Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

Likewise evolutionists ignore such contradictions and call them anomolies... and if you are honest you will acknowledge that this is true.</font>[/QUOTE]Scientists usually like an anomoly. These tell you the things that you did not know and open the door for new discoveries.

Now science is an empirical beast. You go with the perponderance of the evidence. Sometimes this means that something may be left unexplained. You hope that future discoveries will shed light on things and give you the answer.

The problem with searching out the few unexplained anomolies that you think may support your position is this. Even if they do, then instead a few anomolies, just about every observation in science becomes an anomoly if you insist that your position is true.

The other thing is that these anomolies have a way of working themselves out. For years, YEers screamed that the sun was not really powered by fusion but was instead powered by gravitational contraction which cannot have been going on long enough to support 4.5 billions years of earth. This was based on a very low measurement in the number of neutrinos from the sun.

And it was a real problem. The answer turned out to be that neutrinos have a small a,ount of mass and this allows them to oscillate between three forms in flight. We did not know this and were only measuring one form. When the discovery came and better leasurements were taken, the neutrino emissions matched expectations all along.

 

This of course reveals the weakness and explains why ultimately it is philosophy and not science.

If an event has a 90% likelihood of having occurred based on the evidence (which is being much too kind to evolution's "proofs") and that event is dependent one thousands of other 90% likely events, you know that the resulting likelihood is signficantly less than 90%.

Ex.- If you had a series of 10 number cards. It is very likely that you would draw 1-9 on the first draw. But if the goal was to create a string of 1000 draws that were not the number 10 then the likelihood drops dramatically.

The problem for evolution as a "reasonable" theory is that many of the ideas that fill gaps are very unlikely but are favored out of deference to the theory as a whole.

 

Only if you presuppose naturalism which you do in this statement without even thinking.

BTW, if intelligence and intent are involved then there are no anomolies at all. There is only purpose. Further, if you start from a different point than evolution starts, things that might seem anomolous are no longer that way.

 

The idea of completely seperate creation for all species has its own anomolies that are unreasonable to accept. The classic example around here has been the shared defective vitamin c gene - found in primates. The same gene defect that simply doesn't work. Because defects can occur in different ways, the fact that the same defect occurs over many species acts to imply that a designer made the same mistake over and over on various species. This does not square with my theology regarding the designer, which is why I reject that scenario. How do you square that with your theology of the designer?

 

I don't think that he did it that way. I think kinds being not defined biblically is sufficient.

Any number of GM cars may use a common PLC in widely varying control boards. As part of a whole, the part may or may not break down even under similar environmental conditions. However, when breakdowns occur they will most likely show great similarities.

Common designs share strengths and weaknesses. These commonalities in primate genetics were only exposed as weaknesses after the fall.

While we are on the subject though, this is a hypocritical argument for evolutionists to make since they suspend this uniformitarian "proof" for common ascent whenever it is useful. Evolutionists will propose when backed into a corner that two branches of a tree evolved the same thing separately.

I forget the term but if I am not mistaken, the explanation is similar to what I stated above. Two creatures who share a common trait will sometimes experience very similar changes under environmental pressures independently.

The difference is that I believe that these commonalities came by design while they think they were the product of previous evolution.

 

You are probably thinking of homologous structures. However, homology suggest that different structures performing the same function arose indpendently from the same environmental pressures while the example that Paul of Eugene is citing are identical or nearly identical sequences with the same defect.

 

"Common designs share strengths and weaknesses. These commonalities in primate genetics were only exposed as weaknesses after the fall."

There is a problem with this logic.

If there were some sort of weakness in the gene that is mutated to disable the vitamin C synthesis pathway, then we should be able to observe that weakness being compromised elsewhere in the animals that contain that sequence.

In contrast, we observe that only the primates have the shared mutations. Furthermore, ALL primates have the mutation whether you are talking Old World monkeys, Asian apes or New World monkeys.

I find it hard to conceive of a condition that would affect every single primate in all parts of the world in exactly the same way and not affect a single other species carrying the same gene.

 

My personal favorite are the shared retroviral inserts, though they are a bit harder to grasp.

