Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

True enough. Genesis 1-2:3 has the PURPOSE of giving us the trustworhty chronological account - the sequence for all life on earth and the creation of our solar system.

Genesis 2:5- end has the PURPOSE of explaining marriage and the ground rules for the first married couple. The sinless state - the command of God and the BASIS for eternal life or the FALL depending on their free will choice.

They address entirely differnt points in the origin of mankind and this planet.

You seem to understand some of that.

Genesis 1 is the clear obvious glaring CHRONOLOGICAL account, complete with EVENING and MORNING boundaries for EACH day. Each day is numbered and actions on EACH day are provided.

Nothing could be more obvious or more contradictory to the ORIGINS stories of evolutionism!!

I guess if you "ignore the details" then you can "at least" get that.

But paying attention "to the details" we see a huge glaring contradction between God's account of ORIGINS and humanism's account for origins.

We also see in GOD's account the CLEAR LINK between ORIGINS and the FALL of mankind.

Genesis 2 sets the stage for explaining all the issues in the fall of mankind and WHY we need a Savior.

The Gospel story begins in chapter 1 telling us about our creator and RELIABLY telling us what He did on EACH of the 7 days of creation week. A trustworthy Chronological sequence SHOWING in clear explicit terms the 7 days and what our creator DID.

Chapter 2 continues the Gospel story with the subject of MARRIAGE and the RULES for the FIRST human couple - sinless - perfect and perfectly PROVIDED for.

These are "the details"

Well - now if we could only get you to "read the details" in what you claim to confess "is true" - the Word of God.

This address the point of God making mankind complete on the 6th day "IN the beginning God MADE" and "FROM the beginning they were MADE male and female" -- the origins of life on earh - in that SAME WEEK - mankind exists AS God MADE them -- (not simply as they EVOLVED).

The text could not BE more contradictory to evolutionists when you pay attention to the details of scripture.

On the other hand - you "could" ignore all of scripture and just assert "they were not sexless"!!!

Entertaining as that joke is - it is nothing more than a very "short" rabbit trail to occupy one's thoughts while ignore the details of God's Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob said " have shown you that PROVEN science disputes the myths and stories of evolutionism."

On the contrary - for the two cases I provided (Entropy and Chiral mix for ALL LIVING CELLS) I SHOW that all of science is in my favor and that you have absolutely nothing (Noting that you even confess it at times on the chiral problem.)

Though you have tossed in obscure quesswork after obscure guesswork - in the end - even you admitted it was just guesswork.

Odd - how you claim that vapor of a foundation is "sufficient" to challenge all of scripture on the subject of origins -- don't you think?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob said
"Each of your attempts to misdirect the topic of the thread or the one or two cases where we contrast evolutionism to PROVEN science - you appeal to obscure speculations."

Indeed. You admitted you had nothing to go on - that you were relying on pure guesswork.

Thanks. That was a satisfactory response -- as good as it gets for evolutionism.

Of course with each guesswork "story" there is something about clay or chalk that can be dredged up to prop-up-the-story but "in the end" you admit that it comes short of "proof" and is in the final analysis "guesswor".

Odd that this is taken as "sufficient" to base your faith on - in your response above.

Even when Isaac Asimov shows us the contrast between entropy SEEN vs entropy NEEDED by evolutionism -- (an icon for atheist evolutionists that he is) you still refuse to allow yourself to "see" the problem.

It was an instructive response on your part.

Do you notice how these facts "do not change" simply because they do not reflect well on evolutionism? That seems to surprise you each time they are admitted. Why?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Recall that "YOU" where the one to suggest that we get OFF the topic of the Bible contradicting evolutionism AND ON to the subject of entropy??

Then after reams of posts PROVING you have "nothing" either in entropy or in cell biology to support your views - you say "I am not responding"!!!????

Don't you really mean - I am not cooperating with your attempts to change the subject "again"?

Bob said
"I prefer to stay on focus - stay on topic rather than strew red herrings all through the thread."

Critical thinking will be needed here UTEOTW and that is where you seem to be weak. Your claim is that "any old rabbit trail that UTEOTW throws out should be considered valid refutation". But guess what? It has to make sense!! It has be based on something besides Junk Science! And at the end you have to say something beside "of course this is all just guessworkl"!!

Why does that not compute with you?

Why do you go on insisting that "any old guesswork is compelling refutation" AS IF such a silly idea "becomes true" just because you say it???

This is the part that really amazes me!

