Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Because it is not?

Because it is "obvious" that if random chiral orientation is ALL that we get in "emperical science" it is "exactly" what we expect for an abiogenesis mytholgoical scenario and it is NOT supportable at ALL as a "Story" for building living cells.

BECAUSE IF we found that living cells today WERE composed of amino acids having RANDOM chiral orientations evolutionists WOULD be touting this as "an open door for abiogenesis" -- living "proof" in their little plans.

The fact that evolutionists "want" to claim that NO EVIDENCE in their favor is the SAME as actually HAVING something - as in this case (they have nothing but CLAIM IT anyway) shows us what little objectivity and what little critical thinking there is left among evolutionists.

It SHOWS us the degree to which they embrace tautaulogy and complete blue-sky myth rather than science.

(Mercury, this is an example of one of those posts that does NOT pay any attention to the connundrum evolution is in regarding the Gospel and the Word of God... Enjoy!)

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]No Bob, this is an example of you ignoring the evidence before you. Proteins left to their own will be racemized. But we find all left handed. This is because life developed a very nice enzyme to make amino acids. This enzyme happens to be left handed. So it makes all left handed amino acids. This IS a testament to evolution and how it solves problems. Life would be very difficult if you were having to always find your amino acids in the environment. Having an efficient system to make your own is a huge advantage. And you have no argument other than your own doubt to put against this. Yet you still do.

 

"In fact, there is 'ample evidence' to support the YEC view."

Absolutely not true.

"Taking a naturalistic look at the evidence (outside the famework of God's word) will result in mis-interpreting the evidence."

I have given you many topics where you have the opportunity to show hat is wrong with the mainstream version of things and to show the better interpretation. You have yet to take me up on this.

"You don't seem to be able to provide any scripture to confirm evolution."

And you do not seem to be able to provide any scripture to support a spherical earth or that the earth orbits the sun. I have provided you with scripture that purports the opposite, however. You use your outside knowledge to say these are not to be literal yet you condemn me for using outside knowledge to say that the Creation is non-literal. Interesting dichotomy here.

"Evlution, while it agrees with a naturalistic interpretation of the physical evidence"

Eureka! You admit that the evidence is for an old earth and you dismiss it regardless! You sure your interpretation could not be wrong?

"It's not slander when it's true."

No. Using words like "liar" in a debate is not addressing the facts, it is attacking the person. It is slanderous and a fallacious argument.

"...which you claim are a fairy tale..."

I do not believe I have ever used "fairy tale." This is a misrepresentation of my position and a strawman to boot. Just because I think something should not be literal does not mean that I believe it to not be factual nor does it mean that I believe it to be a mere "which fairy tale." Or do YOU think that the parts of the Bible you take as non-literal are a "fairy tale?"

"Dr. Andrew McIntosh, a man with a PhD in cumbustion theory (read "an expert on coal and oil") speaks at seminars with Answers in Genesis. He supports AiG's article on the fomation of coal."

One man's opinion against many others...

Has he ever had any of these alternative theories published in a peer reviewed journal? No? Then these are just his opinions and they have not been subjected to scrutiny by others in his field? Hmmmm. You know I do coal combustion and gasification research for a living, do you value my opinion?

"I have shown you how your (more specifically, the evolutionist scientists you rely on) interpretation of the evidence from a humanist, non-biblical perspective have mis-interpreted the evidence because they did so outside the framework of God's word."

You say you can, now do so.

 

"A summery for this (as it relates to biology) would be to state that all biological life is experiencing a directional change from high information low specificity to low information high specificity."

Now, first you must prove something to us. Show what information is and how this related to thermodynamic entropy. You cannot just say two things are equal because you wish it to be so.

"For biology to be an open system, there would need to be a mechanism for injecting new DNA into the genome. This mechanism does in fact exist, however not in all circumstances. We assert that mutation is not sufficient for injecting new DNA, and in the case where sufficient differences of DNA do not occur, those are closed biological systems where loss in transformation take place. The only time biology is an open system is when there is an available external gene pool that can be introduced via breeding."

That is enough of that to get the point.

I have gone through great lengths with you to show you one method of injecting new "information" into the gene pool. That is duplication and mutation. These have both been observered to happen. I have given you empirical evidence in the form of families of genes, some with widely varying functions, that show strong evidence of being the result of repeated cases of duplication and mutation. I have given you evidence for this interpretation based on the differing rate of change in the three different positions of the three letter codons. And I have given you specific examples of benficial mutations. You have done nothing to dispute this method of adding new information, yet you are content to re-assert the original claim.

"An example of this would be -
at creation, God creates a Dog Kind. This dog kind is the ancestor to all modern dogs, wolves, coyotees, etc. That dog contained all the information present for each specific dog kind. "

This assertion should be quite easy to prove, and has not been. You would see thatall the genes from this "master kind" was present in all examples of a "kind" but that different ones had different genes deactivated. The other genes would still be exactly the same. You would also see that there was no such relationship between "kinds." There is no evidence of such a situation. In real life, the difference between the species appears to be differences in functional genes not in which genes remain functional.