 

Only if you presuppose naturalism which you do in this statement without even thinking.

BTW, if intelligence and intent are involved then there are no anomolies at all. There is only purpose. Further, if you start from a different point than evolution starts, things that might seem anomolous are no longer that way. </font>[/QUOTE]I have above asked you to look at my list of expectations for various types of data. I presented what I feel are reasonable expections based on common design and common descent.

If you think that my expectations are wrong, then please fill us in on what you would expect for the items I listed, and preferrable others as well, and most importantly why you would expect things to be that way.

 

And another thing...

... I find it completely ridiculous to assert that something happening once precludes it from happening again independently. That is especially true if part of the cause is a common design trait.

You would never say that because a Michelin design characteristic resulted in tread separation in certain environments that it wouldn't happen to a different Michelin tire model with the same design characteristic. In fact, you would specifically expect the same characteristic to result in the same or similar failure.

Of course that line of reasoning is only valid when it supports evolution.

 

There is a problem with this logic.

You assume that those who do not have the mutation were exposed to the same conditions as those who do. The truth is that the mutation could have originally been the side effect of a disease that those who never attained the mutation were either not exposed to or else were immune to.

Evolutionists are all too creative with this kind of explanation when it suits their purpose and very quick to hand wave when it doesn't.

Hmm. Not surprising if you accept that primates have more design commonalities with men than rodents.

Again, not surprising if you a) believe in common design and b) believe that all animals spread out from a single location after the flood.

That is because you aren't motivated to consider the alternatives nor to fit this evidence into the biblical framework.

For argument's sake, let's say that all the primate ancestors and man once inhabited a very small area and shared a common diet. Let's say that one of the staples in that diet was infected with a disease that eventually drove it into extinction but not before becoming a critical factor in the mutation shared by primates.

Yes, this is speculation. However it is not unreasonable as we know that plants go into extinction and that what we eat can effect us chemically.

 

Well, I've got to give you credit for a pretty creative explanation. There is no known mechanism for specifically targeting one specific site of a genome for mutation across many different species. Could you give us a more detailed proposal how this might happen?

Researchers would love to have a method for such specific targeting. If you could work this out, you might get a Nobel prize out of it!

 

Well, I've got to give you credit for a pretty creative explanation. There is no known mechanism for specifically targeting one specific site of a genome for mutation across many different species. Could you give us a more detailed proposal how this might happen? </font>[/QUOTE] No. Unfortunately and quite unfairly, I do not have billions of dollars worth of research grants at my disposal to enable me to dazzle you with technical rhetoric, impressively couched but unproven assumptions, and complex webs of circular reasoning.

Suffice it to say that the probability of such a thing happening to one species is completely independent from the probability of it happening in another. Contrary to the statistical evidence I cited against the probability of evolution, these are not related probabilities. They aren't dependent on each other. The likelihood of it happening to one species is no more nor less than the likelihood of it happening to all.

Of course the fact that it did happen to all makes it reasonable to look for a common cause... but it does not dictate a common cause as the conclusion.

Unfortunately, they won't be looking for it with those billions I mentioned earlier. They make the a priori assumption of the evolutionary tree. They aren't looking for evidence of common design... and can't afford to considering the reaction by evolutionists to ID.

Evolutionists are battling tooth and nail to prevent the concept of ID from being researched/taught/scientifically studied... which might very well produce "detailed proposal(s)" for the "method(s)" that according to you they would "love" to have.

 

I do not ever see the evolutionists reference any scripture to give evidence for evolution. Yet they say the Bible is reliable.

The Bible is not a science book. Nevertheless, God gave us the story of creation in Genesis 1, the very first book and chapter of the Bible. That to me shows that this was a very important subject that God wanted all men to know.

If the creation days were long periods of time, God would surely have told us. God does not worry whether his word seems reasonable to us.

Gen 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

This verse would seem ridiculous to any scientist or non-believer. But God tells us the truth.

If the creation had been a process that took millions or even billions of years as evolution teaches, I see no reason whatsoever why God would not have plainly told us.

Genesis 1 says God created all things in 6 days. Not 6 Billion years (evolution demands more than that).