Again you do it. "SHOWN to be incorrect" in an argument on your point that ends with "UTEOTW has no facts on this and it is all just guesswork"!!!

How can you live with yourself in making those blind assertions??

As for refuting Isaac Asimov - you were totally incapable of coming with one single point. In fact when you went to find MORE quotes form Isaac - you only dug your hole deeper!! Show show him contasting entropy SEEN in human biology against entropy NEEDED by the stories of evolutionism!!

And now you claim "THAT" as proof for your beliefs in evolutionism??

I am amazed!

"Surely you "see" the absurd nature of this misdirection above??"

You do have one point though. In your attempts to "change subjects again" off the Bible and evolutionism, OFF the junk science of abiogensis, OFF the subject of Asimov SHOWING the contrast between entropy SEEN and entropy NEEDED by the junk-science of evolutionism... you leap on to "chalk stories" and have been holding you feet to the fire on these other points of "emperical science"

Is it now your claim that your entropy problem is sovled in your "chalk story"??

Is it yhour claim that I have an opportunity to justify that entropy fact that Isaac SHOWS us in the contrast between entropy SEEN vs entropy NEEDED in evolutionism -- by switching topics to your "chalk story"???

Or are you claiming that the abiogensis problem I show for you where EVEN YOU admit you have nothing but guesswork to support you - is challenged by "the chalk story"??

Does it ever occur to you to "notice" how you go to more and obscure and oblique lengths to contrive a junk-science tale to address clear indisputable evidence in the lab when it comes to entropy and the chiral problems with evolutionism's junk science??

Huh??

Are you reading the thread at all??

In Christ,

Bob

 

"You keep claiming that the only reason you abandon God's Word is that your junk-science stories were so compelling - but here you admit that your junk-science is known by you - in this case - to ONLY be guesswork."

I don't dispute that part of evolutionism's story when you say you can not be sure and that it is all quesswork.

What I DO dispute is you proclivity to claim that pure guesswork "DISPROVES" the solid science I am showing that NO LIVING cell in all of biology is based on what "Evolutionism NEEDS" for abiogenesis.

When I prove that you would need ENTIRELY NEW laws of biochemistry - blue-sky invention - you toss out "GUESSWORK" as your defense and then want to claim you PROVED something???

As if "any old rabbit trail" you come up with (even GUESSWORK) is actually "PROOF" of something?????

Can't you allow yourself to SEE how that is going to be hard for anyone to swallow that is using objective thinking???

I just can't understand why you don't see this.

Hhmmm Richard Dawkings CLAIMS evolutionism explains EVERYTHING starting "with nothing" in his words. Is it your claim now - that HE is a YECer??????

Or "is HE is over his head??"

Or is this just ANOTHER embarrassing confession from evolutionists icons that you need to refute as in the case of your opposing Isaac Asimov??

I think we all can see which it is.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, that refers to the sun and moon. During the description of the fourth day, it goes on to say "He made the stars also." The stars are not great lights; they are small lights in the sky (at least from our perspective).

Do you disagree with this and think the stars were created at some other time? If so, how do you reconcile this your statement that "Gen 1-2:3 is a chronological sequence an 'account' historically accurate and true and appealed to by the Exodus 20:8-11 summary God speaks to"?

I hope you don't think this is a diversion. I'm honestly quite curious as to how you interpret creation from the Bible.

 

Nope, read it again. You've created a straw man that implies I don't believe eternal life is real or that Jesus was really resurrected. That is false, and I do not take kindly to you putting such statements in my mouth. You're arguing against a position of your own imagining, not against what I wrote. This is why I am so skeptical of your biblical interpretation, Gup. You can't even understand me, and I'm writing in modern English. Either you have trouble with reading comprehension (I have mild dyslexia myself, and as a result I usually read things a few times before responding), or you're willfully distorting me in order to make my position easier to attack and/or to appear more spiritual than me. I really hope it's not the latter.

Here is what I actually said. Note the complete lack of any statements about Christians not living forever, or Jesus' resurrection not being physical:

Romans 5 directly states that death spread to all men as a result of one man's sin.

Once again, here's the verse you're referring to: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned". My view is that the phrase "death spread to all men" clarifies what kind of death is being discussed. Your view is that the first instance of the word "death" is generic and the phrase "death spread to all men" zeroes in on one aspect of it. Both are literal interpretations. But, which one makes sense in the larger context?

