own field of expertise, that he has fallen back on panspermia – which only shows how far rebellion against God can take you.

 

Meatros

You seem to be laboring under a number of misconceptions. First, did you know that paleontologists can actually be evolutionists? You did not seem to think so in your reply to “A Christian” when you stated, “Also, it's not evolutionists you would be disagreeing with, I believe they would be paleontologists (sp?).”

I did a quick Google search and came up with the fact that water breaks down DNA:
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/newtest.jsp
as does heat at above -80C:
Important DNA isolation points to emphasize are
• -- All tissue samples are frozen immediately after collection in liquid nitrogen or on dry ice.
• -- All tissue and purified DNA are stored at -80°C; use of a -20°C freezer for any length of time can yield DNA with breakdown products that co-chromatograph and interfere with the quantitation of DNA adducts derived from hydrophobic compounds, such as PAHs (Fig. 3). After several months at -20°C, the yield of DNA from tissue samples starts to decline and eventually DNA is not recoverable, whereas, 32P-postlabeling grade DNA can be extracted successfully from tissues stored at -80°C for at least 2 years.
• -- If the DNA samples are stored for an extended period before being postlabeled, storage of whole tissue is preferable to storage of extracted DNA. DNA appears to be stable in whole tissue for at least 2 years and extracted double-stranded DNA is stable in a Tris/EDTA buffer (pH 7.4) for at least 2 months at -80°C.
• -- High quality chemicals must be used for the extraction of DNA. Phenol and m-cresol must be redistilled before use, saturated with nitrogen, and stored at -20°C. However, Boehringer Mannheim sells a molecular biology grade of phenol (No. 100300) that has been redistilled and stored under argon which is suitable for DNA purification. Oxidation of phenol yields quinones that crosslink nucleotides resulting in chromatograms with high backgrounds that are difficult to quantitate.
• From http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm14/dnaisol.html -- in fact, you will find there is a TWO YEAR limit on storage for some types of testing!

In other words, if you did a little checking yourself, you will find that DNA breaks down quite easily and that the idea of ‘checking’ ‘ancient’ DNA against anything modern is a highly questionable undertaking.

And when you say you do not take Genesis literally, I find that interesting. It means that you, with your human brain, are deciding when something in the Bible is correct and when it isn’t. It means you are refusing to take it on its own terms (or reject it on its own terms) and are forcing YOUR terms upon it so that you can attempt to combine God’s mind with man’s mind. That will never work.

You asked what a ‘kind’ is. You have been told. It is the original population of created organisms and their descendants.
Paul of Eugene
The point was NOT whether or not good science can be done regardless of one’s religious beliefs, but that the fact was that Darwin was not a Christian, as some claim, but was, in fact, in rebellion against his Creator, as his own letters show. In the meantime, however, the idea that you stated that religious beliefs don’t matter where good science is concerned really should be applied to creationist Christians as well, don’t you think?

About Barry’s material – if you have to define a theory as ‘complete’ before you are willing to consider it, then I’m afraid you are out on a limb where evolution is concerned as well! It most certainly is NOT a complete theory, but is altering constantly, trying to accommodate all manner of contradicting evidence where evolution is concerned. In addition, it is astronomical evidence as well as our own (human beings’ own) data collection which indicates within all statistical frameworks that the speed of light has slowed, and that Planck’s Constant and atomic mass have both increased even in the last few hundred years. You can ignore the data, but that does not mean these things have not changed. By saying these things have not changed over millions of years, you are denying the work of some very intelligent and incredible scientists of the past, as well as pronouncing Birge, the Berkeley physicist who kept track of those constants through the years, a liar! That does take gumption – I have to hand it to you there!

