Dinosaurs and the bible...

[Adam Knowlden]

For those interested here is an excellent research paper from a Creation standpoint! Enjoy!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/pdf_notice.asp?pdf=/home/area/magazines%0D/TJ/docs/tjv11n2_extinct.pdf

[Venom]

Thanks bro. /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Peter Jackson]

Dinosaurs in the bible eh? Didn't know you were in the bible OldSchool. Sorry, just joking, haven't slept much lately, feeling a little giddy.

[William Ustav]

Thank you, adam!!! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I've just recently started to dwell into the subject dinosaurs in the Bible, and it's really overwhelming how awesome it is! That behemoth in Job 40 is I guess the best example /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

And on the more scientific bases, the finding of a tyrannosaurus rex bone with actual blood traces (or something) in the bones which could not have been able to preserve during millions of years, is also a pretty strong evidencial finding for the accuracy of the scripture.

[Omskakas]

Everybody sees what they want to see. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

But I find it fascinating that the article really says that the earth was bombarded with around 150 meteors during the flood. /forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Also, there were dinosaurs from size of a chicken to gargantuan size. I've always wondered why Noah didn't take a single pair on the ark with him... /forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always wondered why Noah didn't take a single pair on the ark with him...

[/ QUOTE ]

You joking? /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Yes he did.

[Omskakas]

[ QUOTE ]

You joking? /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Yes he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which species if I may ask?

[Venom]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/AfterEden/cartoons/ae7-23-2001.gif http://www.answersingenesis.org/AfterEden/cartoons/ae5-14-2001.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You joking? /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Yes he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which species if I may ask?

[/ QUOTE ]

By now you should know it would not be species. But the created Kinds. /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif Read this article, Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp)

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody sees what they want to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or put another way, it is our starting axioms which determine how we interpret the evidence.

One axiom might postulate that dinosaurs turned into birds.
However, the number one fossil in the world for this belief is regarded as 100 percent bird.

Feducia the top expert in the world on the subject states

<font color="green"> " The true origin of birds is still up in the air. " </font>

Why, Simply because the best fossil for evolution proves nothing, accept that Birds have always been birds. Here is what he has to say about the matter in the scientific journal science

Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, 'Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of WormsScience 259(5096):764;65, 5 February, 1993


<font color="blue"> Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble'is going to change that
</font>

But what about experimental evidence, why does he state that Bird evolution is a mystery? I would say because it never happened! But he states why, according to the following evidence in the journal " Science "

"New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is 'almost impossible' for the species to be closely related."

Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, 'Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science 278(5338):66624 October 1997, with a perspective by Richard Hinchliffe, 'The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?' on pp. ;7



Even by the evolutionists only method they admit, it couldnt have happened.

Now, the most outspoken scientific journal on evolution admits Bird evolution could not have taken place

<font color="blue"> K. Padian and L.M. Chiappe, The Origin of Birds and their Flight, Scientific American, 278(2), ;47, Feb. 1998; quote on p. 43

the proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal </font>

Scientific America, also admits the following in Last March's issue

by Richard Prum and Alan Brush, March 2003, pp. 84&amp;#8211;93

[ QUOTE ]
How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve? &amp;#8230; Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Translation

Though evolution can explain simple variation, they cannot explain increases in information which would lead to vertical evolution.

This is March 2003 and this is the " current " state of evolution.

What did that same issue say about evolutions most prized fossil evidence?

" Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today's birds "


Here is an alternative explanation. They didn't evolve, they were created, which is why they are quote " indistinguishable "


Creationists start with the Axiom that they were created.
We also believe that no vertical evolution has taken place, i.e. an increase in genetic information.

And our axiom also has to do with the Flood.

What do we see in the fossil record? Does it support catastrophism or evolutionary uniforminatriumism?

<font color="blue"> Gould, S. J. Paleobiology, 6(1), p. 120
</font>

He states

[ QUOTE ]
" The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed


[/ QUOTE ]


That is the evidence, how it is interpreted is another thing. It fits within a catastrophic frame work.

In fact much evidence regarding the Dinosaurs fits within a Flood frame work

For example, in a notable book by the Evolutionist
Allan change on page 150 of "A New Look At the Dinosaurs"

He states

[ QUOTE ]
'Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists'



[/ QUOTE ]

The flood model actually fits perfect with this and provides an explanation. As Ken Ham states

[ QUOTE ]
At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals be come extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).



[/ QUOTE ]

There are also several evidences which point to rapid stratification. And we have examples of rapid stratification today. A few of these evidences are

polystrate fossils ;tree trunks, for example, running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the trunks would have rotted away.

delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units such as ripple marks and footprints indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited.

lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps.

lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind).


And there is evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed

Many historical accounts of living animals, which were known as 'dragons' are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs

Unmineralized 'unfossilized'dinosaur bones. How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old.


Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material'in the Morrison formation in North America. This is another indication that the strata do not represent eras of life on earth. If the strata represent an age of dinosaurs, what did they eat? A large Apatosaurus would need over three tonnes of vegetation per day, yet there is no indication of significant vegetation in many of these dinosaur-bearing strata. In other words, we see buried dinosaurs, not buried ecosystems or an Age of Dinosaurs.


the flood model fits well with the evidences.

[William Ustav]

Awesome response, Jacob! /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Also, I might add one thing. It's very funny why people think that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible. The word dinosaur wasn't first used until in 1841, by Sir Richard Owen. It simply means 'terrible lizard' in greek. So it would be fairly strange if the word dinosaur was used in a translation from 1611 (KJV) /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Therefore, the usage of names such as 'dragon' (which actually appears in the old testament about 30 times, about both landliving and underwaterliving dragons /forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif ) and 'behemoth' don't seem so out of place, now do they? /forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody sees what they want to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Therefore evolutionists are very quick to dismiss the usage of 'dragon' and 'behemoth' in the Bible as substitutes for dinosaurs. And to add even more structure to this argument, here's a quote from the book of Job in the Old Testament:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Job 40 </font> 15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically an extremely accurate description of a very large dinosaur as, say, Brachiosaurus. Don't you agree Omskakas? /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Also, you need some quotes about flying dinosaurs such as Pteranodon?

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Isaiah 30</font> [/b]6 The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, the Bible is full of descriptions of dinosaurs. Why evolutionists still refuse to see them that way is not yet clear.

/forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Omskakas]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically, the Bible is full of descriptions of dinosaurs. Why evolutionists still refuse to see them that way is not yet clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's because creationism is not considered as a part of science as long as you can't detect the creator with scientific methods.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm

What bothers me mostly with bringing God into any scientific theory/explanation is that you can explain everything with it and no-one can really argue back.
-Why are galaxies placed where they are now?
-Because God made them so.
-Why do many plant and animal species have so much morphological and genetical similarities?
-Because God made them so.
-Where all the water came from during the great flood and where it went after the flood?
-God is almighty, he can make things appear and disappear at will.

You see? It makes very boring science. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

The only thing with you really can counter argue that logic is to ask to show The Creator.

[ZachE84]

Seems very interesting, but long, ill print it out and read it at work. Ill definitly post some questions =]

[William Ustav]

I'll answer your questions from an evolutionists standpoint.

[ QUOTE ]


-Why are galaxies placed where they are now?
- <font color="red"> Nobody knows. But it just happened. </font>
-Why do many plant and animal species have so much morphological and genetical similarities?
- <font color="red"> Because we all evolved from a mistake </font>
-Where all the water came from during the great flood and where it went after the flood?
- <font color="red"> The flood never existed. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

see? That's even MORe boring /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

And you ask me to show you the creator? I've talked to God. He's talked to me. I can testify to that.

He won't show himself to you if you won't let Him. Let Him, and He will.

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it's because creationism is not considered as a part of science

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither is evolution.

And really your little show of how it's impossible to argue with us is unnecessary. I didn't even once use the phrase "this is so because God did this". I showed clear usage of dinosaurs in history books (the books of the Bible) that have been proven accurate many times, that were written long before any dinosaur bones were found and put together.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it's because creationism is not considered as a part of science as long as you can't detect the creator with scientific methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bro, have you read anything we have said? Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence. The issue is that you indeed can detect the Creator, and only one who is a hardend athiest will ignore that evidence.

Stephen C. Meyer rightly notes that, "indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."3 Thus, like any true scientific theory, intelligent design theory begins with empirical observations from the natural world.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> "No one disputes that there is such a thing as information. As Keith Devlin (1991, p. 1) remarks, "Our very lives depend upon it, upon its gathering, storage, manipulation, transmission, security, and so on. Huge amounts of money change hands in exchange for information. People talk about it all the time. Lives are lost in its pursuit. Vast commercial empires are created in order to manufacture equipment to handle it."
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Fred Dretske saying:
"Information theory identifies the amount of information associated with, or generated by, the occurrence of an event (or the realization of a state of affairs) with the reduction in uncertainty, the elimination of possibilities, represented by that event or state of affairs."2
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> Robert Stalnaker:
"Content requires contingency. To learn something, to acquire information, is to rule out possibilities. To understand the information conveyed in a communication is to know what possibilities would be excluded by its truth" </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Complexities of information are given by assigning probabilities to the excluded scenarios. When our observed scenario has a low probability and excluded scenarios have a high probability, we have information of high complexity. Through a mathematical transformation involving logarithms, probabilities of scenarios can be converted into units of information, measured in bits. DNA as a genetic molecule contains information because it tells you what to produce--to produce one entity rather than to produce other entities. This means it has information. (Now perhaps a DNA molecule on its own without the machinery to produce the proteins wouldn't have nearly as much information. So when I speak of DNA, in this context I mean the entire machinery for using the genetic code to create biological structures.)

Functions are biological features which do things for the organism. The purpose of intelligent design theory is to look at various functions and ask if they bear the marks of something which has been designed by an intelligence.