Let's analyze your interpretation by seeing if it works throughout the passage. Romans 5 talks about both death and life, so let's look at two verses that describe the life Jesus provided us. Here's verses 17 and 21: "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ"; and "so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Now, is the life spoken of in verse 17 talking about eternal life, or life in general? If your interpretational approach is correct, then verse 17 talks about life in the generic sense being given to all men through Jesus' act of righteousness. In other words, neither Adam nor any other human would have ever lived -- not even in a pre-fallen state -- without Jesus' death and resurrection! Obviously that's not true: while Scripture states that Jesus was active in creation, it was not Jesus' gift on Calvary that physically created us.

My approach is to use the clarification in verse 21 to further understand verse 17. We had life before, but thanks to Jesus we have eternal life! Both verses speak of this eternal life, regardless of whether they use the phrase "eternal life" or just say "life". Just as verse 21 clarifies what kind of life verse 17 refers to, the second half of verse 12 clarifies the kind of death the first half of that verse refers to.

Yes, death entered the world by Adam's sin. There's no need to try fancy definitions of the word "world". I could also truthfully say that chaos enters a house when school's out and Tommy gets home. That doesn't mean that every person in the house is chaotic. It means chaos is in the house, because Tommy is there. Similarly, I believe people are in the world! So, because people sin, death enters the world!

Because it was symbolic of what Jesus would some day do. I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that God required a symbol that really was abhorrently evil to him? In that case, he would have ordered human sacrifice, not animal sacrifice. The animals didn't really save -- they were a symbol. They are worthless except as pointers to the true sacrifice for all mankind.

And I'm sure your definition of "information" would be as nebulous as your definition of "kind". No doubt a nylon-eating bug has lost information by your reckoning. If you're serious about backing up assertions like this, I encourage you to take it up with some of the others in this thread. I would enjoy reading it. So far, I've never read a YEC explanation of what information is that is coherent.

So God has been removed from creation since the fall, and that's why it's spinning down? On the contrary, I believe the heavens still declare the glory of God, and God still sustains the universe and everything in it. If God ever walked away, even for a moment, not only would we cease to exist, but I believe we'd never have existed in the first place! Creation is fully dependent on God.

And poodles don't turn into great danes. Poodles give birth to other poodles. If you can see how this doesn't disprove that all dogs share a common ancestor (or are part of the same "kind") then you should also be able to see how your argument is useless against evolution proper.

 

"On the contrary - for the two cases I provided (Entropy and Chiral mix for ALL LIVING CELLS) I SHOW that all of science is in my favor and that you have absolutely nothing (Noting that you even confess it at times on the chiral problem.)"

Then again (for what, the fortieth time) I ask you what specifically is it that entropy prevents from happening with regard to evolution? I mean, this is your pet subject, maybe you could enlighten us with what your point is. The truth is that you have none. You cannot tell us a single solitary thing that entropy prevents from happening. All you give are vague references to "massive" (Oh wait. Excuse me... "MASSIVE") decreases in entropy. But you never tell us exactly what this is supposed to mean. As your very own Asimov quote shows, the universe trends towards increased entropy but can have local decreases. Let's take a look again at the salient part of the quote.

So you see what he is saying now? The universe trends towards disorder but local decreases are allowed. He gives you the example of working to straighten a room. Are you denying the local decreases in entropy are allowed in thermodynamics? I think I have shwon you the technical aspect summarized by G=H-TS which shows that local decreases in entropy can be both thermodynamically favorable and spontaneous. I have also shown you that there has been a huge local decrease in entropy just to grow that oak tree in my front yard. Yet there it sits.

In typical YEC fashion, you have no answer to any of this. You cannot tell us what entropy prevents. And you certainly cannot admit to the favorability of local decreases in entropy. You have an assertion with no apparent consequences. Yet you ignore everything presented before you and continue to assert the same things over and over without ever even being able to give us a consequence.

And you are doing the same thing with the chiral compounds. Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.

Yet you continue to post the same things. You still assert that there is a chiral problem despite all the references to catalysts that favor a given isomer. But you cannot deny that catalyst provide a solution because the evidence is out there, it would look foolish. Yet you continue to post the same things. Interesting. No wonder you dread the thought of getting into other subjects.

"Indeed. You admitted you had nothing to go on - that you were relying on pure guesswork...Again you do it. "SHOWN to be incorrect" in an argument on your point that ends with "UTEOTW has no facts on this and it is all just guesswork"!!!...I don't dispute that part of evolutionism's story when you say you can not be sure and that it is all quesswork."