I enjoy one of the jokes Barry often uses to get a point across. It goes something as follows:
A mathematician and an astronomer were friends. One day the astronomer rushed into the mathematician’s office in a state of high excitement.
“I have discovered something remarkable!” he announced.
“What have you discovered?” asked his friend, the mathematician.
“I have discovered that all odd numbers are prime!” said the astronomer. “Look, one is prime, three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, eleven is prime, thirteen is prime…”
“Hold everything!” interrupted the mathematician. “What about nine? It is divisible by three. It isn’t prime.”
“Oh that,” countered the astronomer, “that’s just observational error.”

Data counts, Paul. You can choose to ignore it, but it is still there. The speed of light has slowed through time. In the meantime, I have told you and Mark and the others to contact Barry himself for responses to your challenges. For the most part I think he has answered them quite thoroughly. You just don’t seem to understand.

You asked why salts aren’t present in the ice cores of Greenland. Because the ice in those cores is the result of precipitation, and I’ve yet to taste salty rain or snow! As far as them being the result of storm cycles rather than seasonal cycles, you are right in that it might be impossible to tell the difference – which is exactly why storm cycles should be seriously considered rather than just assuming things have ‘always’ gone on the way they do now.

You then stated that coal had to form over vast eons of time as there was too much of it for a catastrophic origin. I disagree.

As far as the Hawaiian chain and coral reefs are concerned, you have simply swallowed the long ages explanation hook, line, and sinker. That is your choice, too. You can either research the data or believe what you are told. I used to do the latter. I now do the former. I realized we were being lied to by evolutionists.

I had to chuckle when you told me “Mainstream science is not my "particular" interpretation. God's word is true when properly interpreted, and the evidence from science is your interpretation is wrong. This has happened before in the history of science and religion. I am not alone in this, many christians agree with the findings of science. This is going to be how Christianity survives, should our Lord tarry.” I have a funny feeling, Paul, that not only does God know how to communicate without depending our our feeble attempts at ‘interpretation’ of His communication, but that Christianity will survive despite science because it is of God. The Christian faith depends upon Christ, not man.

You said you don’t see any problem for you with Genesis 1:29-30 and cited the food chain idea that all life EVENTUALLY depended upon plant life. But that is NOT what the Bible is saying there, is it? It is stating directly and succinctly that land animals and birds would depend upon vegetation for their food – directly and not indirectly. Same for man. In order to accept that statement, you had to impose the ‘food chain’ concept on it and say that what it ‘really meant’ was that all things ‘either directly…or indirectly’ are dependant on plant life. You had to change the clear meaning of the passage. Tell me, what do you do with Isaiah 11:6-9?

You then stated that it has been documented that a cell can produce and then use a de novo (brand new – not previously known to the cell before) protein. I would REALLY like reference to that one, as several geneticists I know claim that this has never been seen. So references please, on that one.

You also seem to think positive mutation rates can keep up with natural selection. References, please, with the data. While I am waiting, I might mention that the very term ‘genetic load’ indicates that your claim is wrong.

You denied your faith is in man where evolution is concerned and stated that your faith is in God. The God who is responsible for the Bible? That’s interesting. You really think that He couldn’t get the message right where it disagrees with what modern science has said? What is that other than depending on man more than God?

As for the rest of that post, I am not going to respond to your personal insults.

You next post, on the following page, stated that mainstream science stated the earth was 4 billion +/- years old and the universe itself 14 billion. This is not from the data, Paul. This is from interpretation, and interpretation alone. That is why the ‘age’ keeps changing!

You wrote: ” So I'm not left with the alternative you suggest, to disbelieve the evidence and believe that the earth is only 6 to 8 thousand years old. I'd have to sacrifice my intellectual integrety to do that.” No, you don’t have to sacrifice your integrity to do that. You only have to sacrifice your gullibility. Search for yourself, Paul, and quit going with the herd. Please, please, start thinking for yourself.

In the meantime, I have started another thread on abiogenesis, for to separate it from biological evolution is, as I stated in my closing, creating a false dichotomy.