So, in other words, when we see in the biological structure-producing DNA machinery the ability to create some structures, and not others, which perform some specific action and not some other specific action, we can legitimately say that we have complex genetic information. When we specify this information as necessary for some function given a pre-existing pattern, then we can say it was designed. This is called "complex specified information" or "CSI".

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idempirical.gif

Figure 1. Diagram showing different processes which can produced entities: natural processes (chance-law based processes), intelligent design, or unknown natural laws. Only within intelligent design theory is specified complexity, and a special case of specified complexity--irreducible complexity--found. Thus, at this point, intelligent design theory exclusively predicts that specified complex information will be found.

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/designspectrum.gif

Figure 2. Point A represents something probably made by natural processes. Point B represents something made by intelligent design. Curve C represents the upper limit to what natural processes can produce. Inferences made from both points A and B are based upon probabilities.

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/designevolutionspectrum.jpg

Figure 3. Design detection might be rudimentarily seen as a spectrum, as a function of information content. Structures with low information content are best described as having been produced by variation(micro-evolution), while those with high information content are best explained through design.

Sources:

2. Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by William Dembski as found at http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm.

3. DNA and Other Designs by Stephen C. Meyer as found at http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm.

4. No Free Lunch by William Dembski (2001).

5. The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design by William Dembski.

Here is a great article from the access research network group: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

DNA is the most complex information structure in existance.

A blurp from SETI would be considered proof of intelligence, yet the complex structure and messaging system of DNA is blind random chance?

[ QUOTE ]
What bothers me mostly with bringing God into any scientific theory/explanation is that you can explain everything with it and no-one can really argue back.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see how evolution does the exact same thing!?

For one, what you are doing is showing more axioms you adhere too, in which ALL evidence MUST be weighed. And that is the axiom of naturalism. You believe, no matter if a sturcture such as the complex messaging and coding system of DNA is indeed designed by intelligence, it MUST be explained naturalistically or it can not be explained scientifically? That is a bad conclusion. And the greatests scientists throughout time have not adhered to this principle. This is a new ideology, and a flawed one.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are galaxies placed where they are now?
-Because God made them so.
-Why do many plant and animal species have so much morphological and genetical similarities?
-Because God made them so.
-Where all the water came from during the great flood and where it went after the flood?
-God is almighty, he can make things appear and disappear at will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. That is bad debate tactics.

You have essentially created strawman analogies, and then attacked them. So what, anyone can do that. Talk about bad science.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are galaxies placed where they are now?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the big bang says so! So somehow it must work, because after all evolution is true!!! Sure, some of the paper work may not fit, but the beginning assumptions can never be questioned! Because to assume supernaturalism is not science!

Then let me give you an alternative! Stay out of origin discussions! It is impossible to discuss origins in a naturalistic-only scenario. And evolutionists have shown this time and time again.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do many plant and animal species have so much morphological and genetical similarities?
-Because God made them so.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! Give me a break! Here we go again, "similarities prove common ancestory!" That can just as easily prove common design. Talk about genetic similarities!? Of course we are referring to chimps and man, who have billions of neuclotide differences. And yet only 3 mutations at this level cause disaster to the organism.

[ QUOTE ]
-Where all the water came from during the great flood and where it went after the flood?
-God is almighty, he can make things appear and disappear at will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of devising simplistic strawmen arguements, you should do series investigation before making such claims.

The bible is clear the water came from the fountains of the deep. We can get into that if you want. But this explains a lot of current phenomina.

WHere did the water go? WHo said it left! Have you ever been to the Pacific ocean? It is enourmous! The earth is 70% water! The bible says the waters rushed down, and the mountains arose. Carving out structures like the Grand Canyon in a matter of hours.

"There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8–11 note ‘waves’). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah’s day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters! "

"New continental landmasses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were levelled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers). We need to remember that nearly 70 percent of the earth’s surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins."

" The catastrophic plate tectonics model gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the flood.

As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents.[2] The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially toward the end of the flood."

A.A. Snelling, ‘Uluru and Kata Tjuta: Testimony to the Flood’, Creation 20(2):36–40, 1998.

Before creating strawmen arguements and attacking them, you should see what Creationsist actually say. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

And thank you for the link! They back up what we've been saying the entire time...that vertical evolution is not science!

[ QUOTE ]
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

But in order to realize whether this is a valid concept or not, we need to understand what Science really is.

Here is a typical dictionary definition of Science: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the defenition of "science" is ususally a biased one based upon the terms of the users axioms.

Now, I have tried repeatedly to explian the differences between origin sciences and operational science. All this author has done is demonstrate a defeniton of operational science. No creationists objects to operational science. This is the science that put men on the moon, allows us to listen to MP3's as we work out, and drive to work each day.

But there is indeed a distinct difference between operational science and origins science. Origins science is the oppostie of the ascribed defenition given in that article. It is not testable, repeatable, or experimental. We can not re-create the origin of the universe in the lab and we can not re-observe the phenomina.

However, evolutionists are guilty of trying to mix the two types of sciences as though evolution is operational. Then they give thousands of examples of varation, such as 250 types of dogs demonstrating operationalistic science and claim that proves vertical evolution which is entirely originistic!

For example,

Richard Dickerson, an authority in chemical evolution and a professing theist, has said:

<font color="red"> ‘Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.’1
</font>

Evolutionary 'science' is not necessarily a search for truth, as we used to be told, but a game in which scientists try to find naturalistic causes, even for the origin of the universe and all in it.

Even though scientists never cite any real scientific evidence for evolution, doctrinaire evolutionists insist there is such evidence, because any alternative is outlawed by the rules.

<font color="blue"> In other words, it’s natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature—and hence a Designer.’3
</font>

Dickerson, R.E., The Game of Science, Perspectives on Science and Faith 44:137, June 1992.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

The important question is not ‘Is it science?’ We can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that we don’t like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

[ QUOTE ]
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

[ QUOTE ]
‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’2

[/ QUOTE ]

So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.

Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant. This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

see: http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing with you really can counter argue that logic is to ask to show The Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman and red herring attacks are not logic at all, but illogical. I don't have to demonstrate logical answers to these questions, you have to show logically that is the conclusions we jump to, and moreover, that the arguements do not stay within the parameters of your self-serving defenitions of "science", ie. you are not guilty of the exact same thing, as we state evolution is inherently religiuos, and more so that creation.

[Omskakas]

Ok, where to start... /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif First, those examples were oversimplified on purpose. My intention was to point that whenever you draw God on a discussion you can use it as a wild card and counter everything with it.

But thanks for correcting me about the flood thing. I could make the last question in form: What made the water come from earths crust and what made the ground rise? /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't really wish to continue discussion about intelligent design versus evolution. It's going to be an endless debate what can or can't have happened.

But about supernatural vs. non-supernatural world view. I have my reasons why I'm skeptic about everything supernatural. And science doesn't count the supernatural phenomenons because those can't be tested with scientific methods. It's a matter of belief. And I don't want to attack anyones beliefs.

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]
And science doesn't count the supernatural phenomenons because those can't be tested with scientific methods. It's a matter of belief. And I don't want to attack anyones beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

We somehow always end up in the same place, omskakas - that's the exact problem with evolution and any other origins science - it can't be tested with scientific methods.

I love the debates! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif They get me so pumped up!

[Omskakas]

[ QUOTE ]

I love the debates! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif They get me so pumped up!

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol! /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[William Ustav]

Hey, ommie - might as well ask this now /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

How can the big bang even in any way be explained? I'm not trying to be a wise guy or anything, I'm just curious.

[Omskakas]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, ommie - might as well ask this now /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

How can the big bang even in any way be explained? I'm not trying to be a wise guy or anything, I'm just curious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't ask me. I'm not reading physics. I'm just a humble botanist. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[William Ustav]

LOL!!!

Den var bra /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif Men ärligt - finns det nån teori?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[bennyhanna1]

cool article bro, that used to be somethign that i was a little sketchy on! thanks again

[Adam Knowlden]

Hey bro. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It's a matter of belief. And I don't want to attack anyones beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand I don't think of it that way at all. No offense taken. You are always extremely polite in the debates.

But I have to say, I don't believe you are honestly taking a look at the Creation viewpoint of the topics.

I used to believe heavily in evolution, so I know their ideology, but I would suggest studying current creation articles and journals to better grasp the concepts.

[ QUOTE ]
What made the water come from earths crust and what made the ground rise?

[/ QUOTE ]

First off all Osmaskas, make no mistake about it, Creation appeals to super-naturalism. We are not going to deny that at all. We just wish evolutionists would admit they have a religion in these areas. We do proclaim that evolution is just as guilty of this application, and I will explain more of that later.

But first I'm going to give you a quick bible lesson. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif So bare with me...

Gen 1:1a is vitally clear:

<font color="red"> In the beginning God created </font>

I do not deny, that I believe that with all of my being. I believe that God reveals Himself, through science and logic.

But believing this quote declares several things.

1. The existance of God.

Destroyed: Atheism- The belief that there is no God. (Agnostism as well, as agnostsism is the same philsophy as atheism, living life as if there is no God.)

2. The Eternalness of God.

Pslam 90:2 declares-<font color="red"> 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
</font>

Destroyed: Pantheism- the belief that God is in nature and is nature.

3. The exclusiveness of God.

<font color="blue"> 35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. </font>

Destroyed: Polytheism: The belief that there is more than one God.

4. He is a God whose power is unlimited.

<font color="brown">17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
</font>

5. His integrity is unquestionable

<font color="red">18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation
</font>

Gen. 1:1 declares, there is a God, there is only one God, He is eternal, above and beyond nature, and has infinte power and unquestionable integrity. The bible also declares he is ominpresent(everywhere at once) and all knowing.

Gen. 1 is more than a revelation of Creation, it is a revelation of the Creator!

So by no means do I declare that Creation has naturalistic explanations for everything!