So, what proplem, again, does entropy pose and how?

 

Bob said: "I am simply observing - confessing - admittint that emperical science SHOWS that when we LOOK at creation we SEE that random chiral distributions DO NOT WORK for proteins used in all living cells."

And by that you mean "what SCIENCE SEES" - the data, the evidence what can be tested and seen and experimented with.

(You know --- science as opposed to the pure blue sky guessing that evolutionism is based on.)

Hmm - well the fact that the ONLY evidence we have -- is mine I guess I am ok. There is NO evidence AT ALL in favor of the speculative guessword of evolutionism on this one. Even you admit that you have actually nothing.

But in true evolutionist style - guesswork always trumps actual emperical data that we SEE in the lab.

As UTEOTW notes below

Fascinating - ALL the evidence (actually IN the LAB) is in my favor and NONE exists to support your "I supposed it coulda work with a mix of chiral orientations probably maybe hopefully"

But you call this -- Creation trusting model has NO evidence!!!

With logic like that I have to wonder about every
claim you are making about "evidence".

Your are speculating (pure blue sky speculation with no living cell to base it on)

Indeed they are NOT useful and we have NO SCIENCE showing us that they ever WERE.

Well since ALL data points to this as the ONLY model that works --- and NONE of the data supports your blue sky speculation... hmmm let me think now... that's a hard one...it IS creationism after all so just because ALL the evidence is in favor of creationsm no need to actually "Believe" it on this one point... so...

OK - I have the evidence.

Is this a trick? IS this a "do you have evidence that there is no easter bunny some place you are not looking" question???

Are you being serious -- at all??

Are you just joking around??

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, Bob, not joking at all.

You see, here's the deal. There is no way we are going to find hard evidence of whether life 3 to 4 billion years ago was all left ahnded or not. So we go with what we got. I make the assertion that all life uses left handed proteins because they developed an efficient enzyme for making amino acids that happened to be left handed. You make no argument against this other than to point out that extant life is lefthanded and that we have no prrof that it was different in the past. Well I agree. And I think I have a good theory.

It boils down to this. Can a racemized mixture of amino acids make proteins? Yes. I then assert if you can have proteins from a racemized mixture, you could have life from a racemized mixture. You offer nothing to counter this other than extant life which, as we all know, is all left handed because it has that left handed enzyme. You have made no argument.

I have to admit one thing though. Debating you can be fun. When I was the one who had been young earth and was trying to decide between old and young earth, I found these types of exchanges very interesting. It quickly became obvious that one side had all the facts and one side had nothing but smoke and mirros. (Now I must admit that in the case of the chiral proteins, no body can have facts because they have long been destroyed, but I still have the plausible theory while you have no counter to the theory.) I found it a convincing argument against a young earth that they seemed to lack the ability to string together a coherent series of facts.

I am fairly sure that we have lurkers here who are on the fence. And I feel confident that they should be able to see on whose side the evidence falls. A better example may be the on going entropy "debate." By continuing to press the entropy over the last month or so, you have given me the opportunity to explain entropy and thermodynamics to people who otherwise would not have understood it. You have allowed me to demonstrate both theoretical and real world examples of how local decreases in entropy are allowed and can be spontaneous. And you have allowed me to show that entropy poses no problem for evolution. If you had not pressed the issue, I would have never been able to work so much material in. In the mean time, you have yet to even tell us what step of evolution is prevented by entropy and how. It is very informative that you cannot. Even better, I have offered many different lines of evidence in this thread that support an old earth that you and Gup20 have not been able to challenge at all. Again very informative.

I find that these kinds of debates, while not changing the minds of the participants, can be very persuasive to the undecided lurkers. For I once was one.

 

"Such as large Cats (such as a lion) for example. It is well known that they can't survive on plants alone... read about the Palm Nut Vulture... the Pacu which is a species of piranha..."

Ah, anecdotes. You can argue near anything with anecdotes that ignore the rest of the evidence.

Why should I be surprised that a lion in captivity could be raised on an all plant diet? As I have already pointed out the first time you posted this, it is not surprising since nearly every cat and dog owner does the same thing every day. They keep a carnivorous animal alive on a plant based diet in a controlled environment. The Pacu also happens to be not a species of pirannha but a group of closely related species. Real pirannha I believe are known to add some plant matter to their diet and the Pacu are known to scavenge some meat when stressed, so why is this surprising? They both seem capable of eating some plant and some meat with one group specialized for meat and the other for plants. While you were at it, you missed the best examples. Those bears who are members of the carnivores and who have those large claws and big teeth but some species of which life mostly on plants.