Oh how many thing can we find wrong here? We should stay focused. I ahve freely admitted that there is no hard evidence that can be possibly be found to know if a particular abiogenesis hypothesis is true or not. Yet you commit a fallacy (I would say equivocation) by extending this to evolution. There is lots of evidence for evolution. And it is dishonest quoting for you to attribute my statements on the subject of abiogenesis to the subject of evolution. But when have YECers ever been concerned with playing the facts very tightly?

"When I prove that you would need ENTIRELY NEW laws of biochemistry - blue-sky invention - you toss out "GUESSWORK" as your defense and then want to claim you PROVED something???"

Just what new laws of biochemistry am I inventing? I think I have shown you autocatalytic reactions. I think I have shown you references and lab experiments to back up by claims.

"Is it now your claim that your entropy problem is sovled in your "chalk story"?? "

Nope. I have given you the answer to the imaginary entropy problem using your own quote. I am merely pointing out one of the many subjects that you refuse to address.

"It has be based on something besides Junk Science! "

YECers are experts in junk science.

 

"Our bodies are billions upon billions of times more complex than an automobile, however, to my knowledge not a single car has ever had the ability to evolve into something else."

What a strawman. Just how would a muffler go through the process of mutation and selection?

"Our genomes are the same. Without God to hold them up to their original design, they run down, not up. Evolution asserts that biological systems increase with efficency, function, use over time... this is not true."

I have demonstrated in a great deal of detail why this assertion is incorrect. You assert that we can only lose "information." Yet I have shown you one specific method of generating new "information." Duplication and mutation. I have shown that duplications happen. I have shown that mutations happen. I have shown that mutations can lead to new functions. I have given the empiracle evidence of the large number of gene families where many different functions are based on the same basic sequence. I have shown you the details that show tha the variations i nsequence that give rise to the different functions is a result of evolution by showing the increased divergence in the silent coding positions of each codon. Yet you still continue to make the same assertions.

BTW, what exactly is "information" ion the sense of the genome? I suppose I will get that anser about the same time you anser what a "kind" is exactly.

"I know that it is unfathomable to call yourself a christian and hold the view that portions of scripture are not quite right.... "

First, you are again misrepresenting my position.

Second, how dare you attempt to sit in judgment of me. "Judge not..."

".... or that God didn't think it was important to tell us the truth. "

I am not the one attempting to judge God. You are the one attempting to judge what God revealed to us.

"How can one be a christian and not believe the Bible?"

More slander. Who are you to judge whether I am a CHristian? Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I do not believe the Bible. I ahve not said that the Creation account is not factual, I said it is not literal. Huge difference.

"You can't pick the parts you think are real and the parts you think are fairy tale."

More slander. Just because I do not take the Creation to be literal does not mean I think it is a mere fairy tale.

"While cleverly worded your statements mean exactly this:

"you know that the Bible is wrong about the world, and that Genesis is a fairy tale""

Can you make a point with misrepresenting and slandering?

I think the point is clear. The ancient Jews had a worldview of a flat earth surrounded by the "deep" with a dome overhead containing the stars and keeping the waters above out. It is obvious that the plain reading of the text from the first of Genesis to the New Testament reflects this worldview. I think it is clear that you cannot honestly deny that this is what they thought. I think it is clear that you instead choose to twist the plain reading and clear intent of the writers to fit your own modern preconceptions. You do this because you know to admit defeat on this point is to admit that God chose to work through what the people receiving the message thought of the world. If you were to ever admit this, then your whole reasoning for insiting upon a literal interpretation goes out the window. So instead you twist the plain reading of scripture to fit your own devices and slander me by asserting that if I do not go along with your way of looking at things that I call God a liar, that I view the Bible as nothing more than a "fairy tale," and questioning my CHristianity. When cornered, sling mud I guess.

It is also curious all the persecution that those who first proposed things such as a non-geocentric earth received by those who just as confidently were quoting scripture as you do now. They just knew they were right. They know they were so right they they refused to look through GG's telescope at the moons of Jupiter. Just as you are so convinced that you are right that you refuse to address the overwhelming evidence against you.

"Perhpas if you spent less time trying to prove the scripture false"

I am not trying to prove scripture false. I do not think that any of the things I have asserted indicates Biblical error.

"Isn't that the real reason you argue in favor of evolution? To appear wise in the eyes of man?"

No. Why would I want to appear wise in the eyes of man. I do not need to assert evolution to appear wise to them. If I were interested in that, I can easily point to examples of my own accomplishements to demonstrate that. But that kind of praise is not something I have ever been comfortable with nor concerned with.

No, I think that YEC discredits CHristianity through its dishonest practices. Whether it is the abhorent practice of quote mining or the rules of the major organizations that make you agree to your conclusions beforehand or the twisting and ignoring of the facts to the slandering of those who are against them. I think YEC, especially its practices, area a horrible representation of Christianity to the world.

"Evolution true seeks to exhault itself against the knowlege of God."

More misrepresentation. It seeks to explain the current diversity of life on earth.

"Whether or not it's figurative makes no difference. This is what God told us is true. "

Could not have said it better myself. It is the truth whether it is figurative or literal. Glad you agree.

"You are the one who has decided not to believe what the scriptures say. Your statement is based on the assumption that God didn't mean what he said."

More slander and misrepresentation. Just because I think it is non-literal does not mean that I think it is untrue.

"So you think God is willing to lie and give false witness as long as He got the 'bigger things' right? No so, my friend."

More slander and misrepresentation. I think He told us exactly what He wanted us to know. It is not lying to use non-literal language. I still am amzed by your hubris in questioning how God chose to do things. As if you are the final arbitor of what God may do.

"You cannot build the truth upon a lie, for the truth will not stand. "

Quit calling God a liar. There can be truth in non-literal accounts. Or did you forget about the parables?

"I have exposed your fallicous lie instead."

More slander. Where have I told a lie?

</font>[/QUOTE]Nice trick there of substituting what was said with something else. Any one can look above and see that what I said was that these things were not literal. You have dishonestly substituted to make it appear that I do not believe the Bible. Pathetic.

"When you are willing to believe the Bible over your own eyes, let me know and we'll talk."

I am glad to see you admit that simply using your own eyes top look at Creation will reveal its great age. Interesting admission. But you are still slandering me by asserting that if I disagree with you that I do not believe the Bible.

"I would rather be considered a fool for believing God's word to be true, then wallow in the filth of my own self interest. "

What exactly self interests of mine do you think are being served by being filleted by a fellow believer?

"Yes, they are called 'creationists'. "

Ha. Where do any YECers do respected work in a germane field? YOu ignore that many people who are Christians work in the various fields. They do their work and maintain their Christian beliefs. There are not out, as you assert, to try and destroy God. Such claims are ridiculous.

And you never addressed the issue of whether God acts through natural means at times to accomplish His will. The way you quoted me indicted that you not only thought that this never happens but also that you think that anyone who does think that He does so does not believe God.

Your whole argument is based on the fallacy of the false dilemma. EIther I agree with you or I think the Bible is a "fairy tale." You ignore the truth, that there is another option. That I can believe the Bible and recognize that parts are truthful but not literal.

YOu an Bob constantly complain that it is a an attempt to change the subject and avoid the issues by trying to look at the physical evidence. Well the truth is this. We have differences in how certain scriptures should be interpreted. We can go on forever asserting that ours is correct. (And with you slandering those that do not agree with you.) But I consider the physical evidence to be on topic. The Creation itself is part of God's revelation to us. It can be used to settle who is right. But you prefer to continue to assert the same things over and over and to question the salvation of those who disagree with you. It is not a change of subject. I mean, how many times can you insist it must be literal and I insist that it need not be literal to be true?

 

Your interest in mincing words is not found in scripture. The number in scripture is correct "two". And the "LESSER light" was to rule the night.

The reference to "the stars also" was merely to point out that the Creator of the TWO great ligths ("HE MADE TWO great light" on the 4th day) was also the direct, divine "maker" of the stars "also".

So -- Two is the number I am sticking with. Though I suppose you could make the case that he made the other planets (stars) in our solar system on the 4th day. However I do not intend to sidetrack on such minor points.

Yes. But I don't want to pull you off onto this side trail. (As much as I myself like this one). So please continue with the 7 days of creation as listed in scripture.

For Gen 1-2:3 gives us a chronological sequence bounded by evening-and-morning for EACH day.

So -- please feel free to actually begin to address how this directly contradicts evolutionism's stories. (Though I admit that this side trail is pretty interesting).

As I said - the text is correct - the number is TWO.

The text is also correct in pointing out that God is the one that ALSO made the stars.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are addressing the cause of entropy.

In my argument I don't address the cause - I simply point out that the EVOLUTIONIST's icon Isaac Asimov HIMSELF points out that we OBSERVE entropy decayind and degrading human biological systems every day - at the individual level.

But then Asimov also notes that the story of evolutionism NEEDS us to observe MASSIVE DECREASES in entropy to go from molecule-to-human-brain. (This is in the quote that I gave from Asimov combined with the quote that UTEOTW gave).

It provides an instructive contrast between what Asimove admits that we SEE in good science vs what evolutionism NEEDS (and tries to use junk science to get at).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob said "On the contrary - for the two cases I provided (Entropy and Chiral mix for ALL LIVING CELLS) I SHOW that all of science is in my favor and that you have absolutely nothing (Noting that you even confess it at times on the chiral problem.)"

And I respond for the forty first time - that Asimov ALREADY gave you this answer.

He ALREADY admits that what we SEE in human biology is INCREASE in entropy such that all human biological systems are impacted by decay and disorder requiring EFFORT (energy and work) to maintain them.

By contrast to what he says we SEE - Isaac admits that the stories told by evolutionism NEED to see a "massive decrease" in entropy so they can get from molecule to human brain evolution.

Nothing could be more obvious than that instructive contrast.

It is a contrast between what we SEE in the lab (good science) to the "stories" told by evolutionism (junk science).

"Pretending" that you "don't get it" is not a kind of "proof" in your favor.

The fact that your OWN group is saying this - makes your case even worse as you pretend not to notice what THEY say we SEE IN nature.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

We see localized decreases in entropy all around us every day. Plant a tree: if localized decreases in entropy don't exist, how can the tree grow? If you live someplace cold (like Saskatchewan in the winter ), you can see what used to be disordered condensation turn into ordered snowflakes.

 

Indeed that is entropy at the LOCAL level - and requires WORK to counter as in our work in straigtening the room.

Asimov points out that we see this SAME LOCAL entropy increase with our human biology.

This is the part you conveniently cut out - and constantly pretend not to read.

I will quote it again for you.

Notice that Asimov gives these LOCAL examples of increased entropy as his example of what “the 2nd law is all about”. This is “Good science”!

This is in fact a complete failure in your resonse. Because the seed is complex transforming "machine". It's function is to transform light, water, minerals into organized, specific organic tissue.

The INCREASE in entropy that one "expects" given that "machine" is forces that tend to starve, dry out, infect, decay degrade the tree.

Lack of rain, too much heat, too much cold, failure to get the right mineral, too much shade, too much sun.

God provides a wide range of "Work" in the ecosystem that is working against the natural entropy degrading the tree "engine".

Your appeal to the intelligently designed systems of God - as "decreased entropy" makes MY point - not yours.

Asimov is right - in his appeal to GOOD science. We DO see decay and disorder impacting LOCAL human biological systems. He is 100% correct on that observation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system.

Since you can provide no evidence that we have reached even that modest point you settle for more obscure experiments with less compelling results.

I don't blame you for working with whatever you can find. I am just pointing out that having GOOD science and the Word of God in my favor on this one - is far superior to your reliance on "guesswork".

Bob said
"Indeed. You admitted you had nothing to go on - that you were relying on pure guesswork...Again you do it.

"SHOWN to be incorrect" in an argument on your point that ends with "UTEOTW has no facts on this and it is all just guesswork"!!!...

I don't dispute that part of evolutionism's story when you say you can not be sure and that it is all quesswork."

i.e. No good science showing abiogenesis to be a fact - it is still just a "hope" for evolutionists - 'guesswork' based on junk science.

It is dishonest of you to continually "pretend" that your OWN atheist evolutionist ICONS are not making the SAME claims I have stated for evolutionism abiogensis and "starting from NOTHING".

I keep bringing it up.

You keep pretending the reader won't read it.

Here it is "again".

What is really "instructive" is that Dawkins does not make this confession about EVOLUTIONISM's claims in a vaccuum. Rather he makes in the CONTEXT of people like you trying to marry evolutionism to the Gospel.

How much more "instructive" can this be??!!

Then you "try" the standard evolutionist "ploy" that christians are too stupid to understand evolutionism or abiogenesis whenever the evolutionist finds himself in a corner.

As "standard" as that answer is -- you fail to respond to the fact that IN THIS CASE - it is DAWKINS that is placing you in the corner. Are you saying he is too stupid to understand evolutionism or what it is claiming?

Are you saying he is too stupid not to know that "LIFE starting from nothing" is abiogensis?

I keep asking this and you keep dodging it with canned evolutionist answers - without noticing that you are not addressing the details of the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"This is in fact a complete failure in your resonse. Because the seed is complex transforming "machine". It's function is to transform light, water, minerals into organized, specific organic tissue.

The INCREASE in entropy that one "expects" given that "machine" is forces that tend to starve, dry out, infect, decay degrade the tree."

And the complete failure in your response is that natural selection is the driving force that allows for the development of new traits.

Sure, you can posit that entropy leads to the mutation of the genome. But you know what? Natural selection then acts upon those changes. Those that happen to be detrimental tend to get weeded out. Those that are beneficial tend to get conserved.

And you have been demonstrated this time after time. YOu have been given plenty of examples of new functions and traits that result from mutations. For larger scale changes, I have gone through with you in some detail about families of genes that have evolved together through duplication and mutation. We know that they evolved from the same gene because of the similarities in sequence and because of the specifics of how the silent positions in each codon show the most variability.

As I keep pointing out to you, Asimov gives you your answer right there in the quote. Through work, local entropy decreases can occur. Not even you can deny this. And as I have shown through G=H-TS, these local decreases can be spontaneous and favorable. This dismisses the appeal you attempt to make that only an intelligently designed system can make such decreases. Again, if you doubt this, I invite you to put a glass of water on your back porch the next really cold night. That thing will decrease in entropy all by itself until it's all ice. Or do you suppose some intelligence is needed for basic heat transfer?

Besides, just what do you think the difference in entropy is between successive generations? You think that is too much to overcome? Come on Bob, show us some "critical thinking" and apply your theory. You say "By contrast to what he says we SEE - Isaac admits that the stories told by evolutionism NEED to see a "massive decrease" in entropy so they can get from molecule to human brain evolution." So tell us what prevents this from happening. Apply your theory. As far as I can tell, you are still asserting a problem without telling us why it applies or what the consequences are. The "NEED to see a massive decrease in entropy" means that WHAT will not happen and why? It is still as simple a question as when I first asked it.

Does anyone out there in the peanut gallery understand his objection? I would be happy to have someone explain it to me or to tell me what part of my response is unclear.

As far as the chiral compounds go...

I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...

Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal 12:503-507

Remember how we talked about the surfaces of borax and clays acting as catalyst. Well they found that RNA makes the left handed proteins even from a mixture of amino acids when on such a surface. SO that gives us three possible cases. The catalysts make the left handed amino acids. The catalyst makes the right handed ribose which then makes RNA which then serves as a catalyst for the left handed amino acids and puts them into proteins. Or RNA on a catalyst makes proteins using only lefthanded amino acids from a mix of amino acids.

How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.

Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490

You might want to study up on the general concepts of that one. How catalyst can arrange molecules in specific ways on their surfaces such that two things can happen. Either reactants that would normally make a racemic mixture can come together in such a way that only one isomer will be made. Or, if you have a randon mix of isomers, that one one will fit on the surface in the right way for a reaction to take place and therefore you can selectively pick out one isomer from a mix.

"I don't dispute that part of evolutionism's story when you say you can not be sure and that it is all quesswork."

Ah, still misquoting. I said you cannot have anything concrete on abiogenesis, you know, the origin of life. You are applying that to evolution, you know how life changes with time, which has plenty of evidence.

"It is dishonest of you to continually "pretend" that your OWN atheist evolutionist ICONS are not making the SAME claims I have stated for evolutionism abiogensis and "starting from NOTHING"."

First, I have given you several possible scenarios which you do not seem to have any real objection to. So what is dishonest about my stance? YOu are the one applying what I have said about one subject and quoting it as if I was talking about something else.

Second, why do you think these guys are my "icons?" You used something like this the first time after I casually mentioned I was reading an Asimov book, Foundation. So since I read a science fiction book by one of the most famous science fiction writers, he is my "icon?"

And you know that whenever you quote Dawkins opinion on God that I will point out that it is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. He has no special expertice to talk on religious matters.

But since you bring up the quote, and he is an expert in evolution, look closely at somethings he says in there. One, he says "Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true." It sounds like that in a field in which he IS an expert, he is fairly confident that evolution happened. He goes on to say "The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos. Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation." So, in a field in which he is an expert, he does not see any of the objections that you as a layman are trying to assert. It's your quote, I suppose we should take it.

"Are you saying he is too stupid not to know that "LIFE starting from nothing" is abiogensis?"