That is your axiom not mine. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

But the logical alternative reveals that naturalism may not be the correct axiom to begin with, therefore you are never going to fully understand the universe through a naturalistic mindset.

Evolutionists do not want to consider that axiom.
Although logically, it may just be the exact case!

For example, "Where did matter come from?"

Natrualistically, It can not be created or destroyed, so logically,

-it was either super-naturally created or

-it is eternal in some manner.

We feel confident in saying, "God created matter supernaturally".

Evolutionists have no idea how matter came into existance either, and must admit it "created" itself.

Creationists believe God created matter supernaturally. In other words we can predicte there is no natural explanation for the origin of matter.

Instead of accepting the fact that "God created", evolutionists appeal to cosmologies that reveal more supernatural miracles than creation theory could ever concieve, that only backs up their religious zeal.

Despite the fact that nothing + nothing = nothing, evolutionary cosmologists are convinced nothing + nothing somehow equals everything.

Going on, the emptiness is supposed to have gathered together in one place, and gotten so thick that the "nothing" exploded—and blew itself into hydrogen gas.

First of all,

1 - Not squeezable. Nothingness cannot pack itself together. Try packing some fog into a star. Gas in outer space is millions of times more rarefied (thinner) in density than terrestrial fog—yet, billions of times by merest chance, it is supposed to have accomplished the trick.

2 - Not stoppable. There would be no mechanism to push nothingness to a single point, and then stop it there.

3 - Nothing to explode it. There would be no match, no fire to explode nothingness.

4 - No way to expand it. There would be no way to push (explode) nothingness outward. A total vacuum can neither contract nor expand. According to the laws of physics, it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in emptiness.

5 - No way to slow it. If it could explode outward, there would be no way to later slow outward, exploding gas in frictionless space.

Then "naturally" the Laws of the Universe appear from nowhere. The laws of nature somehow invented themselves during the explosion.

To top it off, they appeal to modern day alchemy!

The loose, outward flowing gas next decided to push itself into stars. Then all the stars began exploding in super-nova explosions. But, just before light rays from the explosions could reach our planet in our time in history, the explosions are said to have conveniently stopped.

Those explosions are supposed to have made all the heavier elements (those above hydrogen and helium). Instead of Lead to Gold as the ancients believed in the middle ages, it's now hydrogen to gold!

I have not seen one explanation that demonstrates one shredd of natural explanation in the origin of the universe.

Yet somehow, God creating the universe is "unscientific", and the universe creating itself from nothing and performing magic tricks with that "nothing" is science?

[ QUOTE ]
Darling, David, “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14, 1996).
p. 49
“What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing.
“Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ’ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.”
p. 49
“You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.”


[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists do no just say, "God created it! That means we are clueless!"

No. The origin of matter has nothing to do with the science of it's operations! That is the point I am trying to make.

The laws of thermodynamics structure it's operation. It's origin is above operational science! It's origins is a matter of faith and a religous belief. However, evolutionists will never admit this, and claim, no matter what, is must have a naturalistic origin.

But the question is, "What if there isn't? What if there is no naturalistic explaination to the origin of the universe?" Do you see how limiting that is? You are excluding what has the potential to be the correct answer by default on every topic!

Now many times unknowingly or slyfully, evolutionists do appeal to the supernatural, but vehemetely declare that somehow there must be a naturalistic explanation!LOL

For example, we have demonstrated numerous times, that the Established scientific Law of biogenesis, states "life only begats life". That is science.

It has been shown many millions of repeated times to be true, yet despite that atheists must Believe that this law was defied, 100% against all science, and admit they believe Non-life begat life. Totally anti-science.

That is supernaturalism at it's finest.

Any proposal that suggests any law of nature could be defied is admitting a belief in the supernatural.

For example, if I told you I live near a stream,and that stream was flowing uphill, come and see and let's do some experiments.

Now I lived 5000 miles away. You could rightfully tell me, "Sorry, that defies a Law of nature, there is no need for me to come, you have flawed in your observations".

My observation was wrong, and my conclusion are wrong, by the scientific, immutable, laws of nature.

In retrospect, if I came to you and said, "I found a river that flows uphill" you would laugh, and call that non-science and non-sense.

Yet time and time again, evolutionists appeal to a similar concept! That abiogenesis as true and natural! I'm sorry, but it is not. It is appealing to the supernatural.

1. Evolution states- Non-life begats life, we all evolved from a rock, 4.6 billion years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Wald, George, “The Origin of Life,” in The Physics and Chemistry of Life --“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”


[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> Guilty of supernaturalism. </font> Check!


[ QUOTE ]
I don't really wish to continue discussion about intelligent design versus evolution. It's going to be an endless debate what can or can't have happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution does heavily appeal to supernaturalism in this area. If you do not wish to discuss this that is fine. But this is perhaps the area in which supernaturalism is ascribed the most.

2. Evoltion states, complex information is blind random chance.

Reality- Complex information coding, messaging, and translation of messeging has been demonstrated repeatedly to only be possible via intelligent sources and origins.

<font color="red"> Guilty of supernaturalism. </font> Check!

3. All animals have a common ancestor to a single cell.

[ QUOTE ]
Eden, Murray, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan (Philadelphia: Wister Institute Press, 1967), pp. 109-111.
p. 109
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Harris, C. Leon, “An Axiomatic Interpretation of the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 18 (Winter 1975), pp. 179-184.
pp. 182-3
“First, the axiomatic nature of the neo-Darwinian theory places the debate between evolutionists and creationists in a new perspective. Evolutionists have often challenged creationists to provide experimental proof that species have been fashioned de novo. Creationists have often demanded that evolutionists show how chance mutations can lead to adaptability, or to explain why natural selection has favored some species but not others with special adaptations, or why natural selection allows apparently detrimental organs to persist. We may now recognize that neither challenge is fair. If the neo-Darwinian theory is axiomatic, it is not valid for creationists to demand proof of the axioms, and it is not valid for evolutionists to dismiss special creation as unproved so long as it is stated as an axiom.”
p. 183
“The axiom of natural selection is so ingrained that a phrase like ‘The action of natural selection is very strong’ seems perfectly acceptable even though it often means simply that a lot of organisms died. Many alternatives to the neo-Darwinian axioms would be criticized not because they violate accepted facts but because they violate deeply rooted concepts.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Patterson, Colin, “Cladistics,” Interview by Brian Leek, interviewer Peter Franz, March 4, 1982, BBC.
“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how can a species originate and is it there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked. all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree; the tree itself is theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
right, Sewall, “Character Change, Speciation, and the Higher Taxa,” Evolution, vol. 36 (May 1982), pp. 427-443.
p. 440
“The reorganization required for the origin of the highest categories may seem so great that only ‘hopeful monsters’ will do. Here, however, we must consider the size and complexity of the organisms. Such changes would probably have been impossible except in an organism of very small size and simple anatomy. I have recorded more than 100,000 newborn guinea pigs and have seen many hundreds of monsters of diverse sorts but none were remotely ‘hopeful,’ all having died shortly after birth if not earlier.”
p. 441
“According to the shifting balance theory the determining factor for rapid change, and the origin of a new higher taxon that usually accompanies such change, is the presence of one or more vacant ecological niches, whether from entrance of the species into relatively unexploited territory or from its survival after a catastrophe has eliminated other species occupying related niches, or from gradual attainment of an adaptation that opens up a new way of life.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Alters, Brian J., and William F. McComas, “Punctuated Equilibrium: the Missing Link in Evolution Education,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 56 (September 1994), pp. 334-340.
p. 337
“Gould and Eldredge content that: ‘Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start—it was never “seen” in the rocks; it expressed the culture and political bias of 19th century liberalism.’ By the same token, while many feel that punctuated equilibrium postulates how speciation occurs, its occurrence is not based on empirical evidence but on the apparent lack of evidence—gaps in the fossil record. Bodnar, Jones and Ellis suggested that one would not see intermediate forms in simple eukaryotes in the fossil record because there are no intermediate forms. A single mutation in a regulatory gene caused the change in one leap of evolutionary development.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
de Beer, Gavin R., Homology: An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971).
p. 15
“It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless.”
p. 16
“But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns,’ in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it has not been answered.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Wootton, Robin J., “The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings,” Scientific American, vol. 263 (November 1990), pp. 114-120. Wootton is Senior Lecturer in Biological Science, University of Exeter, England.
p. 114
“Insects include some of the most versatile and maneuverable of all flying machines. Although many show rather simple flight patterns, some insects—through a combination of low mass, sophisticated neurosensory systems and complex muscalature—display astonishing aerobatic feats. Houseflies, for example, can decelerate from fast flight, hover, turn in their own length, fly upside down, loop, roll and land on a ceiling—all in a fraction of a second.”
p. 116
“With their abundant cross veins, the wings recall the structural engineer’s lattice girders and space frames, in which bending forces on the whole structure are converted to pure tensile or compression forces in the individual members.”
p. 116
“But whether considered as beams or space frames, insect wings have two crucial—and for engineers, unusual—special characteristics.”
p. 116
“Such deformable airfoils rarely occur in technology.”
p. 117
“But the comparison can be taken too far. Insect wings are far more subtly constructed than sails and distinctly more interesting. Many, for example, have lines of flexion across the wing, as already described in the fossil cicadas. They also incorporate shock absorbers, counterweights, ripstop mechanisms and many other simple but brilliantly effective devices, all of which increase the wing’s aerodynamic effectiveness.”
p. 120
“The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear. Earlier comparisons with sails now seem quite inadequate. The wings emerge as a family of flexible airfoils that are in a sense intermediate between structures and mechanisms, as these terms are understood by engineers. Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels—yet.”


[/ QUOTE ]

4. I could give many, many more- Origin of flight, eyes, ears, smell, migration, etc.

But the point is, there is a distinct difference between operational and origin sciences. Saying there is a naturalistic explanation for every phenomenon in the universe, but giving miraculous supernatural answers to those origins is defeating one's own axioms.