But if this was a real argument and not just anecdotes, you would see that most carnivorous animals would actually include a sizable proportion of plant material in their diet. They do not. You also still have animals that would not be able to make do with plants. Earlier I gave the example of the baleen whales. All they do is filter shrimp from the water. What about jelly fish? How exactly would those stinging tenticles be used for harvesting plants?

But there is a much better argument against your assertions. So far I have just raised issues, but now we will go to the evidence. Fossil evidence shows us that they have always eaten meat. First, you have the fossil teeth. Plant eating, meat eating, and omnivorous eating leave different wear marks in the teeth. So we can have indirect evidence of what the creatures long ago were eating.

We can also have direct evidence. We have found fossilized stomach contents which tell us exactly what they were eating. We also have fossil corpolites which tell us what they were eating by showing us what they were excreting. This are both direct evidence for a carnivorous diet.

You also have evidence from the bones of the fossils. Some bear healed wounds from unsuccessful predator attacks. Some bones bear the marks of the actual attack that killed the animal. And some bones bear the marks of scavengers after death.

All this is profound evidence that these animals have always been carnivorous.

They also raise again the issue of how these fossils came to be. I believe you claim essentially all of the fossils were laid down in the flood. So how were these rapidly buried carcasses scavenged? How were they hunted and killed during the flood? How were soft excrements preserved as corpolites? And all this in the context of the water velocities I cited earlier (130 to 260 feet per second) from the model you yourself have advocated. There were a number of other problems I presented to you in light of these velocities that also remain unadressed.

BTW, I stopped trying to calculate the terminal velocities of various sized stones when I got up to a ten foot diameter stone with a terminal velocity of 40 ft/s. I was already off the range of Reynolds Numbers applicable for the formula and was no where near the velocities from your model yet. Really hard to make and settle out chalk and limestone when the water velocities are such that they keep at least ten foot diameter stones suspended. Really hard to make fossils when the water velocities are such that they keep at least ten foot diameter stones suspended.

 

Bob, one other thing. Your insistence that all life must have always used left handed proteins because extant life does sounds an awful lot like one of those uniformitarian type arguments that you normally reject out of hand. I'll have to keep this in mind for the next time you reject some thing because you say it isbased on uniformitarianism.

 

UEOTW - I appreciate the fact that you admit that you have absolutely no science at all in favor of your blue-sky speculation that at one time (in some easter-bunny like past) LIFE was composed of amino acids having random chiral distributions.

(I think you did this on the age of the earth thread recently).

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2520/16.html

Well we have to agree with UTEOTW on this one thing - it is NOT possible to take all the myths and fables of evolutionism and "call it science" or call it "all of science" -- it is pure fiction.

Science on the other hand is a beautiful thing and well worth the time to study.

Now in a moment of "confession" UTEOTW admits that his blue-sky speculation on "LIVING systems" that were composed of amino acids having random chiral distribution - was in fact a fairytale. He had no evidence at all that it ever worked in all of time.

By "contrast" we DO have actual evidence in the lab today that the ONLY WAY living cells work is with left-handed chiral orientation (as unlikely as that is from an abiogenesis scenario).

So evolution as NO hard data - and Creationist have ALL the HARD DATA when it comes to SEEING the chiral distriubtion of living cells day after day after day - AND being able to conduct experiments with it.

So how much "fun" is it for evolutionists to have NO HARD DATA supporting random chiral distrubtions in living systems (as would be needed for abiogensis scenarios??)

Here we get an ounce of truth from UTEOTW on this subject - if only for a microsecond.

A small ray of light has been allowed into the myths and speculations of evolutionism.

I applaud the progress.

Why of course they don't interest you. Why should you be interested in the flaws of the doctrines and myths consituting the premise for evolutionism "explaining the whole thing starting from NOTHING"??

That would only serve to support the literal text of the Word of God --- and we "can't have that" now can we??

In Christ,

Bob

 

That "easter bunny did it one time billions of years ago" defense is interesting. But as you recently admitted this is pure blue-sky evolutionism that you are practicing - not science.

The SCIENCE (you know empirical method and such) SHOWS us that ALL life is composed ONLY of the left-handid chiral distributions --- nothing else.

You rightly "hope" that in unknown untestable passssst far beyond our SCIENCE -- there was an easter-bunny style event counter-intuitive to all of science today - where entirely different laws of biology were in place. Ones that you can make up as evolutionism "needs them" to have existed.

Indeed. And you have nothing - as you already admitted for abiogenesis AND the need for random chiral distributions.

Do you notice how 'the fact remains' despite your creative attempts to ignore it?

Kinda like that entropy thing and the devastating statement from Asimov wouldn't you say?

And "interestingly" you always have the option of NOT using that enzyme in your lab experiments that COULD HAVE been used to prop up the case for evolutionism - IF ONLY they had worked!

You know.... science???!!!

AND.... we have no EXPERIMENT showing us that removing the enzyme above WILL result in a functioning living cell with random chiral distributions.