To claim that people misinterpret these scriptures, and not explain why in my opinion is less than honest. UTEOTW has said several times that he gets a different interpretation of Genesis 1. I asked him to go over these verses one by one and explain his interpretation. I wanted to see how he could see evolution in these (or any other) verses. He did not explain even one verse, but simply went back to evolutionary textbook explanations.

It is clear you trust science. It is obvious from your writings. But you also say that the Bible is reliable.

If both the Bible and evolution are true, then they must agree. Please show SCRIPTURE that supports evolution.

 

Don't hold your breath, JWI, you may see a quantity of verbage that matches the Encyclopedia Britannica, but you'll never, no never, get a straight, compact simple, FACTUAL answer for your question.

Why? Simply 'cause there ain't one!

Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

 

What's your background? You don't see the utility in being able to specifically modify only one DNA sequence out of the millions of bases in our genome?

If there were really an agent capable of this specificity, it would be the target of a ton of research for applications in gene therapy and anticancer treatment.

Apparently those evil scientists don't have a monopoly on "impressively couched but unproven assumptions."

 

"For argument's sake, let's say that all the primate ancestors and man once inhabited a very small area and shared a common diet. Let's say that one of the staples in that diet was infected with a disease that eventually drove it into extinction but not before becoming a critical factor in the mutation shared by primates."

Do you have a single example of a disease which can target a specific DNA location and target it for a single nucleotide deletion in the same place repeatedly. Preferrably one that can infect many different species. But not to many of course, since we are limited to primates specifically.

Once you provide such a disease, we will then worry about the possibility of this disease striking a germ line cell in a member of each and every species which is used for reproduction subsequently and then which is selected to be passed on to all members of the gene pool of each and every one of the primate species.

But I want to instead move on to something else.

Ohta, Y. and Nishikimi, M. (1999) "Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidiase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbind acid biosynthesis." Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1472: 408-411.

Go look this puppy up and you will find something interesting. Remember how I keep telling you that there are certain expectations that one would have if life was made by common descent and another if it was a common, recent, individual designer? You know, I keep asking for you to make your own predictions about what YOU would expect from different types of evidence if the common designer argument were true. And you keep ignoring.

Well, here goes another. If your scenario were true, what would one expect to see? Well, once a gene is deactivated, it no longer has any selective pressure upon it and will randomly mutate. Now if all of these species were felled by an unfortunate weakness that no animal that is not a primate fell victim to, they would have all started accumulating random mutations at the same time. Today, they would all have about the same amount of difference between them.

If they shared the pseudogene because of a common ancestor, however, there would be less difference between recently diverged animals and more difference between those that diverged in the more distant past.

So what do we see?

Well, when the disabled gene was compared between apes and monkeys, the differences were found to coincide with how recently it is thought that their ancestors diverged. For instance, humans were closer to chimps and a little more distant from orangutan and yet more distant from monkeys.

Your disease theory has a new challenge to meet. And it is not going to be easy.

 

My personal favorite are the shared retroviral inserts, though they are a bit harder to grasp. </font>[/QUOTE]Just one would be enough to be convincing evidence and you've got hundreds - yes, I understand your point. But we are all, thanks to modern marketing, aware that we lack the ability to get along without vitamin c, and so that example has the advantage that even the average science education deprived citizen can understand what is being said.

 

The bible is more reliable than science. Science is based on theory and every decade or so they have to revise their theories. I had this discussion with a Biology Professor of mine he said that they have carbon dated the mammoth to be 10's of thousands of years old and that means that they all lived that many years ago. I asked him how they tested that theory. They used the carbon 14 factor of elephants. I said what does that have to do with a mammoth? It is all based on someones theory. Theories change everytime someone going for a PHD writes a paper that had not been thought of before and that no one else can disprove. A theory cannot be proven, and the only test is to disprove it.

The bible is still applicable today without having to change it or revise it. Although many have tried to diprove it, they can not, so which is more reliable. The word of God all the way...

 

I'm guessing you haven't done a lot of reading into radiometric dating.

I think that carbon dating is a good method. I used to be more skeptical about the other dating methods, but I've recently read a couple of books dealing with this and the science is sound.