[ QUOTE ]
What made the water come from earths crust and what made the ground rise?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many theories for this. Some suggest, meteor impact. Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal. The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moon’s large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earth’s (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features.

The most likely model is plate tectonics.

We do not have all the answers yet. We may never have a complete sequence of the triggers of Noah's Flood. We have the record of God that declares what happened and gives us some general description. But the details need to be left to science.

Read these though for the current thoughts:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

and this for general flood info:

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

[ QUOTE ]
I have my reasons why I'm skeptic about everything supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great! I hope you will only learn to be more skeptical of your own supernatural axioms and legitimately pursue to understand both sides of the debate more /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[William Ustav]

Wow, Adam! That was insanely awesome!!! This thread should definitely be put in into the Bible studies index - you and Jacob and Joe have basically covered everything in a very simple yet complex way, making it easy to read.

I'm gonna send this link to one of my evolutionist friends /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Omskakas]

It's getting late and I'm going to bed. Tomorrow I'm going to read all that you posted and hopefully I'm going to give you more serious replys than I did today. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif Good night. /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

That's cool bro! Take it easy! And make sure to say your prayers before you go to bed. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Venom]

Great posts guys!

[falser]

I must have missed something while skimming through it. He basically presented the different theories of the dinosaurs and gave examples of evidence for and against the theories.

What I fail to understand is how can a creationist author admit that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, but not include any of the biblical information about the Earth being merely thousands of years old instead of billions. If all the stories about Noah and the Ark are true then why aren't the fossils he is discussing human and mammal fossils as well as dinosaur fossils?

I would think that there being no human fossils that date back to the time of the dinosaurs is a huge problem that would have been addressed in this article but it is conspicuously ignored.

All I have ever read about creationism is counter-examples to Evolution. If creationism is such a sound science why haven't they been able to come up with a uniformed theory by now?

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
I must have missed something while skimming through it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You defenielty have to read all of this one.

[ QUOTE ]
He basically presented the different theories of the dinosaurs and gave examples of evidence for and against the theories.


[/ QUOTE ]

somewhat, but he mostly gets into the flood and it's predictions on dinosaur extinction.

[ QUOTE ]
What I fail to understand is how can a creationist author admit that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, but not include any of the biblical information about the Earth being merely thousands of years old instead of billions.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did not admit the earth is millions of years old. You need to read it more carefully. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If all the stories about Noah and the Ark are true then why aren't the fossils he is discussing human and mammal fossils as well as dinosaur fossils?


[/ QUOTE ]

We've discussed this many times.

[ QUOTE ]
All I have ever read about creationism is counter-examples to Evolution. If creationism is such a sound science why haven't they been able to come up with a uniformed theory by now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you haven't read much.

Start by reading this article the whole way through.

[bennyhanna1]

i went to read this but i don't have hte updated version of acrobat reader or whatever... /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
You defenielty have to read all of this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read a good portion of it - but it's a little long winded for someone who isn't a paleontologist.

[ QUOTE ]
He did not admit the earth is millions of years old. You need to read it more carefully. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

He quoted many times about it and didn't say anything to the contrary:

However, according to the uniformitarian paradigm the late Carboniferous and early Permian ‘ice age’ had ended millions of years before29 of theories ranging “from the remotely possible to the mutually contradictory and the palpably
...

motivated David Raup and John Sepkoski to postulate a 26 million year extinction periodicity over the past 250 million years of geological time.
...
Furthermore, there are around 150 probable impact craters now known on Earth. Most of the impact craters are dated between 1 million and 1 billion years.

It sounds to me like the author does not believe in the young-Earth theory.

[ QUOTE ]
If all the stories about Noah and the Ark are true then why aren't the fossils he is discussing human and mammal fossils as well as dinosaur fossils?
[ QUOTE ]

We've discussed this many times.


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't read your bible studies so I don't know your opinion about it. But I was asking why wouldn't the author make mention of it. Surely if the Earth was young they would have found at least one fossile of a human near the remains of a dinosaur. That they haven't found even one specimen is troublesome. I find it curious why such a well written article would avoid these things.

Leaving out bits and pieces like this seems to be a common theme among creationist articles. None of them can put together a common theory that really explains anything - from the creation of the solar system, the age of the Earth, and the appearance and disappearance of life. They merely write articles like this one that dispute other theories.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Venom]

Good post Yu. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

I know this is repetative, but I cannot emphasize this point enough - the article is about dinosaur fossils and the flood, not about human fossils or the age of the earth.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, they're are endless subjects to discuss, which cannot be covered in one article. This narrowed in on but a few. For more read our bible studies, and the sites linked in our profiles.

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds to me like the author does not believe in the young-Earth theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong; Oard is one of the top young earth creationists today. Read his background here. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/m_oard.asp)

Now notice this:

[ QUOTE ]
However, according to the uniformitarian paradigm

[/ QUOTE ]

According to evolutionists, not his beliefs. If you do your studies, you will see creationists do this all the time. We have done the same on these forums quite often. They show that even if you believe all the evolutionary religious axioms as fact, they’re theories are still horrible. This is what he displayed several times in the article, they have no viable mechanism for the extinction of dinosaurs, while the flood provides an excellent one. This is why he concludes:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Despite the many theories on dinosaur extinction,
including the currently popular meteorite impact theory,
the demise of the dinosaurs is still unexplained. Wherever
dinosaur bones are unearthed, the evidence predominantly
suggests catastrophic entombment by water, sometimes by
clearly marine water. Just the burial and fossilisation of
such massive hulks as the large dinosaurs indicates
catastrophic action. There is also evidence that some
dinosaurs were rapidly buried in at least regional debris
flows. The large dinosaur bone-beds especially indicate a
major catastrophe. Some of these bone-beds represent the
remains of one dinosaur species, an unusual taphonomic
condition. Babies and young juveniles are almost entirely

In other words:

Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely if the Earth was young they would have found at least one fossile of a human near the remains of a dinosaur. That they haven't found even one specimen is troublesome. I find it curious why such a well written article would avoid these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

As stated above, this has been answered before. Here are some quotes:

O.S:

“ if that is the case why have there never been human fossils mixed with dinosaurs?”

95% of the fossil record is essentially sea shells.

Of the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects.

So, the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record -- in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record.

So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them.

For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world's museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.

Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone!

For example, there's only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!

So the real question is where are all the dinosaur fossils!

The fact we even have a few is amazing! It takes extreme conditions for fossilization of land animals to occur.

How many fossils of the buffalo slaughtered in North america do we have? Probably zero. How many were killed! Millions! The key is rapid burial, as is predicted in a global flood. The fact we even have fossils to a creationsist reveals a flood.

Lewin, R., 1990. New Scientist, 128(1745), p. 30.

For example, where are all the intermediate bird fossils?!

There are none!

Flight is extremely complex and impossible to evolve, even giving in trillions of years.

To say flight evolved once is astronomical. To say it happend, not only in birds, but in insects and mammals is absurd!

Yet, we have birds, so they must have evolved.

Then pictures of birds are placed next to dinosaurs, as done by National Geographic, stating, "You have dinosarus in your back yard!" That is propoganda! Birds have hollow bones! So putting a skeleton of a dinosaur next to a bird shows nothing!

And read these two articles, Human and dinosaur footprints in Turkmenistan? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp) and Where are all the human fossils? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp)

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
read a good portion of it - but it's a little long winded for someone who isn't a paleontologist.


[/ QUOTE ]

I found the concepts fairly easy to grasp. It's really only around 13 pages once you eliminate reading the 200 some refernces at the bottom.

Really though he is discussing meterology more than paleontology as that is his expertise. And by the way Michael Oard is a young earth creationists.

The quotes you gave were taken extremely out of context. He is quite clear when he is describing scenarios that are associated with evolutionary uniformity terms.

But overall you've committed a number of fallacies in arguement.

[ QUOTE ]
He quoted many times about it and didn't say anything to the contrary:

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the paper you would quickly see this is not the case. I also recommend reading our bible study link numbers 2 and 3. We discuss how to avoid these type of strawmen arguements.

Basically a straw man arguement is attempting to refute one's opponent's proposition by attacking the misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't read your bible studies so I don't know your opinion about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know. Or you would not make such simplistic mistakes by attacking strawmen arugemetns. The bad logic is like so:

1. Misrepresent the person's point(s)
2. Attack that misrepresentation

A typical downfall of evolutionism "skeptisism".

[ QUOTE ]
Surely if the Earth was young they would have found at least one fossile of a human near the remains of a dinosaur. That they haven't found even one specimen is troublesome. I find it curious why such a well written article would avoid these things.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is known as a red herring.

A red herring arguement is attempting to support one proposition by arguing for a different one entirely, or dodging the main argument by going off on a tangent.

As we mentioned this article discussing weather, and dinosaur extinction. As Yu said when fossils are mentioned they are mentioned in context of dinosaur extinction.

Debating the geologic column and it's sorting is not the intent of this article. Let alone human fossils and dinosaur fossils, which is an entirely different topic than the former!

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is repetative, but I cannot emphasize this point enough - the article is about dinosaur fossils and the flood, not about human fossils or the age of the earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point Yu.

He discussed dinosaur eggs and the flood model via meteorology. Also dinosaur graveyards showing evidence of a flood.

I don't know if you are wanting to argue about fossils or what you are getting at. But human fossils is not the focus of this article at all.

All you have done is commit red herring attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
None of them can put together a common theory that really explains anything - from the creation of the solar system, the age of the Earth, and the appearance and disappearance of life.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow talk about false analogy and a bad hasty generalization. You are asserting a universal statement unsupported by the group. You have also committed more straw men fallacies.

[ QUOTE ]
They merely write articles like this one that dispute other theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we see Tu quoque or "two wrongs make a right": dodging the main argument by including the opposition in the blame.