But then... that SCIENCE!

The "difference" between SCIENCE and the blue-sky speculation you are offering here - is left as another exercise for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No - it boils down to this -- can a racemized mixture be used in a living cell - even one?

Science answers with a loud and clear NO! You know -- emperical method and all.

But the myths of evolutionism scream yes "BUT WE NEED random distributions to ALSO work".

Ahh yes. That "need" of the fully biased fully speculative "evolutionist".

Indeed it is - but again - that is the SCIENCE that is available IN The LAB.

And it is no match for the "speculation" available in the mind of the truly devoted eovlutionist - I admit.

WE are in agreement there. This has been great fun.

I have to admit - this persent subject brings that out in triplicate. Agreed. AGreed. Agreed.

AGain - we agree UTEOTW.

Hey! I agree there too.

Asimov makes some pretty devastating points against evolutionism's basic speculations and he even is kind enough to state the "needs" that evolutionism has in the middle of it.

The whole thing was very helpful - and I really do appreciate your adding to it - even more of Asimov's quotes about the needs of evolutionism vs his previous statement about what we actually "see" in human biology today.

Yes - if one has to "pretend" that they can not see how a GOAL of having what Asimov calls a "MASSIVE DECREASE" in entropy ("needed" by evolutionism's speculations) can not be reached if all you have is the aggregation INCREASE after INCREASE in entropy that is "observed" in human biological systems today (at least if you believe Isaac Asimov on this point) -- then "yes" I can easly see how not seeing - would leave them in the dark.

But then...as you say - this is "instructive" and informative.

Well - I can only say a hearty amen to that as well. That is exactly the position I take. The evidence - no matter how blatant in the lab will never convince the truly devoted evolutionist because the blue-sky speculations of evolutionism are too alluring.

But for those interested in actual science - and the integrity of the Gospel regarding our Creator, Sin, the fall of man and the process of creation

The entire exercise is instructive.

So please don't be surprised if I bring up these two classic cases - entropy and the chiral distribtion of amino acids - since they are both readily accessible in the lab and it makes a good case for the contrast between Science and blue-sky speculation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since you basically double posted, I am only going to reply in this one thread. No need taking two different ones down the same path.

"...all the myths and fables of evolutionism ..."

People usually resort to name calling when their position is too weak to support on the facts. YOu have been given many different topics on which to discuss the facts and you flat out refuse to do so. The two topics where you actually try and wade into the facts, you are perfectly willing to ignore everything presented to you and to continue to make the same claims despite the evidence.

"it is NOT possible to take all the myths and fables of evolutionism and "call it science" or call it "all of science" -- it is pure fiction."

Now, the point I was making. Science convincingly points to the great age of the earth and universe and to the common descent of all life on earth in all its many disciplines. You have been quite sucessful in slandering evolutionary biologists until you have given many people a negative view of them. (Based on slander, not facts.) But you have not been sucessful in doing this to all the other areas of science. So you try and call all areas of science you disagree with "evolution" and hope the slander job sticks. It usually does not, at least outside of the group of people who already agree with you, but you seem happy with even this modest result.

"Now in a moment of "confession" UTEOTW admits that his blue-sky speculation on "LIVING systems" that were composed of amino acids having random chiral distribution - was in fact a fairytale. He had no evidence at all that it ever worked in all of time."

Did you pay attention to what I said? There cannot possibly be hard evidence to support either side from this. I can give you my guesses as to what happened and you can give your guesses as to why they did not, but neither of us have the hard evidence to make a convincing case in the area of abiogenesis. But this is a dodge and a distraction on your part to avoid the real evidence in favor of evolution.

"By "contrast" we DO have actual evidence in the lab today that the ONLY WAY living cells work is with left-handed chiral orientation (as unlikely as that is from an abiogenesis scenario)."

I warned you...

Bob, I thought you rejected uniformitarian arguments out of hand because you say there is no way to prove that things in the past behaved the same as they do today. Yet here you are making use of such an arguement in violation, again, of the rules you yourself want to set. You do not have any evidence that things have always been this way do you? No.

I suppose I will have to go through this again. At least it gives the reader another chance to see you reject the explanation without giving any factual reasons for doing so.

Proteins can be made from a mixture of right and left handed amino acids. You do not deny this. SO at least in principal, it should be possible for there to be life based on such a mixture. Now, at some point, life began using all left handed amino acids. How do we know this? Because we see the same enzyme in all organisms to make the amino acids. Now, let's think about this first organism that developed this enzyme. He could make all the left handed amino acids he needed. But he still had to get the right handed ones from the enviroment. There would have been a tremendous selection pressure to use only the left handed varieties. So after a bit of evolution, only the left handed amino acids were still in use.

So when you ask "AND.... we have no EXPERIMENT showing us that removing the enzyme above WILL result in a functioning living cell with random chiral distributions." you are asking a meaningless question. Of course life could not use a racemized mixture today, such proteins were long selected against. Just like you could pop in a random lefthanded protein and it would not work either.

