Sorry, Vbulletin's coding wasn't working for me this time.
"I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know AtheistoclastÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s qualifications, his position or any institution with which he is affiliated so cannot know who his peers would be. Are these people qualified scientists? Online antagonists? People whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve decided a priori that the Genesis account HAS to be literally true if the Resurrection is to have any meaning? Furthermore, I have no idea as to the acceptance criteria that are used by a publication of which I had been unaware. An established scholarly journal (Nature
, the BMJ etc.) have a reputation for rigorous peer review; Complexity, no idea"http://goliath.ecnex...59391-page.html
That is the website of the company who posted his paper.
"I would not have been drawn to this aforementioned site had Atheistoclast himself not posted there himself many times. If someoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s credibility can be damaged by a Google search then they canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have had much credibility to begin with. For these reasons (and because of the bias apparent in his online name) I shall not be reading AtheistoclastÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s article."
This is an invalid point. I can do a google search on many people who have done something that caught the attention of the public and find negative articles on them. Including Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller, etc. Just because an atheist site has an issue with a certain person such as Joseph does not mean that his papers are not trustworthy. If his understanding of biology is so skewed, then I await your rebuttal.
"No, creationists start with the premise that an untestable creation account is literally true then try to justify this by searching for problems in anything that contradicts the creation account (geology, orthodox natural history etc.). If that is operational science then Ã¢â‚¬Å“operational scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â no longer has any meaning."
So, you are bashing Creationists because a religion is not testable? What a hypocritical statement. Why don't you enlightening me on the conditions of abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is not testable and is far from empirical.
Operational Science is observing that novel information and an increase of information on the genome has not happened in our lifetime. Operational Science is observing the Second Law of Thermodynamics and seeing the problem that it causes for materialistic evolution, the big bang, and abiogenesis. Operational Science is looking at the temperatures throughout our universe and realizing that The Big Bang never happened. Operational Science is Science based off of what we observe, now, explain to me how Common descent, abiogenesis, and The Big Bang is operational Science? Jolly Roger said "Dead men tell no tales." Dead animals don't either, neither do rocks.
Big Bang cosmology has nothing to do with evolutionary biology (Ã¢â‚¬Å“DarwinismÃ¢â‚¬Å“). It has everything to do with your world view Mitch. Cosmic and Chemical evolution used to be taught side by side in schools with evolution until scientists separated it. If you are going to accuse us of making assumptions I want you to give me the conditions of both abiogenesis and The Big Bang. At least we can explain our model. You can't scarcely begin to explain your own. I can say that God has nothing to do with my view on evolution, but I don't have to use this tactic because I am perfectly capable of defending God's existence. I expect you to defend your premise of the origin of existence if you are going to come waltzing in here to try and take shots at people's beliefs in this forum.
"Is this the same Bible wherein the central figure predicts His return within a generation?Was that an accurate prediction?"
The ignorance of this statement is staggering, I bet you haven't even read the first 5 Chapters of The Bible yet you claim that you know scripture.
You are obviously referring to this verse:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:34.
Jesus uses the Greek word "genea" which is a word for generations. This word has several meanings. The primary meaning is a group of men of common descent. Such as a race.
I happen to have several books on different languages such as Hebrew and Greek. My Lexicon Greek Dictionary provides the following definitions for "genea"
"1) a begetting, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation"
You may want to learn more about The Bible before you choose to argue about it.
"This is just wrong. Genes are strips of chromosome and chromosomes are chains of chemical bases. If a gene duplicates due to copying error then its sequence of bases is obviously lengthened (and this may or may not affect a phenotype). There is nothing determining that Ã¢â‚¬Å“only one of the copies can be utilized on the genome at a timeÃ¢â‚¬Â. Genotypes are on the genome or not at all. The genome does not explore useful combinations and does not have any Ã¢â‚¬Å“back burnerÃ¢â‚¬Â for its constituent genes separate from its chromosomes."
Nope. You are trying to divert the conversation by trying to give a basic definition of the gene. Nice try.
To reiterate my point that you danced around, when a gene is duplicated, one copy of the gene is retained for its phenotypic utility. Two examples are encoding for a protein or functional RNA, the other copy is free from selective constraint, and able to mutate and 'explore' alternative possible combinations via neutral drift. It may or may not produce something useful.
Only a very small portion of the genome is actually utilized.