Besides being yet another strawman attack, what do your fallacious hasty generalizations have to do with dinosaur extinction and this article?

First you haven't even read this article. Apparentely 13 pages is too long. As we see demonstrated I think it's fair to guess your understanding of creation is limited to strawmen and red herring attacks presented from falseorigins.com and the likes.

Well, if these types of artilces are too much, then I recommend simply ignoring the links I post and staying clear of creation topics, as they are too complex.

[ QUOTE ]
but it's a little long winded for someone who isn't a paleontologist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also see my above post about evolution and their miracles of the universe as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Darling, David, “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151 (September 14, 1996).
p. 49
“What is a big deal—the biggest deal of all—is how you get something out of nothing.
“Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either—despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing—no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ’ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.”
p. 49
“You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.”


[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the time evolutionists do the destroying of their own specualations for us.

[William Ustav]

Good answers, guys! /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I actually read the part on evolution in my science class book, and boy did I have a good laugh. The first two pages went to just put down the church and the Bible. Next up was "How was the world CREATED?" - Noone really knows. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Good answer, huh? They are basing the entire theory on evolution on that it SOMEHOW created itself, it's not sure HOW, or WHY, but just SOMEHOW. Very good. I really don't understand why even NON-christians won't question the theories of evolution.

I actually remembered when I was a small boy, christian (but not a believer like now), and one night lying in bed I started thinking. How the heck can something evolve into something else? Millions of years or not - a feather is a feather. Something had to be born (apparently a lizard) with a feather on it. It's insane. It doesn't make any sense whatso ever. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[Omskakas]

Great post OldSchool. Thank you for the Bible lesson. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
So by no means do I declare that Creation has naturalistic explanations for everything!
That is your axiom not mine. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s what I wanted to hear. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Anyway, the origins of these debates come from human curiosity and attempt to explain everything. And what’s more interesting subject than where we and all this what we see around us came from. Science observes the nature and tries to find explanations of how things came into existence.

However, it’s wrong to assume that the modern day science is omniscientic. There are lot’s of things that scientists can’t or can’t yet find explanations to. To many phenomenons there are theories how things could have happened. These theories might or might not explain everything of the observed phenomenon. Almost every scientifis article ends in the phrase ”further research is needed”.

Now, you aim your attack to the fact that modern evolutionary theory can’t explain abiogenesis and the complexity of organisms. And I openly admit that in most cases it can’t. However, I’m very much against the thinking that when you can’t (yet) explain something with naturalistic ways there must be a supernatural explanation.

But observing the nature we can find clues that evolution has happened. I list some examples what comes to my mind. Keep in mind that these do make sense from evolutional point of view, if they fit in intellectual designer also, I’m just happy for you. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

1. Speciation.
-Nothing to add here. I think you agree with me that speciation does work.

2. Protein sequence
-For example protein cytochrome c has 141 amino acids in humans. It differs from other life forms with following amino acid sequence differences:
Chimpanzee 0
Rhesus monkey 1
Rabbit 9
Duck 11
Rattlesnake 14
Tuna 21
Moth 31
Yeast 45

3. DNA sequence comparison
- If you denature the double helix of DNA of two different species and pair them together you can have clue how much these species differe from each other and how far in the past their common ancestor is. The difference between man and chipanzee varies somewhere between 95% and 99,4% depending what method you use for comparison.

From creation point of view one must ask: If God created Man as his own image, why did he borrow so much from a pre existing animal?

4. Morphological similarities / comparative anatomy
-Would you believe if I said that most of the time these are in concensus with 2. and 3.?

5. Information increase
-A huge amount of genes in all kingdoms are result of a process called gene duplication. The presence of duplicated genes is a proof (to me at least) that information content of organisms have increased. This means that not only organisms but also genes that may have entirely different function can have common ancestor(gene).

6. Common ancestors you would not expect if organisms were created
-There is evidence that plant chloroplasts have evolved from cyanobacterias through endosymbiosis:
http://genomebiology.com/2003/4/3/209/abstract
[ QUOTE ]
The complete genome sequences of cyanobacteria and of the higher plant Arabidopsis thaliana leave no doubt that the plant chloroplast originated, through endosymbiosis, from a cyanobacterium. But the genomic legacy of cyanobacterial ancestry extends far beyond the chloroplast itself, and persists in organisms that have lost chloroplasts completely.

[/ QUOTE ]
-There is also evidence that mitochodrias have evolved the same way:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=123612
In fact it looks like mitochondrias and present-day intracellular parasites such as Rickettsia prowazekii have a common ancestor.


So, please go ahead and shoot those down. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif
.
.
Ah, these discussions are way too much time consuming for me. I have to get back with my masters thesis. If you’re interested, my thesis is about how spatial distribution and association with either palatable or unpalatable plant species affects plants fate under herbivory pressure and how that might affect evolution of plant defences and it’s signaling. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]
my thesis is about how spatial distribution and association with either palatable or unpalatable plant species affects plants fate under herbivory pressure and how that might affect evolution of plant defences and it’s signaling.

[/ QUOTE ]

/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif Say what? /forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Science observes the nature and tries to find explanations of how things came into existence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is origins science, which is inherently religous.
You are dealing with the unrepeatable past.

[ QUOTE ]
However, it’s wrong to assume that the modern day science is omniscientic.

[/ QUOTE ]

" Origins science "

[ QUOTE ]
There are lot’s of things that scientists can’t or can’t yet find explanations to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like

The Origin of

- Life
- Space
- Time
- Matter
- A Mechanism To Increase Information Content without intelligence
- An example of an increase in information

[ QUOTE ]
To many phenomenons there are theories how things could have happened. These theories might or might not explain everything of the observed phenomenon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently evolution only has a starting axiom

That axiom is that life could have arrisen spontaneously.

[ QUOTE ]
Almost every scientifis article ends in the phrase ”further research is needed”.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most scientific journals state, in one way or another that life being spontaneously generated is impossible,

From this we can infer that evolution could have never gotton off the ground.

If it did get off the ground, it is rendered helpless due to its inability to deal with

1. Irreducible complexity
2. A lack of a mechanism for information content

[ QUOTE ]
Now, you aim your attack to the fact that modern evolutionary theory can’t explain abiogenesis and the complexity of organisms. And I openly admit that in most cases it can’t. However, I’m very much against the thinking that when you can’t (yet) explain something with naturalistic ways there must be a supernatural explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Two things here

1. If after 150 years evolutionary predictions still cannot even predict the basics on information increase or the origin of life, then it is safe to say that an inordinant amount of faith is required to believe in it, with a capital B.

Making evolution a metaphysical, religious belief. A belief that matter can somehow organize itself into complex systems.

This is essentially pantheism, a full fledged religion.

2. From the natural world, we observe that information can only arrise via intelligent processes. This is where we draw our conclusions. Our model, is based on that which is seen today.

[ QUOTE ]
But observing the nature we can find clues that evolution has happened. I list some examples what comes to my mind. Keep in mind that these do make sense from evolutional point of view, if they fit in intellectual designer also, I’m just happy for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankyou /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
. Speciation.
-Nothing to add here. I think you agree with me that speciation does work.


[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation is not evolution. All speciation has resulted from a

- loss of information
- srambling of pre-existing information

This is again " downhill evolution "

Change is not the key, increase is

[ QUOTE ]
2. Protein sequence
-For example protein cytochrome c has 141 amino acids in humans. It differs from other life forms with following amino acid sequence differences:
Chimpanzee 0
Rhesus monkey 1
Rabbit 9
Duck 11
Rattlesnake 14
Tuna 21
Moth 31
Yeast 45


[/ QUOTE ]

Again the fact that these species all have cytochrome C, speaks of a common design

[ QUOTE ]
3. DNA sequence comparison
- If you denature the double helix of DNA of two different species and pair them together you can have clue how much these species differe from each other and how far in the past their common ancestor is. The difference between man and chipanzee varies somewhere between 95% and 99,4% depending what method you use for comparison.

From creation point of view one must ask: If God created Man as his own image, why did he borrow so much from a pre existing animal?


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Again this can just as easily be interpreted as a common designer

2. The animal was not pre-existing, except by a short span, as everything was created in a few days

3. The same statement could also be made that chimps and humans differ by 19.8 million bases. WHich is a tremendous amount

4. Again, you have to assume evolution occured. This is orgins science

[ QUOTE ]
4. Morphological similarities / comparative anatomy
-Would you believe if I said that most of the time these are in concensus with 2. and 3.?



[/ QUOTE ]

Comparitive anatomy again would fit within a Single Intelligent Designer, using a common design.

[ QUOTE ]
The presence of duplicated genes is a proof (to me at least) that information content of organisms have increased. This means that not only organisms but also genes that may have entirely different function can have common ancestor(gene).


[/ QUOTE ]

There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes,

By your definition I have just increased the information content of the phrase

[ QUOTE ]
There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes,

[/ QUOTE ]

By duplicating it

[ QUOTE ]
6. Common ancestors you would not expect if organisms were created
-There is evidence that plant chloroplasts have evolved from cyanobacterias through endosymbiosis:


[/ QUOTE ]

Again common ancestors can be interpreted as common design,

You have repeated comparitive anatomy for several examples.
Assuming evolutiion has occured. It still fits the Intelligent design model, you would expect similarities in design.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact it looks like mitochondrias and present-day intracellular parasites such as Rickettsia prowazekii have a common ancestor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Detailed studies of the DNA base sequences have shown that the pattern of similarity between eukaryote and prokaryote is not what would be expected from the endosymbiont hypothesis.

In Scientific America Doolittle said,

<font color="blue"> ‘Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.’ (Doolittle, D.F., 2000. Uprooting the tree of life. Scientific American 282(2):72–77).
</font>

[Omskakas]

Just 2 points:

[ QUOTE ]
There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes, There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes,

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you have duplicated one sentence. When one of the duplicates do the sentence's original job, others may mutate into something else --> gene families.