Galatian
Regardless of your twisting and distortion of the Word of God, Genesis presents creation ex nihilo for time, space and matter, for intelligent life, and for mankind. Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27. That’s good enough for Bible-believing Christians; if it is not good enough for you there is nothing that I know of that can be done to change that.

By the way, Penzias became a believer in the Bible during his work:
From Barry’s notes at a recent lecture:
1965 – Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson – found a microwave background radiation @ 3 K.
Even though temp. of radiation - much lower than predicted – this background radiation -
accepted as proof – cosmos - initially superhot/superdense - & was then expanded out
Arno Penzias - looked at Scripture - God stretching out - heavens.
As a result – ended up accepting Hebrew Scriptures as true. - He said his discovery -
Was to be “expected from the book of Genesis, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”


[please see http://icu.catholicity.com/c02305.htm for confirmation of this from your own Catholic church]

In the meantime, you stated that Linneaus was ‘on record’ as believing humans and apes should be in the same genus. Reference please.

Incredibly, you stated, ” There is much common ground between atheists and creationists, since both oppose orthodox Christianity.” I thought about that, then I had to start laughing. You consider orthodox Christianity to be Roman Catholicism! Many of us do not even consider that religion to be Christian! So with your idea of ‘orthodox Christianity’, of course almost everyone disagrees with you!

You said evolutionary theory is based on evidence. No, it’s not. It’s based on an interpretation of the data which often runs directly contrary to other data (which is conveniently ignored), and is based primarily on the desire to eliminate God from the equation. Your stance as a theistic evolutionist is inherently illogical, unbiblical, and definitely unscientific!

Nor is biology “firmly based on evolutionary theory”. It is taught that way; it is not practiced that way, however! And, actually, no evolutionary ideas are needed at all for classification, identification, cellular mechanisms, genetics, or a host of other areas of biology. It is only in Evolutionary Biology where evolutionary ideas are indispensable.

In your attempt to ‘prove’ the statistical impossibility of any one individual being here, you are misusing statistics to the point of the ridiculous. If someone were to look AHEAD and predict any one individual, then the odds would be enormously against them! However to do as you are attempting to do and look BACK and say that you are here despite the odds is bizarre. The fact that you are here means you had a probability of ONE (it had to happen; necessity) when postdicted. It has nothing to do with prediction based on probability. The fact is that SOME individual will happen.

In the same way, with the cards, the fact is that SOME hand will happen. That probability is 1. Unless you are going to PREdict a specific hand appearing, the probability of some hand appearing is simply 1. AFTER the fact, the probability that that hand would appear is also 1.

However, in dealing with abiogenesis, which has NOT been seen to happen (and therefore cannot be postdicted), the probability argument still stands. There are specific combinations of elements required and predicting them to happen in natural and material circumstances does have direct implications on probability. Thus, the probability argument stands, and it is good. You will note that even the esteemed mathematician Hoyle thought so! Are you as esteemed a mathematician? It was because of this probability argument, which he approached from his own field of expertise, that he has fallen back on panspermia – which only shows how far rebellion against God can take you.

 

It's what He says, Helen. Literalists like to think that they take God at His word, but in reality, they do more "adjusting" than the rest of us.

God says that we, too were created from the Earth. But what's different is that He breathed into us the breath of life. There's no shame in it; we are a little less than the angels, but still His children.

Yep. Like me. A believer. But we can accept things like the microwave background as factual. There is no inconsistency between the Big Bang and scripture. God said "Let there be light", and there was.

Abiogenesis is like that. God has told us that He created life by natural means, but only recently has science began to understand a little about how it happened.

[In the meantime, you stated that Linneaus was ‘on record’ as believing humans and apes should be in the same genus. Reference please.

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character, by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none...But if I had called a man an ape, or vice versa, I should have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so" (Futuyma 1982).

And Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans, and Methodists, and Presbyterians, and ... so on. All orthodox.