Yes, you finally understand. I believe Dawkins likely does as well. And evolution is the change in that life once it gets started. Real progress here.

"Then you "try" the standard evolutionist "ploy" that christians are too stupid to understand evolutionism or abiogenesis whenever the evolutionist finds himself in a corner."

I do not think you are stupid. I am sure you could understand it if you tried. It really is not that difficult. But you might have to remove your blinders first. I think if you were to give it a good unbiased attempt, you would come to accept evolution and would find that it does not interfere with your Christian life. If not, maybe you would at least understand it well enough to better object to it.

 

"You and UTE keep asking me to argue about something other than the real issue."

Nope. As pointed out, we try to address your issues. We also point out areas in which you are inconsistent with what you demand of us. But we both consider the broader topics to be germane. Each side here is insisting that they have the right means of interpreting the scriptures. I assert that as long as we disagree on this, that one method of settling the dispute is to look at the general relevation from the Creation itself. You seem to agree, constantly asserting that this general relevation supports you, but instead you only seem interested in continbuing to assert that you must have the right interpretation and slandering those who disagree with you. We can go back and forth to the second coming asserting that our side is right. But since we have an empirical set of data that can confirm things one way or the other, it seems prudent to use such information.

"The laws of Nature determine that the nature of information is non-material. Matter and Entergy cannot give rise to new information. Because of these two factors, man's physical body cannot create new information. Therefore, since man's being does create new information, there must be a non-material component."

I was really hoping that you could give us the Gup20 summary to show us what you think "information" is but I guess this will have to do.

We'll look at your first link. Gitt is trying to make it look as if he is using Shannon information, yet his third theorem distances himself from Shannon.

"Theorem 3: Since Shannon’s definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning."

So we are no longer talking about Shannon information. This is key since he is trying to build upon Shannon to make his case. Above, he had stated that "On the basis of Shannon’s information theory, which can now be regarded as being mathematically complete." What good is a mathematically complete theory if you are going to later say that it does not apply? He wants to use the acceptance of Shannon to support his theory while later telling us why Shannon's theory does not apply.

Of course he has to get away from Shannon because Shannon allows for random sequences to be information while Gitt's second sufficient condition says "A sequence of symbols does not represent information if it is based on randomness." His next sentence then contridicts himself by saying "According to G. J. Chaitin, an American informatics expert, randomness cannot, in principle, be proven."

SO he his basing his work on Shannon exept when he is not basing his work on Shannon. And random sequences, which are information in Shannon, are not information for Gitt though he admits that there is not any way to determine if something is truely random or not.

So now we are left with nothing but Gitt's theorems and his necessary and sufficient conditions. He offers no mathematical basis for these theoems. If you will go to http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf in contrast you will see how Shannon DOES support his position with the mathematics. The whole point of Gitt finally boils down to his tenth theorem "Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)." Which by this point, since he has abandoned the mathematical underpinnings when he abandoned Shannon, is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. And a circular one at that since his assertion and his conclusion are the same.

We also have empirical evidence that contradicts this assertion. As I have shown, we can get new "information" through duplication and mutation. I have shown much empirical evidence of cases where this has happened to show that it is not just a theoretical construct. I have also given you plenty of examples of mutations that led to new traits.

Do you want to try for a definiton of "kind" now?

"Did you know that Poodles are one of the most mutated of the dog kind? They have more problems and genetic diseases then most other breeds. Clearly they are an example of a highly speciated variety of the kind. They are a marvellous example of what I have been talking about. Poodles are an example of what happens when so much information is lost."

No, they are an example of artificial selection. They, and the other pure bred dogs, have been selected based on characteristics desired by the breeders. This has resulted in a lot of interbreeding. The interbreeding leads to a concentration of genetic problems. Many of the problems are the result of recessive genes. In a population with much diversity, this is not an issue because those recessive genes will rarely come together. But with the inbreeding seen in pure breeds, these genetic issues get bred back into the population and increase in frequency. YOu then see problems crop up much more often

Or, are you willing to support your assertion by showing us that the traits seen in poodles are not the result of selective breeding but are instead the result of new traits that have evolved during the course of the breeding? Can you show us what information has been lost? Maybe some genetic sequences that are fine in other dogs or wolves bu that have changed in poodles that both give rise to their specific physical traits but that also cause the problems?

Also, are you still asserting that God never acts through natural means and that one does not belive the Bible if he believes that God ever does act through natural means?