And actually there has been a documented cause of information increase from random process. I don't have the reference, but you can find the exact reference from this paper:
Zhang, J. 2003: Evolution by gene duplication: an update – Trends in ecology &amp; evolution. Vol. 18 p. 292-298.


Also, you always say that there needs to be DNA for enzymes and without enzymes DNA can't function which means that abiogenesis is impossible. However, have you ever read about ribozymes? It's an RNA molecule that can act as an enzyme:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Essays/Ribozymes.html

[ QUOTE ]
Ribozymes have also revolutionized thinking about the evolution of the first life forms. For years, researchers have wondered if it was possible that the first self-replicating molecules could have been nucleic acids, like DNA. DNA replicates, of course, but only with the aid of a complex group of proteins. Researchers realized that they had a classic chicken-or-the-egg problem. Proteins cannot exist without DNA to specify their construction, and DNA cannot replicate without proteins.

The catalytic properties of RNA change the rules of the game. RNA molecules can catalyze their own splicing, and there is even evidence that they can undergod self-catalyzed replication in the absence of proteins. This has allowed investigators to speculate that small RNA molecules may have led the biochemical revolution that resulted in the evolution of the first living cells. RNA seems to be able to direct the synthesis of polypeptides, to direct its own replication, and to catalyze a wide variety of other chemical reactions as well. In the minds of many researchers, this makes it a perfect candidate as the driving force behind the evolution of life. All this, from one lab's "failure" to find that enzyme that they knew had to be there to splice Tetrahymena rRNA.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for the Bible lesson.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem! If you ever want to learn more about the Word, just ask I will be happy to help!

[ QUOTE ]
However, I’m very much against the thinking that when you can’t (yet) explain something with naturalistic ways there must be a supernatural explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am curious, how you can continue to say that. For one argueing from silence proves nothing. What you are proposing is anti-natural. Life from non-life directly defies the Law of nature that "life begats life".

To simplify:

Naturalistic- Life begats life
Supernaturalistic- non-life begats life

You are defying your very defenition of naturalistic. You are proposing something that defies the Laws of naturalism!

That is the opposite of naturalism...supernaturalism!

1. [ QUOTE ]
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Wald, GeorgeOne


[/ QUOTE ]

2. [ QUOTE ]
In the beginning God created- God

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me how proposition number one is science and proposition two is religious.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I’m very much against the thinking that when you can’t (yet) explain something with naturalistic ways there must be a supernatural explanation

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, you aim your attack to the fact that modern evolutionary theory can’t explain abiogenesis and the complexity of organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

The attack is that those notions defy the very laws of naturalism, evolution so vehemetely clings too!

Then to claim that the defiance of those laws is somehow science is outright religious.

[ QUOTE ]
Science observes the nature and tries to find explanations of how things came into existence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet it is OK for evolution to appeal to the supernatural, but not creation!

[ QUOTE ]
However, it’s wrong to assume that the modern day science is omniscientic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never stated such a notion! I am simply wanting them to admit they have a religion in these areas! They are appealing to the supernatural!

[ QUOTE ]
To many phenomenons there are theories how things could have happened. These theories might or might not explain everything of the observed phenomenon. Almost every scientifis article ends in the phrase ”further research is needed”.


[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, they explain nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
But observing the nature we can find clues that evolution has happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

What observations do you have that prove evolution?

[ QUOTE ]
. Speciation.
-Nothing to add here. I think you agree with me that speciation does work.


[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation is not vertical evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Protein sequence
-For example protein cytochrome c has 141 amino acids in humans. It differs from other life forms with following amino acid sequence differences:
Chimpanzee 0
Rhesus monkey 1
Rabbit 9
Duck 11
Rattlesnake 14
Tuna 21
Moth 31
Yeast 45


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that proves I'm related to a yeast! LOL! IF the sequences weren't similar all we could eat is ourselves! Actually that fits the notion of an intelligent designer much more than telling me I'm related to bread!

[ QUOTE ]
DNA sequence comparison
- If you denature the double helix of DNA of two different species and pair them together you can have clue how much these species differe from each other and how far in the past their common ancestor is. The difference between man and chipanzee varies somewhere between 95% and 99,4% depending what method you use for comparison.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yawn...not this again. So what we have 50% DNA similarity to a bananna. That proves I'm half banana! Come on!

You understanding of information is lacking bro.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Morphological similarities / comparative anatomy
-Would you believe if I said that most of the time these are in concensus with 2. and 3.?

[/ QUOTE ]

A Hyundai Elantra and a Hyundai Tiburon have thousands of similar interchangeable parts. That proves they all evolved from an explosion in a junkyward 4 billion years ago!

No, that proves there is a common designer building all these complex machines!

[ QUOTE ]
A huge amount of genes in all kingdoms are result of a process called gene duplication. The presence of duplicated genes is a proof (to me at least) that information content of organisms have increased. This means that not only organisms but also genes that may have entirely different function can have common ancestor(gene).


[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa! Simpliy duplicating a pre-existing gene is not creating new information.

So create a bird from a snake in the lab, but we want to watch this time.

[ QUOTE ]
If you’re interested, my thesis is about how spatial distribution and association with either palatable or unpalatable plant species affects plants fate under herbivory pressure and how that might affect evolution of plant defences and it’s signaling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you can post it! I'll be glad to critique it for you. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Pete914]

Information...overload...brain=scrambled /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
There has never been a documented cause of information increase from random processes

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard this quote many times. Information increase can be done by Man, it's called gene therapy. Man can go into the DNA, change, replace, fix the DNA structure all by himself.

Does that make Man the equivalent of a God?

And I dispute the fact that cannot happen randomly. Take a look at most mutations. For example: turtles with two heads - they are most definitely more complicated than turtles with one head.

Another strange occurance is mating entirely different speces and ending up with a combination of the two such as Ligers (result of a male lion that mates with a female tiger). Why would God create two entirely different animals but make their DNA so similar that they can create a new type of animal together?

[Venom]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/images/create_life1.jpg

Those examples proved nothing, just copying mistakes in the genes. No mutation is known to increase information content; every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of beneficial mutations. The information for the above was already present.

These questions are very repetitive, please read the links we provide, and our bible studies. It's very simple to understand. Start here and then start studying more, Ligers and wolphins? What next? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp)

[Omskakas]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure you can post it! I'll be glad to critique it for you. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad it's written in Finnish. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

By the way: I don't feel like I've been shot down. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif I'll post more if/when I have time.

[William Ustav]

Hey Venom! That's arguably the best cartoon I've ever seen! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
Those examples proved nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard that response before.

Let's first clarify what EVIDENCE is:
"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

We're not talking about proving anything 100%. Despite your defintion of evidence, I believe that examples like two-headed turtles, humanoid fossils like Lucy, and there being no humanoid fossils that are as old as dinosaur fossils etc, are evidence that Evolution occurs. No one said anything about proof.

[ QUOTE ]
No mutation is known to increase information content; every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of beneficial mutations. The information for the above was already present.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a 3 part article I found on the web on the subject:

http://www.redrival.com/evolusi/evolmec1.htm
http://www.redrival.com/evolusi/evolmec2.htm
http://www.redrival.com/evolusi/evolmec3.htm

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way: I don't feel like I've been shot down. I'll post more if/when I have time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't expect you to feel that way. I oversimplified my answers quite a bit as well. It's almost getting to be an inside joke we have. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

You bring up the RNA world scenarios a lot. I have many articles you can read showing the entire scenario is in shambles.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/ribo171.htm

