Jump to content


The Descent Of Man


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#41 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 June 2009 - 04:01 PM

Your problem here is that you assert that evolution is a lie, when I claim that it is not. How does creation explain the descending DNA pattern, the prescence of geological strata and the relative uniformity that the fossil record exhibits when all the creatures we find become more complex the closer we get to the modern age, with the various dating systems showing that the deeper we go, the older the organisms become.

View Post

You should do some searches in this forum. There are articles, videos and discussions dealing with these exact questions. Do a little homework so we don't have to rehash things. The whole purpose of this ministry is to answer questions just like that. Take your time and enjoy it.

you are also misrepresenting my argument when you say...

View Post

Please demonstrate how I'm misrepresenting you, rather than just asserting it.

This is what you said: :)

More personally, what is my angle and motive? To promote Science. The real danger of creationism is that it holds back scientific advance, as many of the followers of your movement are intent on hurting science, something which has made our standard of living a practical utopis compared to that in which our ancestors lived just 200 years ago.

View Post



Also, you equate the scientific method with evolution, when the scientific method is simply requiring evidence, and limiting assertions to the natural unviverse.

View Post

So you're asserting that only natural explanations are acceptable. So you follow the truth until it runs into God then you ignore it. Is that right? :huh:

#42 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 04:08 PM

You should do some searches in this forum. There are articles, videos and discussions dealing with these exact questions. Do a little homework so we don't have to rehash things. The whole purpose of this ministry is to answer questions just like that. Take your time and enjoy it.
Please demonstrate how I'm misrepresenting you, rather than just asserting it.

This is what you said: :)

View Post


"Show us how evolution eeds to be applied to do physics, surgery, engineering, even taxonomy doesn't need evolution and paleontology doesn't need it either."

When I made no claim that it did, except that Paleontology only really makes sense with evolution, and taxonomy fully supports it. The above quote was a misrepresentation for the reasons I just stated.

So you're asserting that only natural explanations are acceptable. So you follow the truth until it runs into God then you ignore it. Is that right? :huh:

No, it means that anything supernatural is obviously outside of the natural world, and as such, science can make no comment upon it.

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 June 2009 - 04:30 PM

The above quote was a misrepresentation for the reasons I just stated.

View Post

We'll just have to let others be the judge of that... :)

#44 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 07:05 PM

[quote name='Bex' date='Jun 20 2009, 06:31 PM'] - portion of paste
"The Neanderthals possessed the hyoid bone, which is necessary for human speech. "[/quote]
[/quote]
Apes also have hyoid bones, so this does not, by itself, prove any language fluency.

Another paste by Bex:-
[quote]
"In fact, Dr. Jack Cuozzo, a New Jersey orthodontist who has studied several of the Neanderthal skulls firsthand, argues that based on his experience of studying bone growth, the Neanderthals may have simply lived extremely long lives - perhaps 400-500 years rather than our typical 80."
[/quote]
I heard a talk by Cuozzo several years ago where he went a little further.
Neanderthals are the remains of pre-flood descendants of Adam and Eve who lived very long lives (969 for Methusalah).
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Jack_Cuozzo

Is anyone here a disciple of Cuozzo?

#45 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 June 2009 - 02:44 AM

Can you see my quote? If not, here it is.

"Proving that we are, by definition, animals is actually quite simple. Anything fitting into the classification of "animal" is a heterotrophic, multi-cellular eukaryote. This is a classification that is extremely broad, and quite simply means that an animal is a single creature made up of multiple cells, and it's cellular structure consists of a membrane, as opposed to a cell wall, and digests food in an internal chamber. Humans fit quite easily into this classification, and thus: humans are part of the animal kingdom, and the same holds true for bugs, birds, fish, and lions."

What part of this statement can you disprove again?

View Post

What part of that proves creatinists don't understand whatever it is you wish us not to understand? No part. It doesn't even address the issue. You publish a definition. Big Deal. You haven't proven that anyone fails to understand it. Your accusation is simply false, and your non-attempt to support it is clearly intended to deceive.