There are always breakaway groups that tell their followers that the orthodox are "not real Christians". But when one tries to shove people away from God, one only distances one's self from God. Pity them.

Hardly. About half of all Christians are Roman Catholics, with a huge share taken by Eastern Rite, Anglicans, and other orthodox Prostestent Churches. In truth, your opinion is a minority even in America, and almost nonexistent elsewhere.

Sorry. Challenge an evolutionist, and he'll start to cite evidence. That is because evolutionary theory is a science.

Yes, evidence. That's why it's a science.

That hasn't been a very convincing argument, largely because the "other data" is most often a misunderstanding, or even fraudulent. That is not the way to convince scientists.

Nonsense. Most of us are theists. You know better than that.

I know you want to believe it so, but the evidence...

It certainly is. One finds evolutionary problems in all sorts of disciplines, like medicine, pharmacology, horticulture, veteranary medicine, etc.

Nope. That's demonstrably wrong. Genetics, for example, gives us a demonstration of phylogenies that match those obtained by anatomical and fossil evidence. Mitochondria and chloroplasts turn out to be obligate endosymbionts, with their own, bacterial DNA, and separate replication. Linneaus discovered what any reasonable person would, who did an extensive survey of living things; they can be classified in the same way as a family tree. Later, genetics and molecular biology confirmed why they appear to be descended from each other. They are.

YES! I knew one of you would get it. You see, Crick looked back and figured the probability of the molecule as it turned out. That is as invalid as being amazed because a shuffled deck of cards or a particular human's genome is so unlikely. You can't calculate probabilities after the fact, and expect any meaningful results.

Precisely. DNA has a probability of ONE. Some kind of biological molecule like DNA was going to happen. It turned out to be the one we got.

[quote}In the same way, with the cards, the fact is that SOME hand will happen. That probability is 1. Unless you are going to PREdict a specific hand appearing,[/quote]

Or a specific molecular configuration,

And after the fact, the probability of DNA is 1.

Sorry, that excuse won't work. Even if we don't know something, the same probabilities apply. So you can't use it to rule out abiogenesis. If abiogenesis happened, there is nothing surprising about the particular way it did, anymore than a particular shuffled deck is.

Sorry. It's not going to convince anyone who understands statistics.

Hoyle was actually an astronomer and physicist. And an evolutionist, among other things. He did have some truly weird ideas. Among them, he never did concede that his charge of Archaeopteryx feathers being faked was false, even when microscopic examination of the fossil and counterpart matched in a way that could not have been forged.

It's just a demonstration of the way really bright guys can have really silly fixations. Hoyle might be right about panspermia, since it's at least theoretically possible, and we now know that the chemicals produced by the Miller-Urey experiment, including amino acids, have been produced naturally beyond the Earth.

I'm not as esteemed as an astronomer, but as a mathematician, maybe. I took a lot of statistics on the way to my master's, and Hoyle's folly is stupendously wrong on the statistics alone. There are some other problems with it as well, but that is the big one.

Astronomy? :confused:

Fell. He's dead, you know.

If that's how God decided to do it, it's fine with me. It should be fine with you, too.

 

Galatian, the quote was listed as from Futuyama with out book, article, or publisher. I don't even know if he was quoting Linnaeus or, if he was, if he was quoting him correctly.

Therefore, primary reference, please.

As for the rest of your post, all the declarations in the world do not change what the Bible says. As for the RC church considering the other groups Christian, not according to the Council of Trent and Vatican II which ratified Trent in the whole. That is for another thread, but it is simply evidence of the fact that your pronouncements are not necessarily true.

 

I've seen it before. And yes, that's what he said. I'll see if I can get a primary reference. But it's true. In the 13th edition, in 1789,Johann Friedrich Gmelin, editor of the Linnaeus' "Systema naturae", changed Homo troglodytes to Pan troglodytes. It turns out that Linneaus thought that chimps were humans. By "apes", he meant other than the anthropoid apes.

If you can find an edition prior to the 13th, it's in there.

Yep. God says that the Earth and waters brought forth life. He did it by natural means, as he does most things. There's nothing wrong with that sort of creation. We are creatures of God, even if He uses nature to make us.

What the Church teaches today is that while non-Catholics are in error in some ways, they remain Christians and salvation is open to them as it would be to any Catholic.

We don't spend much time calling other denominations "not real Christians". It's not something God wants any of us doing.

Fact is, the Catholic Church doesn't even rule out the salvation of non-Christians. God is the only arbiter of who will be saved, and He can save anyone, even someone who has never had the opportunity to hear the name of Jesus.

 

True enough.

Bob

 

Because, as Dobzhansky noted, nothing makes sense in biology except in context of evolution, you will find that creationists are exceedingly rare among working biologists.

You might as well tell an engineer that his occupation had no need of physics.

It has often been noted that those with more education are more likely to accept evolution. But it goes farther than that. Those with degrees in science are even more likely to do so. And those with degrees in biology are even more so.

When the people who know most about something agree on it, there's usually a reason.

 

Isn't it amazing how well biology did before either Darwin or Dobzhansky?

True there are no evolutionary biologists who are creationists -- but practicing biologists is a different story! Quite a few creationists in that field...

 

The vast majority of what we know about biology has been learned since Darwin. In about 150 years since Darwin, biology has become a science on par with other major scientists. I'd say that was a good indicator. No, biology didn't do so well prior to Darwin. It was, as one biologist admitted "mere stamp-collecting" until it was given a theoretical basis.

In fact, there are few creationists in any biological science. As noted earlier, the people who know most about the subject are least likely to be creationists.

As you know, they are a tiny minority of biologists. Fewer in biology than in any other science.

From Project Steve:

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism.

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?

This April, Stephen Hawkings became #300 among Steves (has to be Steven, Stephan, or Stephany, with a PhD in science to qualify)

How many Steves among scientists are creationists?

 

This has probably been addressed, but yes I knew that paleontologists can actually be evolutionists. You don't give me much credit do you Helen? You failed to see the point I was making though. Would you complain to a biologist about how old the stars are?

Now Helen, don't put lies in my mouth. I didn't say Genesis wasn't correct, but perhaps I should have said that I didn't take Genesis as a literal history, which I feel it's clearly not meant to be. Therefor the rest of your strawman falls down.
So have you been able to explain the meteor craters yet?

 

The fact is that evolutionists (who claim to be
"Christian"), on the whole, have a problem accepting divine intervention of a PHYSICAL nature.

They are happy to accept religion on a purely
spritual level-----when & where it is conveniet.
They place their god in a shrine where they can visit him when it is appropriate for them to do so
(heaven forbid that they consider him in their
scientific research-----they might be the laughing stock).

GOD, who in times past has interacted with nature
and communicated DIRECTLY with selected men is
TOTALLY outside their mindset. Though it does
seem to me that they have a tendency to need
statuary, edifices, and an administration to
direct their energy or keep their gaze focused.

[ May 29, 2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

Odd. I've never known one like that.

It happens that religion is spiritual. It concerns itself with the soul. But it also has an application in the physical world, in our ethical and moral behavior toward Him and others.

Yep. A plumber who told people that he had to exorcise the demons of toilet blockage would certainly be regarded with amusement. He wouldn't be very effective as a plumber, would he? What makes you think science is different?

Nope. Science doesn't rule out miracles. It just can't explain them.

Statues are not that common in science facilities, although you sometimes see them in front of the building. No one really pays much attention to them.

 

The Galatian:

You are right. True science doesn't rule out
miracles, only evolution does that and evolution
isn't true science. It is only an hypothesis
founded in agnosticism.

Your joke about the plumber is funny but hardly
fits. You shouldn't care what people think, you
should focus on finding the truth. Science is
impartial, it is man that isn't.