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, Ltd., 1985), 368 pp. Denton is a molecular biologist and is not a creationist.
p. 289
“The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins’ amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.”
pp. 289-90
“Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.”
pp. 290-1
“There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.”
p. 293
“In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed ‘intermediate,’ ‘ancestral,’ or ‘primitive’ by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, shows any sign of their supposed intermediate status.”
p. 296
“However, as there are hundreds of different families of proteins and each family exhibits its own unique degree of interspecies variation, some greater than haemoglobin, some far less than the cytochromes, then it is necessary to propose not just two clocks but one for each of the several hundred protein families, each ticking at its own unique and highly specific rate.”
p. 305
“The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought. The evolutionary community has divided into two camps—those still adhering to the selectionist position, and those rejecting it in favor of the neutralist. The devastating aspect of this controversy is that neither side can adequately account for the constancy of the rate of molecular evolution, yet each side fatally weakens the other.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Erbrich, Paul, “On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function,” Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80.
p. 53
“Proteins with nearly the same structure and function (homologous proteins) are found in increasing numbers in phylogenetically different, even very distinct taxa (e.g., hemoglobins in vertebrates, in some invertebrates, and even in certain plants). The probability of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such a convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
chwabe, Christian, and Gregory W. Warr, “A Polyphylectic View of Evolution,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 27 (Spring 1984), pp. 465-485.
p. 473
“The relaxin and insulin families do not stand alone as exceptions to the orderly interpretation of molecular evolution in conventional monophyletic terms. It is instructive to look at additional examples of purportedly anomalous protein evolution and note that the explanations permissible under the molecular clock theories cover a range of ad hoc explanations apparently limited only by imagination. These examples include the egg white lysozymes of goose, chicken, chachalaca, and duck.”
pp. 474, 476
“This phylogenetic hopscotching of b2 microglobulin and many hormones can be taken together with amino acid sequence data for relaxins, insulins, and some other molecules, to show incompatibility with the monophyletic molecular clock models of evolution. As noted earlier, the positive selectionist neo-Darwinian views of molecular evolution are in principle unfalsifiable, but such evidence as we have presented does not strengthen the positive selectionist interpretation of the data. However, the major conclusion to which we wish to draw attention is that these findings strongly suggest that many of the genes purportedly produced by gene duplication have been present very early in the development of life. In fact, we can ask if they were not present so early that we must question whether any gene has come about by duplication or whether all have been there, from the beginning, as a potential for species development.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Rowe, Timothy, “New Issues for Phylogenetics,” review of Molecules and Morphology in Evolution, edited by Colin Patterson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 229 pp., Science, vol. 239 (March 4, 1988), pp. 1183-1184.
p. 1183
“Morphology and molecular data are congruent in indicating that and African apes are more closely related to each other than to the orang. The position of chimps is equivocal, however; amino acid sequencing links them with humans, morphology links them with gorillas, and DNA sequencing has produced ambiguous results.”
p. 1184
“An intriguing picture develops in this volume in which molecular and morphological phylogenies sometimes agree and sometimes not. Different philosophies and methods complicate the comparison and may themselves be responsible for much of the conflict. Nevertheless, there is general agreement that both molecular and morphological phylogenetics face similar fundamental problems and that a ‘touchstone’ has not been found.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Takahata, N., “A Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 26 (1995), pp. 343-372.
p. 343
“Hypotheses about the origin of , genetic differentiation among human populations, and changes in population size are quantified. None of the hypotheses seems compatible with the observed DNA variation.”
p. 344
“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ohno, Susumo, “The Significance of Gene Duplication in Immunoglobulin Evolution (Epimethean Natural Selection and Promethean Evolution),” in Immunoglobulin, ed. G. W. Litman and R. A. Good (New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1978), pp. 197-204.
p. 198
“The aforementioned nonlinkage of functionally related genes of the immune system, many of which apparently evolved from a common ancestral gene by a series of gene duplications, is fully compatible with the view that most of the gene duplication events that generated vertebrate-specific genes occurred at the stage of fish when polyploid evolution was still possible.
“As vertebrates evolved beyond the amphibian stage, polyploid evolution ceased to be a factor in generating new genes from redundant copies of the old.”
p. 199
“As far as I am concerned, the uniqueness of the immune system lies in its ability to cope with all sorts of previously unexperienced contingencies, thus giving an impression of having evolved in anticipation of future needs. The Darwinian concept of evolution by natural selection does not predict the development of a system that can cope with the future. It follows, then, that the immune system must have developed on the basis of a new evolutionary principle.”
p. 204
“In the case of the immune system almost every individual in a mammalian population appears capable of producing antibodies against all sorts of evolutionary unfamiliar molecules.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Jones, Steve, The Language of Genes (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 272 pp.
p. 84
“Biologists have an adolescent fascination with sex. Like teenagers, they are embarrassed by the subject because of their ignorance. What sex is, why it evolved and how it works are the biggest unsolved problems in biology. Sex must be important as it is so expensive. If some creatures can manage with just females, so that every individual produces copies of herself, why do so many bother with males? A female who gave them up might be able to produce twice as many daughters as before; and they would carry all her genes. Instead, a sexual female wastes time, first in finding a mate and then in producing sons who carry only half of her inheritance. We are still not certain why males exist; and why, if we must have them at all, nature needs so many. Surely, one or two would be enough to impregnate all the females but, with few exceptions, the ratio of males to females remain stubbornly equal throughout the living world.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Boxer, Sarah, ed., “On the Rescue Gene and the Origin of Species,” Discover, vol. 8 (August 1987), pp. 6, 7.
p. 7
“By definition, a new species arises when it splits off from a parent species. But a species is a species only if it doesn’t interbreed with other species, including the one from which it arose. The critical question in species formation is how the barrier to reproduction is erected and maintained. As it turns out, the species barrier is a two-layered defense. There are pre-mating mechanisms—behavioral, ecological, and physical differences that make it difficult for two species to mate. If that line of defense fails, second-line, post-mating mechanisms ensure that the progeny of the barrier-crashers are either rendered sterile (like mules) or they die before reaching maturity.”
p. 7
“The rescue gene turned out to be strange indeed. While it weakened the general health of the flies that carried it, it gave life to their hybrid progeny. However, the gene didn’t completely break through the species barrier; it couldn’t render the males fertile. ‘The flies live,’ says Hutter, ‘but they’re sterile.’ Which raises a troublesome question: If the parents that carry it don’t benefit from it, and offspring that inherit it can’t pass it on, how could the gene possibly have evolved?”


[/ QUOTE ]

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's first clarify what EVIDENCE is:
"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolutionists and creationists use the same pile of evidence, but interpret it differently. You see the world as something that happened by mistake, we see it as something that was created on purpose.

You see man as something that evolved from monkeys, we see man as something created by God.

You see fossils as evidence of millions of years, we see fossils as evidence of thousands of years.

The evidence are the same - one needs to see which interpretation is more logical. For example if I take the beginning of the world as an example. Which is more logical? That everything suddenly happened by mistake, from nothing, or that someone created the world?

To me it's more logical that the world was created, but to you it may be more logical that it all happened by coincidence.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard this quote many times. Information increase can be done by Man, it's called gene therapy. Man can go into the DNA, change, replace, fix the DNA structure all by himself. Does that make Man the equivalent of a God?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that scientists can alter the body plan does not evidence of vertical evolution nor is it anti-creation. Successful vertical evolution would require the addition of new information and new genes that produce new proteins that are found in new organs and systems.

Let's see a scientists grow wings on my body, and transform my bones into hollow ones so I can fly.

"For example, a single mutation that might prevent legs from forming is much different from a mutation that produces legs in the first place.

Making a leg would require a large number of different genes present simultaneously. Moreover, where do the wings come from? Just because an organism loses a few legs doesn’t convert a shrimp-like creature into a fly. Since crustaceans don’t have wings, where does the information come from to make wings in flies?

Having the wings themselves is not even enough."

Two headed turtles are evidence for vertical evolution?

The two headed turtle is a mutation. It is not new genetic information, the information for the turtle head is already present.

"That is not an increase information we are talking about.That is not an increase information we are talking about."

I have just repeated the same sentence twice. Let's take this as an example, the infomation relays the message and is translated. This is simply duplicating pre-existing information, it is not increasing information to create a new structure.

Two headed turtles is not increasing information in the promotion of evolution at all.

[ QUOTE ]
No known mechanism of mutation, either at the gene level or the chromosome level has been discovered which will produce evolutionary advancement. This is particularly so because all molecules involved in replication (DNA, RNA, protein) are interdependent with each other, and do not function in isolation. In other words the cell and its genetic contents, give the appearance of having been an initially created complex unit ready to work. That is why any subsequent random mutational changes to it have been and are observed to be deletarious. For an in-depth coverage of this topic, see the technical article in this issue.


[/ QUOTE ] Dr. J. G. Leslie

Turtles also have built in magnetic compasses, explain how mutations created that from scratch!

[ QUOTE ]
Another strange occurance is mating entirely different speces and ending up with a combination of the two such as Ligers (result of a male lion that mates with a female tiger). Why would God create two entirely different animals but make their DNA so similar that they can create a new type of animal together?


[/ QUOTE ]

This actually supports creation, read the above link.

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
The two headed turtle is a mutation. It is not new genetic information, the information for the turtle head is already present.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the original turtle head must have got there by a mutation /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Did you not have any rebuttal to the article I posted? Or is it because you do not have any pre-fabbed quotes for it?

Here I will help narrow down some of the important points:

[ QUOTE ]

1: Mutations are harmful

This statement cracks under the weight of evidence. Bacterial antibiotic resistance is an evidence of how mutations produce useful features (for the bacteria, that is). Mutation is recognized as the commonest mechanism of resistance development in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the tuberculosis pathogen (Hawkey 1998: 659). Resistance is clearly useful for the bacteria, so these examples falsify HY's claim that no useful mutations had been observed so far (Harun Yahya 2001: 51). Resistance have also been discovered among pest insects (against insecticide) and weeds (against herbicide).

Some useful mutations have also been observed among humans. Lactose intolerance (the inability to digest lactose in milk) is a universal feature of adult mammals. Genes for lactase (lactose-digesting enzyme) is turned off in adults. However, some human individuals do not have their lactase gene switched off, so they can digest lactase as adults (lactose tolerance). In hunter-gatherer populations, this variation offers no selective advantage, but in pastoral societies which kept cattle and goats, lactose tolerance has an advantage, in which the lactose-tolerant individuals can effectively use nutrients from the milk they drink.

...

Considering the facts mentioned above, it should be obvious that mutations are not always harmful. Most are neutral and some are even beneficial. There are no absolute criteria of fitness; a weakness in one environment might be a useful adaptation in another, and vice versa. Therefore, the claim that all mutations are harmful has been disconfirmed.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

To date, there are some examples of completely novel features acquired through mutation and natural selection. A good example is the evolution of a Nylon-digesting enzyme in Flavobacterium sp. K172 (Thomas 2000). Nylon, a synthetic fiber, did not exist before 1937. A group of Japanese scientists discovered a bacterial mat in a factory pond, and found that the bacteria living there are able to digest Nylon. They replicated the process in the laboratory and discovered that the Nylon-digesting ability was caused by the appearance of an entirely new enzyme, nylonase, which was formed by a point mutation. Nylonase was not a changed version of an old enzyme; it cannot work on other substances. Therefore, this enzyme is an evidence of a new feature acquired through evolution. The information gained must be new, because nylon is a new substance, nonexistent before 1937.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Omskakas]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't expect you to feel that way. I oversimplified my answers quite a bit as well. It's almost getting to be an inside joke we have. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO! /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

*yawn* It's getting late again. I have to get my 9 hours of beauty sleep. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

Hey falser, sorry it's been a busy day, I'll check out the article in a bit.

But let me help clarify where I think you and Osmoskas are both misunderstanding the concept of increased information.

Information is much more than the amount of content, it is the message it contains!

So if I say, "Grow a head here" "Grow a head here"

Is that an increase in information? no.

Your flaw is that you are saying, "there is 13 letters in the first sentence and 13 in the second, that's 26 letters! See an increase in information!"