As for science, you're the one contradicting many hundreds of universities all over the world, and two very major fields within biology, just to make yourself feel "superior" to people who don't even exist.

You need to be making your case to lawmakers and academic policy-makers. Perhaps you can begin your protest by seeing a veterinary doctor for your next physical exam. When you are denied service, sue for religious discrimination. It is after all, your religion that insists humans are animals too.

No, it means that anything supernatural is obviously outside of the natural world, and as such, science can make no comment upon it.

Now there's a statement to stop science dead in its tracks. If only it worked.... If only these bozos would stop making false claims and calling them "science"...

How does evolution rot minds? I would consider myself to be at least moderately intelligent, especially for my age group, and I am one of few people I know (on a personal level at any rate) that actually studies the theory.

Can you tell me where to find it? I'd like to study "the theory" too sometime.

#46 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 June 2009 - 06:45 AM

Although in all honesty my initial reaction was an epic facepalm, here is my response.

As for science, you're the one contradicting many hundreds of universities all over the world, and two very major fields within biology, just to make yourself feel "superior" to people who don't even exist.

Where, pray, is my contradiction to hundreds of universities all over the world again? Your belief that humans are not hominids?

What part of that proves creatinists don't understand whatever it is you wish us not to understand? No part. It doesn't even address the issue. You publish a definition. Big Deal. You haven't proven that anyone fails to understand it.

Yes, I have found someone who fails to understand it. Here's someone:

You need to be making your case to lawmakers and academic policy-makers. Perhaps you can begin your protest by seeing a veterinary doctor for your next physical exam. When you are denied service, sue for religious discrimination. It is after all, your religion that insists humans are animals too.

The fact that humans are animals has been known for hundreds of years. Your thinking that because of this fact, I would get treated (or that I recommend anyone else to be) at a pet hospital is simply a ridiculous statement for a ridiculous idea.

Can you tell me where to find it? I'd like to study "the theory" too sometime.

Tip: Go to your local university. Enroll in evolutionary biology.

Alternatively, there are facts supportive of the theory all over the place, in a wide variety of scientific disciplines. A decent starting ground would be to read the Origin of Species, however there has been an overwhelming amount of evidence that has arisen since then, so study of paleontology would be in order.

Now there's a statement to stop science dead in its tracks. If only it worked.... If only these bozos would stop making false claims and calling them "science"...


Well, apparently it hasn't, because scientific naturalism has been around for a very long time, and just believing that supernatural forces control everything provides no inspiration to look for a naturalistic answer, something that has led to the advances in modern medicine. For just one example, we know that diseases are caused by viruses and harmful bacteria, rather than demons, angry Gods, or spirits.
Explain please how looking for a solution in our universe "stops science dead in it's tracks".

#47 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 June 2009 - 09:21 AM

Can you tell me where to find it? I'd like to study "the theory" too sometime.

Tip: Go to your local university. Enroll in evolutionary biology.

View Post

Even when you know we know your games, you still can't resist playing them.

You could've just said "no", since you cannot tell me where to find that which does not exist. But instead, you'd have me waste my time.

#48 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 June 2009 - 09:28 AM

Tip: Go to your local university. Enroll in evolutionary biology.

View Post

When I hear these answers here is the scenario I always picture:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=21076

My problem is that evolutionists (and many others, even many christians, unfortunately) think there is power in invoking some priestly class that has the answers that are far too difficult to boil down into coherent and simply understood arguments of objective truth. Basically; "our problems with evolution would go away if we could just submit to the perspective of those who 'understand it'".

This is the same thing that some state churches do and it’s just as shameful as well there. It comes down to this:

“I have a higher education and the reason I can’t answer your objections is because I’ve learned more and until you have done the same... I just can’t see how you could ever understand.”

I can see the temptation, and occasional (...unfortunately, maybe even frequent...) success, in a power play like this but it’s just foolish when people understand the shell game the gets derived from it:

Beginning of Conversation:

Mr. Self professed Scholar: "Do you believe me?"

Mr. Target of Education: "No"

Mr. Self professed Scholar: "Read these books."

Mr. Target of Education: "Okay."

Mr. Self professed Scholar: "Do you believe me now?"

Mr. Target of Education: "No"

Mr. Self professed Scholar: "You need more education."

Mr. Target of Education: "Why?"

Mr. Self professed Scholar: "…because you don’t believe me yet."

Mr. Target of Education: "Okay" (Target receives advised education)

(Go back to beginning of conversation and reread)

Posted Image

Don't get me wrong. I think educational material and books are great and are very valuable but we must not lose the point that things have meaning and purpose and can be understood from many perspectives if they are actually true and the seeker is honest. Educations are too often used as an intellectual trump card and I find this intellectually cowardly, and dishonest.

View Post



#49 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 22 June 2009 - 12:14 PM

When I hear these answers here is the scenario I always picture:

View Post

I wonder if the same conversation could take place between Christians and a math professor, or an aerospace engineer, or a geneticist. The big difference on topics of evolution is that you already have a world view, and a legitimate inquiry into the diversity of life that shares similar traits (all animals are Eukaryotes, for example) opposes it. I have to ask what your alternative to the science is. Do we back off and say "God did it"? Do we try to explain why God gave us traits that genuinely appear to be inherited, or is that not allowed? You, many of you, seem to have this misconception that evolution was created to tear down God, instead of being legitimate research into a natural explanation for the diversification of life. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to discard any gods, but to understand how the universe operates. Indeed, if God's universe laid down the basalt and granite, we want to know how. Your answer is "It didn't, God did it all himself, supernaturally" and your evidence is your dogma. Well, the scientists don't like answers that amount to "Case closed, I have faith," so please forgive them, and me, for observing the world and not making a jump from natural to supernatural. See, as far as I know, a supernatural explanation has never replaced a natural one, but plenty of supernatural explanations have been replaced by natural ones. So when a scientist or a professor tells you that you don't understand, consider the same idea again without invoking the supernatural. That's what the Christian scientists do. They observe nature and base their conclusions on it, rather than reaching for a supernatural cop-out whenever they become uncomfortable with what the body of natural evidence implies of a natural mechanic. If you dispute evolution, what are your natural alternatives for scientists to investigate? They cannot, after all, validate your world view which contains as many supernatural jumps as that of Brahma or Ra or Cronus. Are we supposed to leave "origin science" alone, and call the scientists heretics? Call them misled and misleading whenever they don't drop to the Bible to explain the universe? Maybe India will teach science with the Bhagavad Gita mixed with the books of non-offending science, just like we'll teach with a Bible here, and then people can argue over things with no positive ontology.

Any time we need to drop down to the unverifiable when it is surrounded on all sides by the verifiable, science is broken. What single unverifiable excuse will we use out of all the ones available? The popular one? I think I'll stick to a natural mechanic for diversification. With minor variation, only one of those is possible. Supernatural possibilities? Maybe the whole universe popped into existence, as is, in situ, 5 seconds ago, all memories and apparent evidence of the past included. Maybe it was 6 seconds ago, or 6000 years ago, but science cannot tell, it can only assess the evidence that exists. I'll take the science over an arbitrary supernatural construct which is only vindicated if you believe it is. After all, the evidence is consistent with a universe created in situ 5 seconds ago, even if that isn't where the evidence leads us. I'll stick to the verifiable evidence and its implications.

Peace.

#50 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 22 June 2009 - 03:23 PM

You should do some searches in this forum. There are articles, videos and discussions dealing with these exact questions. Do a little homework so we don't have to rehash things. The whole purpose of this ministry is to answer questions just like that. Take your time and enjoy it.
Please demonstrate how I'm misrepresenting you, rather than just asserting it.

This is what you said: :)
So you're asserting that only natural explanations are acceptable. So you follow the truth until it runs into God then you ignore it. Is that right? :lol:

View Post


What exactly does it look like when the "truth runs into God?"

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 June 2009 - 05:41 PM

What exactly does it look like when the "truth runs into God?"

View Post

When natural explanations or chance explanations are demonstrated to be unreasonable. When things are more adequately answered based on the work of a mind that would have the capacity for forethought, intentionality and purpose. When the presuppositions of the naturalists own worldview are conveniently violated to protect the very assumption that is being defended in the first place, chances are you are witnessing someone irrationally explain away an evidence that points right to God.

When scientists claim that science has demonstrated natural causation but their own explanations dismiss the constraints and knowledge of well established scientific laws you're staring at plain evidence for God being dismissed philosophically and not scientifically.

How's that?

#52 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 22 June 2009 - 06:08 PM

When natural explanations or chance explanations are demonstrated to be unreasonable. When things are more adequately answered based on the work of a mind that would have the capacity for forethought, intentionality and purpose. When the presuppositions of the naturalists own worldview are conveniently violated to protect the very assumption that is being defended in the first place, chances are you are witnessing someone irrationally explain away an evidence that points right to God.

When scientists claim that science has demonstrated natural causation but their own explanations dismiss the constraints and knowledge of well established scientific laws you're staring at plain evidence for God being dismissed philosophically and not scientifically.

How's that?

View Post


Care to provide any examples where you feel this has happened?

#53 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 June 2009 - 06:12 PM

  I have to ask what your alternative to the science is.  Do we back off and say "God did it"?  Do we try to explain why God gave us traits that genuinely appear to be inherited, or is that not allowed?  You, many of you, seem to have this misconception that evolution was created to tear down God, instead of being legitimate research into a natural explanation for the diversification of life.  Evolutionary theory does not attempt to discard any gods, but to understand how the universe operates.

View Post


Evolution has its own rules.

1. Material complexity has developed through purely natural processes. God was not involved in creating life's diversity
2. Evolution is true as a basis. All findings have to be interpreted through an evolution filter. If it fits then pronounce it loudly. If it doesn't say we need more time to explain it.
3. How life was created from none life is irrelevant to evolution.

Given these rules you have defined God out of the equation in the assumptions. You could never find intelligence because you are not looking for it and you assumed it away.

But if you were looking for intelligence you could find it scientifically. Intelligence is both qualitative and quantitative. For example to can measure information entropy spikes.

DNA has an alphabet and specific syntax whose information is understood by a third party, ribosomes, which creates something very specific from the information encoded in the DNA.

An analogy: Someone wrote the master design, wrote it down in an instruction manual (DNA) and then created a computer that understood and used the information (ribosome).

Your answer is "It didn't, God did it all himself, supernaturally" and your evidence is your dogma.  Well, the scientists don't like answers that amount to "Case closed, I have faith," so please forgive them, and me, for observing the world and not making a jump from natural to supernatural.  See, as far as I know, a supernatural explanation has never replaced a natural one, but plenty of supernatural explanations have been replaced by natural ones.


View Post


Evolutions take abiogenesis and the big bang as articles of faith. The big bang violated every laws of physics and chemistry: first and second law of thermodynamics, gravity and relativity. Also evolutionist start after life was created from non life. These are giant leaps of faith that evolutionist accept on faith not scientific fact.

I'll stick to the verifiable evidence and its implications.

Peace.

View Post


IMO you will only stick with verifiable evidence if it fits your world view. You have defined the terms that the only explanation is naturalism. You have left no room for intelligence. If it were presented you would reject it based on you rules that everything has to be explained by purely natural causes. You quest for proof is really a philosophical arguement not a scientific one. You just don't see it.

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 June 2009 - 07:12 PM

Care to provide any examples where you feel this has happened?

View Post

It looks like Bruce did it for me. Thanks, Bruce.

#55 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 June 2009 - 07:34 PM

But if you were looking for intelligence you could find it scientifically.  Intelligence is both qualitative and quantitative.  For example to can measure information entropy spikes.

DNA has an alphabet and specific syntax whose information is understood by a third party, ribosomes, which creates something very specific from the information encoded in the DNA.

An analogy: Someone wrote the master design, wrote it down in an instruction manual (DNA) and then created a computer that understood and used the information (ribosome).

In what respect does the ribosome 'understand' the information it is translating into protein?
Going with your analogy, I do not think my computer 'understands' what I am typing in this post, yet it is putting the letters in the right order.
It is able to do this, not because of any understanding, but because of the various switches etc associated with this keyboard and the computer software.

I strongly suspect that it is your inbuilt bias to see 'intelligence' and 'design' where none exists which is the source of so much of your thinking.

#56 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 22 June 2009 - 08:57 PM

Evolution has its own rules. 

1.  Material complexity has developed through purely natural processes.  God was not involved in creating life's diversity
2.  Evolution is true as a basis.  All findings have to be interpreted through an evolution filter.  If it fits then pronounce it loudly.  If it doesn't say we need more time to explain it.
3. How life was created from none life is irrelevant to evolution.

1. Science can only observe nature, so unless God is manifest, this is a given, and only expected, unless you would like science to speculate like never before on God.
2. Dig up a poodle from Permian strata and I assure you that basis will be broken. Find a chicken that grows hair. Something that actually contradicts a theory that explains the observations.
3. How matter came to be is irrelevant to climatology, and climatology deals intimately with matter. We do not need to know life's origin to utilize life science. Evolution certainly approaches the origins of life, but they are not directly relevant. Where a raw material comes from is not relevant to how a factory reshapes it.

Given these rules you have defined God out of the equation in the assumptions.  You could never find intelligence because you are not looking for it and you assumed it away.

We use as few assumptions as possible. There is no assumption, broadly speaking, that God isn't moving every electron in the universe in a predictable way, but the evidence does not dictate that he is. Scientists won't just assume God in. If God isn't needed to balance the equation 2 + 2 = 4, we won't make it 2 + 2 + God - God (hiding his influence) = 4. And besides, how can you rule out Brahma being the creator? Science cannot. Maybe God contracted Brahma to build the universe. You can't know, and neither can science. Unless intelligence is apparent -- prime numbers in the human genome; a mountain cleaved clean in three, the middle removed and the top set flush with the bottom, with YHWH inscribed between -- it shouldn't be assumed. He have no proof it wasn't the Celestial Teapot, and everyone assumes that away. We stick with what is verifiable. The only reason you see intelligence is because you assume it.

But if you were looking for intelligence you could find it scientifically.  Intelligence is both qualitative and quantitative.  For example to can measure information entropy spikes.

I don't understand, please elaborate.

DNA has an alphabet and specific syntax whose information is understood by a third party, ribosomes, which creates something very specific from the information encoded in the DNA.

It's chemistry. It's not akin to human language which is constructed by intelligence. You would have to demonstrate that there was an intelligent component to chemistry to call it "information" in proper sense. With the definition you give, weather is a form of information encoded by the structure of the planet and previous weather conditions, and a third party could "read" it to tell you the output. Perhaps we need a universal definition for information.

An analogy: Someone wrote the master design, wrote it down in an instruction manual (DNA) and then created a computer that understood and used the information (ribosome).

Define the someone, because as we see it now, using your analogy, the computers are being provided their instructions by other computers, and a master design is not apparent, unless it is meant to mutate.

Evolutions take abiogenesis and the big bang as articles of faith.  The big bang violated every laws of physics and chemistry: first and second law of thermodynamics, gravity and relativity.

You will get a Nobel Prize for demonstrating how. Your problem is that you have very rudimentary knowledge of the topic, and think that scientists are either ignoring such a blatant problem or that they are ignorant of it. I'm personally curious as to how you will invoke one of the four fundamental forces of nature when it wasn't originally a separate force. Lots of math to wind back space into such a small point, and bring it all up to such a high temperature. I'll say that I have a certain trust in the the body of cosmologists capable of running it, as it is beyond me. But if you or some other creationist could run the math and show there's a conspiracy on, you'd definitely be able to call into question the Big Bang Theory. You'd think this would be a top priority, but instead, you all cite laws that you think break it. I would enjoy hearing how you think gravity, relativity, and the first and second law of thermodynamics break a theory not predicated on telling us what was doing the banging, but how the banging went down.

Also evolutionist start after life was created from non life.  These are giant leaps of faith that evolutionist accept on faith not scientific fact.

We accept that the Theory of Evolution only explains the diversification of extant life, not its origin, on faith? What? Or are you criticizing us for not knowing, or claiming to know everything?

IMO you will only stick with verifiable evidence if it fits your world view.  You have defined the terms that the only explanation is naturalism.  You have left no room for intelligence.  If it were presented you would reject it based on you rules that everything has to be explained by purely natural causes.  You quest for proof is really a philosophical arguement not a scientific one.  You just don't see it.

View Post

Well, give me some verifiable evidence supporting your world view. And for what it's worth, intelligence is welcome, so long as it is scientifically verifiable. Incidentally, science stems from philosophy, and it does isolate things to the natural, observable universe, as a matter of principle. I see it just fine. I don't see anything else (could you point at something supernatural for me?). I see plenty of people who believe there is something else, based on what they feel in their gut, or based on what the Bible told them. Let me ask, as an aside, what you think would be more likely to be reconstructed if all the world's texts were destroyed, and everyone forgot everything: evolutionary theory, or the Bible? I hope this doesn't give you the impression the two are at odds, most scientists would disagree, but I think it illustrates what is evident over what is a novel work.

Peace.

#57 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 June 2009 - 09:48 PM

In what respect does the ribosome 'understand' the information it is translating into protein?
Going with your analogy, I do not think my computer 'understands' what I am typing in this post, yet it is putting the letters in the right order.
It is able to do this, not because of any understanding, but because of the various switches etc associated with this keyboard and the computer software.

I strongly suspect that it is your inbuilt bias to see 'intelligence' and 'design' where none exists which is the source of so much of your thinking.

View Post


Hi Keith,

Going with your analogy, I do not think my computer 'understands' what I am typing in this post, yet it is putting the letters in the right order.
It is able to do this, not because of any understanding, but because of the various switches etc associated with this keyboard and the computer software.


Sure but the point is the computer was designed and built to do just that. The ribosomes was built to take translated RNA/m-RNA and build a specific protein for a specific application exactly when that protein was needed. That screams of design.


I strongly suspect that it is your inbuilt bias to see 'intelligence' and 'design' where none exists which is the source of so much of your thinking.

View Post


Even Dawkins could see that DNA was a massive information molecule. If you are left of Dawkins I an worried about you.

Be honest. Do you have any idea how DNA,RNA and ribosomes evolved? Can't you see this as system that stores information, translates information and then uses the information for creating very complicated integrated systems that is beyond mans ability to reengineered. Isn't there even the slightest bit of awe in viewing something this beautifully designed.

#58 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 June 2009 - 09:51 PM

When natural explanations or chance explanations are demonstrated to be unreasonable. When things are more adequately answered based on the work of a mind that would have the capacity for forethought, intentionality and purpose. When the presuppositions of the naturalists own worldview are conveniently violated to protect the very assumption that is being defended in the first place, chances are you are witnessing someone irrationally explain away an evidence that points right to God.

When scientists claim that science has demonstrated natural causation but their own explanations dismiss the constraints and knowledge of well established scientific laws you're staring at plain evidence for God being dismissed philosophically and not scientifically.

How's that?

View Post


So when we don't know the answer, we should stop all of our research? When has this ever lead to any benefit for mankind?

#59 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 June 2009 - 10:10 PM

2.  Dig up a poodle from Permian strata and I assure you that basis will be broken.  Find a chicken that grows hair.  Something that actually contradicts a theory that explains the observations.

Peace.

View Post


Hi Ibex,

I only have time to answer one of your points.

Finding a poodle from the Permian strata is saying that finding fossils out of sync would disproved evolution. Fossils have been characterized for over a 150 million years. So the question is somewhat ad hoc believing that we pretty much know what we are going to find. The question is disingenuous on many levels:

1. We have found many credible fossils out of phase: For example

Evolution also predicts that live birth would not be found below the mid-Jurassic

Live birth below Jurrassic

second link

Posted Image

Evolution predicts that no flowering plant will ever be found below the Cretaceous

Posted Image


Protoavis is probably the most controversial of the fossil birds.

Protoavis is probably the most controversial of the fossil birds. Chatterjee (1991) believes it to be a Triassic bird, older than Archaeopteryx. Only fragments have been found, but its discoverer considers it to have many features associated with flight, for example a keel-like sternum indicating that it would have been a better flyer than Archaeopteryx. Its skull was lightly built and pneumatised, with a temporal region similar to modern birds. It also had a relatively large brain with an avian brain architecture similar to modern birds with neurosensory specialisations associated with balance, coordination, flight, agility and high metabolic activity. Claw morphology suggests that Protoavis could climb trees, yet the development of a supracoracoideus (the principal muscles that lift the wing) pulley indicates that it was able to fly.

2. The question is even being debated by atheist now. I clear cut test would not be debated this late in the game.
richard dawkins web site


3. Many fossils are found out of phase and are called hoaxes. In other words, if does not support evolution it is not really evidence. Because there is no evidence that can go outside the established rules of how evolution must work. To do is just a fluke and therefore should "always" be ignored. You can not fail a test were the rules are that failure is not allowed. So a rabbit found in Cambrian it would be called a hoax.

4. Another trick is to put fossils in we don’t know what to do with into a category called transitional. They have no clue what it transitioned from or what it transitioned into other than it makes the resume look better.

To sum it up, we find out of phase fossil all the time that Darwinian evolution does not predict out of phase fossils when they appear. Rather they evolutionary theory changes ad hoc to adapt to the evidence. If find a poodle from the Permian strata, evolution theory would just change the time line and move on. This after the fact accountability makes evolution impossible to disprove.

1. Science can only observe nature, so unless God is manifest, this is a given, and only expected, unless you would like science to speculate like never before on God.

3.  How matter came to be is irrelevant to climatology, and climatology deals intimately with matter.  We do not need to know life's origin to utilize life science.  Evolution certainly approaches the origins of life, but they are not directly relevant.  Where a raw material comes from is not relevant to how a factory reshapes it.

View Post


As I understand your world view is that everything can be explained by science. What happened during the big bang broke all the rules of science. All the matter in the universe was created from a singularity too small to measure. Once there was no matter or energy, then in less than a second, we have nearly and infinite amount of both. The universe expanded at several times the speed of light under the vacuum theory. This sounds like science speculating like never before.

The point is that science as we know it broke down and was unreliable. So where matter comes from is relevant if undermines your basic tenets of your world view.

#60 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 June 2009 - 10:11 PM

In what respect does the ribosome 'understand' the information it is translating into protein?
Going with your analogy, I do not think my computer 'understands' what I am typing in this post, yet it is putting the letters in the right order.
It is able to do this, not because of any understanding, but because of the various switches etc associated with this keyboard and the computer software.

I strongly suspect that it is your inbuilt bias to see 'intelligence' and 'design' where none exists which is the source of so much of your thinking.

View Post


I agree.Anybody that sees a computer as being a product of intelligence must be biased.

First of all,the origin of the first program is irrelevent to how the first program came into being.

Second,all we need are small errors in every generation of new programs to make them better over time. :blink:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users