That just shows that Complexity has a publisher.
I gave you the link in case you wished to do further research, you can always email him yourself too. I can pm you his email if you like. I'd rather stick to the topic of information at this point.
I am not aware of Dawkins or Ken Miller posting on forums with usernames comparable to Ã¢â‚¬Å“AtheistoclastÃ¢â‚¬Â; they also publicize their jobs, qualifications and affiliations.Ã‚Â The article you have linked is not appropriate for critique.
Nope, but Dawkins is very quick to attack Christian beliefs directly on TV, which in my opinion is worse than what Joseph does. There seems to be a lot of atheists who like to lurk in Christian areas to attack their beliefs. I don't see very many Christians who do so. Joseph isn't even a Christian, he just has a lot against darwinism. But yet again, his article has a very valid point that you have not yet addressed.
I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need to Ã¢â‚¬Å“bashÃ¢â‚¬Â, I point out what no one would dispute.Ã‚Â Abiogenesis hypotheses share the following general features: a fluid environment including potential building-block chemicals (e.g. the sea) and an external energy source (e.g. the sun).Ã‚Â We know chemical reactions can naturally happen; should a molecule emerge that accumulated new components into a repetitious chain then if that chain split we would have primitive self-replicationÃ¢â‚¬Â¦should faults in the splitting improve the self-replicatorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s competitiveness for resourcesÃ‚Â then we would have primitive adaptationÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.Are these ancient reactions specifically known?Ã‚Â No, they are as yet hypothetical, but we have DNA and RNA to guide our research.Ã‚Â Abiogenesis positÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an as yet unknown reaction involving an observed environment (the sea), observed forces and observed chemicals.Ã‚Â In the other camp we have everything created supernaturally and created perfect until a woman made from a rib ate from a magic tree because she listened to a talking snake.Ã‚Â Which do you think is more likely?
It is far more likely that we were designed by an intelligent force such as God. We can make an observation today that complex objects are built by intelligence. A DNA molecule is more complex than a space shuttle. The life coming from non life when proteins can not even be created at equilibrium and then being guided by random mutations does not adequately explain the diversity of life.
Let's look at abiogenesis in the light of observable science: How can Ribose be created without any enzymes? One of the biggest problems relating to this matter is that RNA and DNA can not be synthesized without enzymes. In contrast, enzymes can not be synthesized without RNA and ribosomes. I can go on, but it is a long list. I can tell you though that God does not violate any laws of Science. Creation however, does not violate any observed laws in Science.
Surely you would like to post a genome with increased information on this forum? Jason777 posted one earlier to show that no increase of information occurred on the particular species in question. If you can't show me an example, you are just using conjecture.
Such claims!Ã‚Â A duplicated gene, one copy of which then mutates, obviously leads to an increase in info on the genome.
Any mutation is the loss of information(or interchanging information) on the copied genome in comparison to the original gene. So basically, if the mutated gene(that lost information) is utilized on the genome as opposed the the normal gene, then that results in a loss of information on the small percentage of the genome that is used.
The 2nd law applies to isolated physical system which obviously doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t apply to Earth. Anisotropies in the WMAP (of CMBR) explain why energy is not evenly distributed.
I can go much further into thermal dynamics, but I believe it would be easier for me to ask you for a simple observed example of your application of the second law of thermodynamics.
The Anisotropies in the WMAP does not do anything to refute the Creation account. The measurements taken by WMAP does ROUGHLY match one of the models for The Big Bang. There were many different values given for inflation(which shows that they were simply just trying to find data to fit their model without considering the fact that there may be another cause for the existence of our universe mind you.), Scientists will always just simply pick the closest data after taking numerous measurements. This is how evo scientists work, nothing has changed here.
Well, crystals in rocks can let us date when the rock solidified.Ã‚Â One observes the ratio of parent to daughter decay products in a sample and that together with knowledge of what chemicals the molten and solid crystal will let in/out and knowledge of decay rates lets us date when the rock solidified.
And how do you verify that the decay rate was always constant? There are many variables that can affect decay rates.(Such as a global flood.)
the word means race or people rather than generation why do all the English translations I've seen render it Ã¢â‚¬Å“generationÃ¢â‚¬Â?
You are trying to use the English Bible to twist words into your favor rather than using the language it was originally written in.(Because the way it is worded in Greek solves the problem.) What matters is what was written in Greek. I view it as a bad translation, such as the king james version of one of the ten commandments "Thou shalt not kill" when the Hebrew word was for murder.
In posts 20 and 27 I say Ã¢â‚¬Âa gene that has duplicated, one copy of which mutatesÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â So, copy + mutation.Ã‚Â The immediate redundancy of the bare duplicate gene that you describe above is the very reason WHY they can then mutate without perillingÃ‚Â the host and if they do mutate can only add info to the genome.Ã‚Â The Wiki page even offers an example (the ice fish) of a beneficial mutation resulting from a duplication then subsequent mutation.
I never denied that beneficial mutations can occur as a result of gene duplicates being utilized on the genome.
When a gene duplicates, whether mutated or not, are on the genome not any "back burner".Ã‚Â Any subsequent mutation is like any other mutation.Ã‚Â A duplicate that mutates has to add info to the genome.
Which, of course,Ã‚Â is suggestive of evolution rather than design.
The new copy is not always utilized by the genome.(This is one of the things that you are missing.) When it is utilized, it is either just a different arrangement of information or a loss of information in the genome when utilized as opposed to the original gene. Maybe you can show me a gene that actually had an increase in information when duplicating?
Your suggestion that the size of the genome is more of evidence for evolution than design is just an assumption. There could be several explanations for this. The one that I accept is that genomes may have been fully utilized before the fall of man in Genesis Chapter 3.(You can see in The Bible that some people lived hundreds of years.)
Accusing me of ignorance, hypocrisy and diversion when I consistently stick to the topic is an unacceptable way to debate.
Fair enough. I apologize if I came off as abrasive. I am always known to say what is on my mind. I'm not one to sugarcoat. If it really bothers you I will try to be less blunt.