But here is the problem. I have no hard evidence that this actually happened. I can't, such things are not preserved. But, Bob can present no hard evidence agianst, either. The key point is this, though. I have presented a very viable solution to Bob's problem. He has no evidence to suggest that it could not have happened. Yey it is easy to predict that he will continue to make the same claims sans evidence.

Also notice that he never attempted to address the paper at the heart of this discussion. It is at http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Evolution/Prigogine-I/ToE.html . It shows how entropy is actually a driving force towards life instead of away from it. Real science again. And, if you wish to have a abiogenesis discussion, how about we use a reference more recent that 30 - 40 years ago?

As far as entropy goes, you are still not telling us what entropy prevents from happening. You talk about a "massive" decrease in entropy but you never apply this to what the effects are of your assertion. The truth is that it takes a much more massive local decrease in entropy to grow a tree than to produce the human brain you keep discussing. Yet I can look out my frot window and see an oak tree right in my fron yard. Doesn't seem to be a problem. I think the answer has been staing you right in the face the whole time. If you look closely at your Asimov quote you will see that he is saying that the universe tends towards increased entropy but through the use of work it can be overcome on a local scale. And this is just what happens. Did you miss this in your quote? And as I have shown you before, this work can be spontaneous and result in a local entropy decrease. If you do not believe me, set a glass of water on your back porch one could night and see it turn to ice all by iteself.

 

Some questions left unanswered in this thread by the young earthers...

Duplication and mutation is a example of a method to add new genetic "information" that is supported by empirical evidence.

A number of problems with the Baumgarder model including heat dissipation issues, the sedimentary rock formations, and fossil preservation.

The lack of mixing seen in the fossil record.

Shared human traits with the other animals that serve no purpose in modern humans.

Human retroviral insertions. The sheer number of them, that they are the same in all humans and specific insertions are shared with the other apes.

Shared mutations and pseudogenes with the other apes.

A number of transitional species were presented including Archaeopteryx, Utatsusaurus, Acanthostega, Cynognathus, Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus.

A large list of transitional between the reptiles and th mammals was presented showing many changes happening progressively and together.

One of the more important unaddressed items is the literalists inability to justify why they sometimes use outside knowledge to decide certain things should not be taken literally. Since their Biblical argument boils down to their interpretation, which they insist must be literal on Creation, it is key to know what reasons they would give for taken other passages non-literally based solely on knowledge from outside the Bible.

The question of whether God uses natural means to accomplish His will at times.

The question of what entropy prevents evolution from doing.

How does the whole "hydraulic" sorting process work.

The details of biogeography...Such as the unique fauna of Australia AND why the fossils of this fauna is only found in Australia. Why would the fossils be "sorted" where their descendants would eventually settle?

Which geology layers are pre-flood, which are flood, and which are post flood.

Was t-rex on the ark or not?

How did the Grand Canyon get eroded? A refence was given saying that scientists were now advocating quick erosion. Asking for the abstracts was ignored.

How did carnivores survive without being carnivores? There is the issue of certain speciest that just cannot feed on anything other than meat. There is also the fossil evidence in the form of teeth wear patterns, corpolites, fossilized stomach contents, and predation and scanveging marks on baones that all indicate predation in the past as a way of life.

Is there any evidence for a "master kind" of dinosaur?

DNA testing shows conclusively that Neanderthals were not modern humans. So what were they?

The science of Taphonomy is completely at odds with a young earth interpretation.

AIG claims that low rank coal can be made quickly at 300 F while the chemical evidence from real low rank coal shows that it was never heated anywhere near these tmeperatures. They also made several other factual mistakes that were documented.

Geological evidence shows that some coal is autochthonous and some is allochthonous. For AIG to be correct, ALL coal would need to be allochthonous. Why is this so?

The claim was made that a master "kind" turned int othe various species by losing genetic information through mutation. But there has not been any evidence to show that closely related species are different by which genes are still functional. Instead the evidnece is that they are different based on differences in the functional genes.

These are just a few of the things. I am sure I could make a much longer list with a finer toothed comb.

Now I think we have given a answer to most of the quetions the young earthers have posed. I realize that they do not accept the answers given, but they have at least been discussed. Much of that discussion awaits them deciding how they determine when to OK the use of outside knowledge in interpretation. I suppose they might decide to be consistent and turn into flat earth geocentrists, but I do not really look for that to happen.

Maybe we will get some answers to the questions.

 

TOUCHSTONE Magazine, in it's current issue, has many good articles that debunk Evolutionary theory.

 

Would you care to share any topics, in your own words? It is always good to examine the facts.

 

The young earthers are fond of saying that the data only supports an old earth if you are already biased towards an old earth. Well the first objection to that would be that I am a former young earther who was convinced by the evidence when I had the bias towards a young earth, not old. A similar statment can be made that those fathers of modern science, whether it be geology or astronomy or biology, did not start out with such baises but instead were led to great age by the data itself.

But that is not the point I am after.

Earlier Gup20 slipped in a link to AIG suggesting that coal could be made in short periods of time. Now I pointed out some errors in that, but I want to focus on sources of information rather than the debate itself. One of my chief objections was that there are chemical changes that happen to the coal during its formation that depend upon what the maximum temperature to which the coal is heated. Now, where did I get this diddy? If anyone followed my link, you would see that it was to one of the energy companies in Wyoming. Now these guys could not care less if the coal was 100 years old or 100 million years old. They do not have a dog in that fight. All they care about is getting their product (coal bed methane) and making money. Yet that was my source for data.

I do not have to filter the data through ANY paradigm, I can let it speak for itself. If I want to discuss a topic, I can go see what has been found on that topic and discuss. The young earthers on the other hand do not have that advantage. They must go to places like AIG and ICR which determine what the answer is before they ever look at the data. They do not allow the data to speak, they bludgeon it into whatever hole they think it should go in and make their members agree to the right conclusions beforehand. (Which was one of the problems with the first young earth groups, the members kept coming to the "wrong" conclusions.)

The young earthers are right that some are blinded in their interpretations of the data by their own pre-conceived notions. But their finger is pointed in the wrong direction.

 

UTEOTW Quotes Bob as saying
"...all the myths and fables of evolutionism ..."

If you're qoing to do the partial sentence, partial quote snippet postig - how will you convey a point? You seem to have bailed out on that one.


Bob said --

"it is NOT possible to take all the myths and fables of evolutionism and "call it science" or call it "all of science" -- it is pure fiction."

This was actually in "response" to the claim that SCIENCE was in favor of evolutionism and that those supporting God's Word must contend with "SCIENCE" (as if that was even true).

Wrong.

SCIENCE consistently points to STASIS - variation within kind - even extreme variation as in wolf to poodle. But nothing more. INSTEAD of science coming out of the lab with new reptile to bird intermediates naturally formed PROOF of the blue-sky speculations - the lab tells us that reptiles CONTINUE to breed reptiles.

So the SAME failure evolution experiences in the LAB when it comes to abiogenesis IS ALSO being experienced when it comes to lizards that need to consider flight as a new way of life.

And no wonder - as Isaac Asimov notes - the biological systems are all being driven toward DISORDER and decay by INCREASED entropy - and they are NOT undergoing natural DECREASED entropy - though admittedly evolutionism's "stories" NEED them to.

What in the world are you imagining now? Is this going to be another fact-challenged point?

Bob said --

"Now in a moment of "confession" UTEOTW admits that his blue-sky speculation on "LIVING systems" that were composed of amino acids having random chiral distribution - was in fact a fairytale. He had no evidence at all that it ever worked in all of time."

Yes - you said you had no evidence AT ALL that there were entirely DIFFERENT laws of biochemistry or cell biology operating in the unknown past - you merely "HOPE" upon "HOPE" that such a thing happened so it would prop up your belief in abiogenesis.

In this case I don't need that level of faith - to simply ACCEPT that science IS SHOWING only ONE way that cell biology works when it comes to chiral distributions of amino acids.

Count them. One.

To support YOU?

No there can't be any evidence at all - it is hope in a blue-sky fantasy about entirely different laws of biochemistry and cell biology than SCIENCE sees in the lab.

Why do you think that I am going to just ignore what science is saying??

How do you think you have formed a compelling case here?

AS well you have. Your guesses have been very imaginative and very hopefull in appealing to entirely new laws of biology -- laws that don't work in the lab EVEN WITHOUT the enyzme you so want to avoid.

I on the other hand simply "report" that SCIENCE is able to LOOK at the laws of cell biology and biochemistry - and the verdict is IN.

Here is the amazing part. This is a point in which you admit (on occassion) that you have nothing to go on - YET you cling to this "nothing" as if your blue-sky speculations were actually "Saying something" or proving something or given validity to the NEW laws of biology that you so "need" to prop up evolutionism.

Surely THIS is ONE case - where your blind devoution to evolutionism MIGHT be expected to give way -- just a little - to actual science and to the Word of God.

But HERE --- even HERE - you hold your fact-challenged fantasy EVEN when you yourself admit you have NOTHING to base it on!!

What better place to draw the line and show that you are NOT using critical thinking, you are not being objective and in fact you are NOT relying on good science at all.

So far your use of science is blatantly to seek out some obscure point upon which to take your speculative stand. And nowhere is it MORE clear than in the two TESTABLE areas of chiral orientations and entropy.

Bob said
"By "contrast" we DO have actual evidence in the lab today that the ONLY WAY living cells work is with left-handed chiral orientation (as unlikely as that is from an abiogenesis scenario)."

True enough. I do not deny that amino acids exists and that the experiments to form them result in RANDOM chiral distributions. A fact that MAGNIFIES my point! Because LIVING CELLS can ONLY be comprised of left-handed chiral oriented amino acids!

So the lab gets RANDOM results. And Living cells CAN NOT USE random results.

Your point that these amino acid chains form proteins that can NEVER be used in living cells - only makes MY point!!

IT proves that Abiogenesis could have worked!!

IT proves that NATURAL formations of amino acids would NEVER make proteins that COULD be used in living cells.

How obvious is this point anyway?? How could it BE any MORE obvious??

But if one were a true devotee of evolutionism they might turn their back on science at this point and say..

So BECAUSE these lethal non-living proteins can be made - that are totally USELESS to living cells -- this means "it should be possible for them to be used in living cells"..!!??????

What part of "obviously not" do you think this misses?

Because on the 3rd day God said "LET THERE BE..." and "IT WAS SO" and evening and morning where the 3rd day.

Because when we LOOK at what He made we SEE that it is all composed of left-handed amino acids.

So "knowing" this is not as hard as you seem to hope.

And the CORRECTING enzyme is NOT what FORMS the cell. Rather it is simply an attribute IN an already existing cell that STOPS it from DECAYING due to incidental malformed proteins.

Your task in abiogenesis is to START without the enzyme - and build your way UP to a living cell.

Your "scenario" supposes that the ONLY stopping point is that ONCE this new-cell is manufactured in the lab it falls apart because an enzyme creeps in trying to make all of its amino acids left handed - INSTEAD of leaving them in the much needed random distribution. But of course -- that's not true.

Your "scenario" might ALSO suppose that free floating proteing made up of the random chiral distribution of amino acids are BEING STOPPED by an alchemist's introduction of the correcting enzyme into their solution/bath -- also "NOT" true.

So in the end - your "story" ends before you start it.

INdeed lets look in the lab and SEE that we DO create experiments WITHOUT that enzyme - and NONE of them result in proteins that will form into living cells no matter how you manipulate them.

Only if you are a blind devotee to abiogenesis and evolutionism no matter "what science shows you".

BUT IF you give emperical methods any acknowledgement at all - then you "see" that in fact WE DO have the ability to create amino acids in the lab and we DO have the ability to get them to link up into proteins with RANDOM distributions of right and left handed amino acids AND WE DO have the ability to preserve that mix in solution while KEEPING OUT any correcting enzyme. BUT STILL the proteins are not useful in forming a single living cell nor used by one.

But it is more than saying - I have no evidence that a volcanoe wiped out all life in New Jersey. For we DO know that we CAN find volcanoes and that some of them do cause large scale damage.

You are proposing that "Volcanoes used to be formed by campfires". AFter all -- we know that camp fires are hot, and they do form ashes and those ashes do tend to move a little as they cool so.... But of course we would "need entirely new laws of physics" for this to work since in the lab NOTHING like this EVER happens... but have faith...

And the only reason we have no evidence of this non-science ever happening is that "such things are not preserved" camp fires that would make volcano would not remain in tact long enough for us to still see them...

Um... yeah. right!

Oh I forgot - this is MEE having "no evidence".

Thanks for bringing us back on point.

In christ,

Bob

 

Lets see - a driving force "Toward life" by "disorder and decay"??

Lets "see what entropy" is "all about"

Real science again.

By contrasts evolutionists NOT looking at the “good science” Asimov is affirming above – will be prone to follow the course of ignoring Asimov at every turn.
</font>[/QUOTE]

I was not aware that it had changed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh Bob, this is getting tiresome. You think that because life today uses only lefthanded amino acids that this must have always been the case. You have no evidence for this, of course.

And, as I have pointed out, neither of us can support our postion with facts because they have been lost to time. So we both are left to speculate. I at least have a reasonable scenario to tell us how we got to all lefthanded proteins. You point out that extant life only uses left handed proteins but cannot show that tis has always been the case. I really do think we have posted the same things enough times for anyone to make up their mind. Do you really think we are going to get any where by endless repeating.

I think you are sidestepping the fact that you have no evidence that life has always used only left handed proteins. I think you are sidestepping the fact the random orientations can form proteins even if they are not useful to modern organisms. (I object to your continued use of "lethal" to describe them. I think not non-useful is more accurate.) I think you are sidestepping the fact that we have an efficient enzyme to make left handed amino acids. And I think you are sidestepping the selective advantage that proteins using only lefthanded amino acids would have in the presence of such an enzyme.

On the other hand, you think that I am appealing to wishful thinking to avoid your problems.

Neither of us are convincing the other and I think we have both stated our case fully enough for the reader to make their own judgment on our positions. Therefore I propose that we move on to toher topics if we wish to maintain any sense of debate. I am perfectly willing to examine any evidence that you wish to put into discussion.

If you choose not to move on to some of the other topics that are on the table, I will take that as either a sign that you are not willing to engage in meaningful debate and are instead only interested in demagoguery. Or that you are unable to have a meaningful debate on the topics before us.

"If you're qoing to do the partial sentence, partial quote snippet postig - how will you convey a point? You seem to have bailed out on that one."

In case you missed it, that was a challenge to you to examine some of the evidence I have presented.

"Lets see - a driving force "Toward life" by "disorder and decay"??"

Why don't you read the paper and actually make a factual objection if you have trouble with what it claims. Here is the URL again. http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Evolution/Prigogine-I/ToE.html

As far as your Asimov quote, your answer is string you in the face. I'll bold it for you, again.

So you see, the universe trends towards entropy but through work, local decreases in entropy are possible. In fact, as shown by G=H-TS, this local decrease can be both spontaneous and thermodynamically favored. You still have not answered what problems this required decrease in entropy poses. You level of discussion on this is also bordering on demagoguery. You post the same thing time after time without ever telling us what the consequences are nor telling us why the responses are wrong. I take this, too, as a sign that you are either unwilling or unable to enter into a general debate on the subject.

If you really wish meaningful debate, I challenge you to examine the list of topics presented above. I feel confidant that you will choose not to enter the debate and will instead repeat the same things you have been repeating for weeks without bothering to present anything new nor to address the items that have been brought to you attention on even the topics with which you seem to be obsessed. You are not changing anyone's mind, any readers have long since seen both sides and have plenty of information to make up their own minds, and this is becoming quite boring. Of course, maybe that is your plan. Bore all the lurkers away hoping they will not see all the evindence against your position.

"SCIENCE consistently points to STASIS - variation within kind - even extreme variation as in wolf to poodle."

Oh really? News to me. As a chance to get you into a real debate, show me how the following transitional series points to stasis. Show me how mammals and reptiles are of the same "kind." I'll just repost something I have presented many times without a response from you.

The differences between mammals and reptiles are considerable. A chief difference is that reptiles have at least four jaw bones and one middle ear bone while mammals have one jaw bone and three middle ear bones. To make matters worse, two bones in the fetal reptile that turn into jaw bones turn into ear bones in developing mammals. Other key differences. Reptile have undifferentiated teeth while mammals have incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. Reptile teeth are continuously replaced, mammals teeth are replaced at most once. Reptile teeth only have a single root while mammal molars have two roots. Reptiles lack a diaphragm. Reptiles have their legs sprawled out to the sides while mammals have their legs underneath. The pelvis of a mammal is fused. They have different numbers of bones in their toes. Reptiles are cold blooded while mammals are warm blooded.

A list of transitional animals with limited comments (still long and still a cut and hatchet job but editted to reduce length):

Paleothyris - A reptile
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris - Showed a slight change in teeth
Varanops - Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature...lower-limb musculature starts to change Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus - Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall...Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont - More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor... Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum..
Biarmosuchia - Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle)...more mammalian femur & pelvis. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian.
Procynosuchus - The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Jaw hinge still reptilian. Scapula beginning to change shape. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia - First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon - Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. All four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Number of toe bones is intermediate between reptile number and mammalian . The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it.
Cynognathus - Teeth differentiating further; rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon - Mammalian toe bone numbers, with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon - Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Second jaw joint stronger. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus - Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Mammalian number of toe bones.
Exaeretodon - Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium - Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion. Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones...this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus - Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel. Double jaw joint, with the second joint ...fully mammalian. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral.
Adelobasileus cromptoni - Currently the oldest known "mammal."
Sinoconodon - The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Mammalian jaw joint stronger. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium - A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon - Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus - A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials.
Endotherium
Kielantherium and Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani - The first known definite monotreme.
Vincelestes neuquenianus - A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits.
Pariadens kirklandi - The first definite marsupial.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes - Canine now double rooted.
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops - Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

So we have a finely divided set of fossils going from purely reptile to purely mammal with intermediate features seen gradually changing throughout the sequence.

To read more see THIS WEB PAGE

and THIS WEB PAGE

The latter has drawings of the jaw in transistion to see what it looked like. The former has the full text of most of what I posted above.

[ July 09, 2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Since we are back on this thread, in addition to the topics above, I'll give the chance, again, to tell me where those thick deposits of chalk, such as seen in Dover, came from. Limestone too. Remember those 130 to 260 ft/sec velocites for water in the flood by the YEC reference and how hard it would be to settle out particles smaller than 100 microns in that. Plus growing all those organisms.

 

I think that because this is what science DOES Show us - in the lab and that science gives us NO results in favor of your easter-bunny blue-sky myths - that I have ALL THE EVIDENCE that science has to offer - and you have NONE.

This is short and to the point -- I hope you will address it.

How is it that your having NOTHING to offer by way of science - is encouraging you to cling to this fact-challenged position??

Why not accept the Bible on the creation and SCIENCE on the facts of proteins for living cells.

In Christ,

Bob