What you aren't considering is the message! Simply repeating the same message twice does not relay any new information!

Information is defined as "Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news."

What new knowldege has been gained by simply repeating the same information? None.

Simply duplicating the same message is not Increasing Information, no new message has been obtained to translate.

Now using that same scenario:

"Grow a scale here"

We can switch that around any way we want to represent mutations:

"here a scale Grow"

This is a neutral or rescrambling of information. It may not be harmful, but there is no new information.

Now:

"scale Grow"

This is a loss of information, this could cause a harmful mutation, or random chance may make it neutral and in some cases "benefical".

Now change this order around any way you want to get

"Grow a scale here"

To say:

"Grow a feather here"

You can not, the information is not there!

You can mutate that message for a trillion years and never get any increase in information to change a scale to a feather!

This is a simplistic explanation. DNA messaging is extremely complex and screams design.

But I am trying to explain the basics of information as so far I don't believe you guys get it. /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif



[ QUOTE ]
Or is it because you do not have any pre-fabbed quotes for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have sources for any evolutionary concept you can concieve bro. It is due to working a million hours. All of these post have been constructed in about 10 minutes. When I get time I will get to the articles. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Adam Knowlden]

Be sure to read my above post, as we can avoid confusing what information is anymore.

If you understood the basic concepts you would understand that resistance is not increasing the information in the bacteria.

[ QUOTE ]
Bacterial antibiotic resistance is an evidence of how mutations produce useful features (for the bacteria, that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

Mutations happen, who denys that? I don't know any creationists that denys mutations exist! The arguement is information, not benefical, bad, or neutral mutations.

Or that a mutation may be helpful to the organism. But the mutation is a result of a loss or rescrambling of pre-existing information. No new information is added by resistance.

Do you know what resistance is and how it works?

[ QUOTE ]
Penicillin, a chemical extracted from a fungus, acts on the ‘body builders’! in many bacterial cells After exposure to penicillin, many bacteria cannot produce murein, a substance used in making and repairing the cell wall of a bacteria. This cell wall is the bacteria's defence. Without a cell wall, water soaks into the bacteria too fast, and it bursts. Without a cell wall, the bacteria's normal means of reproducation — splitting in two — cannot be achieved. For all intents and purposes, a bacteria exposed to penicillin is rendered dead or harmless, or at least they used to be.

Experiments in suitable growing conditions have shown that occasionally bacteria lose their cell wall and produce a mutant or degenerate L form. These L forms are less tolerant to change than the normal form and can only function under certain conditions. Compared to the normal bacteria, they are misshapen and have poor tolerance against attack. Except, that is, against attack from penicillin! Having no cell walls it is of little concern to them if penicillin is present or not These forms reproduce more slowly than normal bacteria and are therefore usually less of a threat to health than other types of bacteria, but the point to be made is that — they cannot normally be treated with penicillin. Some naturally observed bacteria are also without cell walls and a few of them are very dangerous to man. The pneumonia-like wall-less bacteria contains some real pasties. Without a cell wall penicillin is of little significance to most of these organisms. It would seem likely that these pneumonia like organisms are descendants of other bacteria that have lost the ability to make a cell wall. They are degenerate forms and their disease producing relationship to man is a degenerate relationship. Their penicillin resistance is not something they gained in the genetic sense. but something they have (in some cases) because of what they have lost.

But staphylococci do not need this ‘lose the wall trick’. They can destroy penicillin by use of an enzyme called penicillinase. There are several known ways in which the penicillin destroying enzyme can appear in bacteria. The gene which contains the instructions for making the enzyme is already present although apparently unused, or used for another purpose. When penicillin is introduced into the environs, the gene switches on - the penicillin destroying enzyme is released and the bacteria is RESISTANT. In this type of bacteria, when the penicillin is removed, the gene switches off or at least reduces the amount of penicillinase production.

Sometimes these type of bacteria suffer a degenerate mutation to the switch mechanism and will sometimes begin to produce penicillinase without being exposed to the drug penicillin. It is of interest to note that such mutant bacteria have a much slower rate of growth than normal despite their fantastic output of penicillin protector.

How did we kill staph at first with penicillin? Easy. We simply killed off the ones that were not very good at making penicillianase, leaving behind the ones that are good at it.

Unfortunately, some penicillin resistant bacteria can crossbreed with other non resistant bacteria and transfer their resistance. Those doctors who treat everything with a shot of penicillin are really bringing closer the day when the bacteria consortium will have equality of penicillin resistance, and we cannot use penicillin anymore in disease control.

Sulphonamide resistance is one interesting case where the actual way in which drug resistance is achieved by a bacteria as a result of a mutation. The chemical poison sulphonamide a sulphur nitrogen compound — inhibits bacterial growth by preventing the formation of folic acid, a chemical which the bacteria needs.

Folic acid production is stopped because the sulphonamide is very similar to a natural component of folio acid, a substance called paramino benzoic acid (PABA for short). As the enzymes wander through the bacteria looking for PABA, they pick up sulphonamide instead and folio acid production gets all messed up. Those bacteria which are resistant, posess a mutant enzyme in which the length and charge distribution is altered. The enzyme is less efficient, but because of its altered shape, sulphonamide no longer fits, and so the bacteria is resistant. Such an enzyme, unfortunately for the bacteria, often increases its susceptibility to attack by other chemicals. The point to note however is that the exposure to sulphonamide does not produce the mutation. Either the bacteria is deficient in enzyme production before the exposure, or it dies.

It is of interest to note that some of these ‘mutant’ forms revert to the normal forms when the poisons are removed. In the absence of a poison the mutant forms are no competition for the normal forms with respect to speed of growth and rate of reproduction.

It would appear that the flies and bacteria have got us beaten. Repeated investigation has demonstrated that regardless of the poison we pick (i.e. ones that will kill them and not us) a percentage appear to be resistant before we start. Therefore all we are achieving is to kill those that are not resistant and leave behind a nucleus of a population to breed only resistant organisms and start the war again. Of course we can start with a new poison, but to keep on in this fashion is to produce a breed of SUPER BUGS — in the case of flies resistant to anything I can use against them, except the fly swat.

Immunity does not evolve. If the correct immunity response is not Resent in the genes of a population before it is exposed, it will not be present after exposure.

Genes do not evolve new information. They remain stable in their function or they degenerate and go through various steps of loss of efficiency which are increasingly detrimental to the organism.



[/ QUOTE ]

A population of microbes becomes resistant to antibiotics because of a loss of genetic information or a transfer of information between microbes. But in no case have bacteria become resistant through a gain of new information.

In fact I am glad you brought up bacteria. In a few months bacteria can go through millions of years in relation to man, yet no increases in information! Thanks for bringing that up!

[ QUOTE ]


the PBS series Evolution discussed a deadly strain of TB that has been linked to a patient in a Russian prison who failed to complete his antibiotic treatments. The program makes it clear that the surviving TB organism was already resistant, so this is not evolution. In fact, some bacteria revived from corpses frozen before the development of antibiotics have shown resistance.

‘Bacteria make good evidence against evolution. Because bacteria multiply so quickly, they go through many generations in days. In months, they can go through the equivalent of millions of years in human terms. We should see great feats of evolution, but in fact, modern bacteria are essentially the same as those described a century ago. Even fossilized bacteria, as far as one can tell, are the same as bacteria today.’

The real issue is still the same—‘molecules-to-man’ evolution requires an increase in information in the genes. Because of the rapid reproduction rates of bacteria, they are one of the best places for scientists to look for ‘demonstrable and repeatable’ evidence of evolution. But bacteria have proved, on the contrary, to be highly ‘resistant’ to the theory of evolution.

—Michael Matthews

[/ QUOTE ]

And please, not the nylon example. If you need I can give you more lessons in information. But these samples show you haven't studied the subjects much.

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the original turtle head must have got there by a mutation

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen very carefully. In fact, read this sentance three times so you can hammer it into your head - mutation does NOT add information!

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that very tongue-in-cheek.

You accuse me of not reading enough of your literature. But if you had read through the article I posted (my post, 2 posts up from this one), you will see that this author gives evidence that mutation alone does not add information, but when combined with the element of natural selection it can in fact add information.

[ QUOTE ]
Both studies mentioned above use artificial organisms in a digital environment (Avida for Adami et al. (2000) and ev for Schneider (2000)). The artificial organisms have the capacity to self-replicate and generate random variation (mutation) in each generation. They are able to show that, if subjected to natural selection, the organisms' genomic information content increases and uncertainty decreases in each generation until a stable peak is reached. Mutation supplies alternatives for natural selection; natural selection then decreases uncertainty by preserving beneficial mutations and weeding out harmful mutations, reducing the number of alternatives. Therefore, in principle, mutation and natural selection can increase information content of a genome. Each cannot act alone; mutations without selection only increase uncertainty (Schneider 2000: 2797). This initial conclusion still needs further corroboration, especially from studies of actual organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

So information addition HAS BEEN TESTED and proven possible. It just hasn't been observed in the real world (yet). You guys keep saying it's impossible which is clearly not the case.

[Adam Knowlden]

Again, though this shows you are not grasping the concept of information....

[ QUOTE ]
You accuse me of not reading enough of your literature.

[/ QUOTE ]

We accused you of making strawmen attacks. I mearly took what you quoted earlier. I have not read the entire article.

[ QUOTE ]
but when combined with the element of natural selection it can in fact add information.


[/ QUOTE ]

oh? Think about that for a second. Natural selection selects.

How can you select from information that is not there!

Finally, you are out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids [e.g. K. Kato, et al., ‘A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.]

In fact, more than one species of bacteria have the ability, residing on plasmids. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.

[ QUOTE ]
All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Mutation supplies alternatives for natural selection; natural selection then decreases uncertainty by preserving beneficial mutations and weeding out harmful mutations, reducing the number of alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to continue to believe that natural selection can select from information that is not there, that is your belief, not the observation of science!

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp