Biology

[The Pixie]

SirYapAlot

SYA (quoting): "The data compression of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (12 different ways of DNA transcription) (Trifonov, 1989). (This is well beyond the complexity of any computer code ever written by man). John Sanford – Genetic Entropy."

Pix: It is not just beyond what man could write, it is beyond what man would want to write.

SYA: Men would love to write codes that created 3 dimensional programs that could ponder their own existence, they just lack the intellect to do so. So The first half of that is correct

More goalpost shifting. We were discussing writing code that has 12 different layers of meaning. Code that has 12 different layers of meaning is beyond what any sane programmer would want to write.

Also because there is so much integrated information (information that relies on other information to be in proper order to function properly) in the cells, each step along the way would have to successively build upon previous information for the whole system to work as it does. The ONLY way this can be done is through intelligent foresight just as PC programs are written.

Wrong. To "successively build upon previous information for the whole system" is exactly what evolution does. In contrast, creation states that each "kind" is built in isolation, that the designer started from scratch for each one.

The theory of randomness and deletions, when put to the test, fails miserably. There is not one application that it works in. try to write a novel or build blue prints or a PC code by random copying errors of the digits in question, then selection of the best and worst copying errors.

Wrong again. Generic algorithms are a commercial success, as I already pointed out. The fact that you pretend otherwise tells us a lot about your ability to objectively assess the data.

Indeed, you appear to have a sort of "faith-filter", that means you just ignore any evidence that challenges your own pet theory. We can see this in action a lot thoughout your post.

If we have a crime scene (planet earth) in which there can be only TWO suspects for the perpetrator of the crime (origins of species) , we call their names "SUSPECT 1-Abiogenesis and SUSPECT-2 Intelligent Design" Neither of which can be directly observed. The best we have are logical inferences for SUSPECT 2 I.D.

In real science, there are a large number of possible scenarios. God created the whole universe 6000 years ago; God created the universe 17 billion years ago, and has been seeding the planet with new "kinds" over the course of 4 billion years; the planet was seeded with life that was engineered to evolve by aliens 4 billion years ago; RNA world; protein world. Each hypothesis has to stand on its own strengths, and falls on its own weaknesses.

That logical inference is, WE exist therefore other life CAN exist (God)...

How do you define life? Just curious, as the usual biological definition would not include God. If you want to define it by intellect, make sure your definion encompasses E. Coli and oak trees.

But anyway, I accept that God might exist (though certaily not for the reason you offer).

A logical thinking investigator will say to himself "can either of the suspects be ruled OUT?" if not then a good investigator must NOT rule out a potential suspect.

A good scientist looks at what we expect from a given scenario. This is called the scientific method. What are the predictions that follow if we assume the hypothesis is true. This is something so-called "ID scientists" totally fail to do - because the politics of ID forbiddens them from making a hypothesis in he first place. "Creationist scinentists" do better; Walt Brown, for example, has a pretty involved hypothesis. Where they fall down is that most of the predictions from the hypothesis fails to match reality (they just ignore those predictions with their own faith-filter, and stick with the ones that work).

Let us take, for example, your own pet theory, that God wiped out all life 6000 years ago, then started again. What should we expect to see? In the genome, we should see a population bottleneck 6000 years ago. There is one for humans, but about 100,000 years too early. Is there a population bottleneck for dogs, spiders and oak trees? Not that I know of. In fact, dogs are believed to have been domesticated from wolves 15,000 years ago, which is going to be a problem for your pet theory.

What about the fossil record? We should see a large number of species suddenly become extinct 6000 years ago, and a whole bunch of new ones suddenly appear. Where is the evidence in the geological column?

Archaeology can play its role too. We should see absolutely no sign of human culture before 6000 years ago, and then from that time, we should see human culture slowly spread out from the Middle East, as mankind's population gradually rises, and spreads. Unfortunately for your pet theory, archaeological evidence suggests human culture had already spread right across Asia, across the Bering Straits, all the way down North America and into South America by 6500BC (and there is no evidence that there was a first wave of Neanderthals, a sudden disappearance in 4000 BC, and then a new waves of humans arriving in South America many centuries later).

Here is an academic paper that compares the genetics of various peoples, and proves that settlers (human settlers, not Neanaderthals) were moving from Asia in the America 20,000 years ago.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Fagundes-et-al.pdf

So it does not surprise me that these same men can believe the universe was un-caused and came from nothing which goes against any form of critical thinking AND the first law of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics says energy is conserved. Before the Big Bang there was zero, and after the Big Bang there was... zero.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts.

I expect that is another inconvenient fact you will want to sweep under the carpet.

First of all there is no JUNK DNA as was predicted by evolutionists. look it up

Perhaps we should talk about pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are closely related to real sections of DNA that encode proteins, but the pseudogene has some fault in it that stops the protein ever forming. All primates have a pseudogene for vitamin C production. We all have a section of genetic code that should encode proteins that would allow us to make our own vitamin C (just as cats and dogs and mice and kangeroos do).

The theory of evolution says that a random mutation in a very early primate caused the pseudogene. A perfectly functional section of code developed a random error, and stopped working. Not a problem for the fruit-loving primate, as he got plenty of vitamin C in his diet. The mutation spread and was passed down to all the descendant species, including mankind.

How does your pet theory explain this? Why did the creator design our DNA with this flawed genetic code? And why is this flaw common to all primates, which are any number of different kinds? Just how intelligent is this intelligent designer?

The DNA double helix is the best information storage container we know of (most information in the smallest space). Just a coincidence it happened this way I know :)

Not at all. The best solution early evolution could find.

"This preliminary study, of how DNA is actually encoded, clearly indicates that most, if not the entire 100%, of the DNA is “poly-functional”. Poly-functional simply means the DNA exhibits extreme data compression in its character. “Poly-functional” DNA sequences will exhibit several different meanings on several different levels"

As one would expect from an iterative process slowly adding information over 4 billion years.

The more we learn, the more the mechanisms of random copying errors and deletions are laughable candidates for the mechanisms behind the existence of the codes.

Wrong, and the Shapiro paper explains why.

There is abundant evidence for the selection of information already written. There is NO evidence complex error correction mechanisms can arise from random copying errors and selection. This is NOT reasonable to believe.

So you assert, but assertion is all you have. Where is the evidence or reasoning to support the claim?

You do NOT want to tackle abiogenesis (atheism's foundation).

Why not? Sure, there is a lot we do not know about abiogenesis, but that does not make it impossible.

you will quickly find out WHY atheists separate their evolutionary starting point from Darwinian evolution.

It is because they are two different processes.

Pix: Tell me, what are creationists doing to support the claim that God killed all living things 6000 years ago? Oh, right. Nothing.

SYA: Most Creationists are young earth creationists, of which a belief in has nothing to do with salvation. so is not important. Old earth creationists like myself are making our views known.

So in fact all you are doing to support your pet theory is making your view known? No one is actually looking for evidence, or anything like that?

Of course not. It will prove you wrong. You cited the human population bottleneck in a previous post. If you actually examined the evidence, you found discover this proves mankind was around 100,000 years ago. Evidence is so darn inconvenient, right?

Pix: So God designed us so we would have cancer, even though, as you admit, it was within his power to prevent it.

SYA:

What? No comment? Just another inconvient truth for your faith-filter to ignore, I suppose.

SYA: IM a OEC (old earth creationist) that believes in at least two maybe three races of humanoids on earth. Adam & Eve were the most recent 6000 years ago. Neanderthal was a separate species that existed before we did, and was destroyed by God

Pix: Another genocide by the all-loving Christian God.

SYA: No God designed us with free will so we could chose the way of death or the way of life. it was within OUR power to prevent it.

What? We could prevent God from commiting genecide before the human race was created? How does that work?

Hypothetically speaking if God exists, You do not seem to understand you have NO RIGHTS to live in this universe. this universe belongs to GOD (in triune) ALONE and no one else. It is Gods gift that you are allowed to live. The ONLY being that has an inherent right to live in this universe in the one who created it.

I find that attitude horrifying. Countless people have fought, and many have died, for our basic human rights, and here you are telling us that actually a man does not even have the most basic right to exist? What is so scary about your attitude is the implications. Anyone (and I am thinking about both God and mankind here) who believes humans have no rights at all is at liberty to treat humans as casually as a boy poking a stick into a pile of ants.

And I believe the tree of life had transposable elements that would kept us 100% healthy and young

That would be the Tree of Life that mankind was forbidden to touch, right?

Pix: Did you know Neanderthals would bury their dead, often with flowers and tools, leading some experts to think they believed in a life after death. They had music and art too. Until they were all murdered by God, so he could create Adam and Eve.

SYA: So do humans. these attributes do not prohibit us from committing acts worthy of death. death row is filled with people who love music and art etc..

So that justifies genocide? An entire race of sentient beings just destroyed, and that does not cause you any concern? Was there nothing God could do to save them (you know, like send his only son, that kind of thing). Hey, they had no right to survive, so God could do what he wanted, in your universe.

Intelligent design is nothing more than using an intellect to rearrange matter/energy to form things that do not form naturally (in most all cases). Don't let this simple concept go over your head.

See, this is why atheists think that creations are dishonest. Intelligent design, as we are using the term, is about the origins of life. When a creationist is obliged to slip and slide between definitions during a debate, it is clear he: (1) is dishonest; and (2) knows he cannot win by any legitimate way.

All this does is prove two things. One is that a intelligence DOES have the ability to create DNA and rearrange nucleotides, and TWO that the intelligence needed to design the cell and write the codes is beyond our own.

You need much, much more than the mere possibility to make your case.

Now if the best programmers in the world can not write the codes for DNA/RNA. what makes you thing RANDOMNESS AND DELETIONS can do it? could it be FAITH?

No, it is called science. You would not recognise it.

"Although our knowledge .... The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered."

Now if you can just get some details on what this non-Darwinian theory is, and can show it supports your claims, you have at least one scientist on your side.

"The point of this ... with neo-Darwinist postulates"

Same again.

"(2) Cellular Repair Capabilities. ....

Error correction is well-known to evolutionary biologists, and has already been discussed. Nothing neo-Darwinist here.

"It has been a surprise to learn how ..."

Same again.

Shapiro is NOT claiming creationists are right.

Got that right. What he is doing, and you totally failed to find, is proposing new mechanisms for how genetic change happens. If he can give good evidence for that, then modern evolutionary theory will include it (though it may well take a decade or so to get properly established). If that happens, creationists will then be railing against the new theory of evolution, and Shapiro will then be their enemy!

The site is dated less than 6000 years ago so there is no point to be made here other than it proves my point of no RECORDED history before 6000 years ago. this is evident by "prehistoric, pre-dynastic period"

Prehistoric means pre-history or a time BEFORE things were written down and recorded. prehistoric does not mean before "humans" existed

Your faith has so blinded you that you are obliged to filter any evidence that threatens it. There is abundant evidence of human culture before 6000, but because they had no writing, your faith-filter allows you to pretend it does not exist. I find that sort of selective blindness fascinating.

I told you I am a old earth creationist that believes "People" were on this earth millions of years ago, not just 15,000.

Some of the examples I gave had a continous history up to modern day. Eyption archaeolgy, for example, can be traced back continuously to about 5500 BC. The Naqada culture was already expanding up the Nile 6000 years ago.

What are you thinking here? That the people of Naqada were originally Neanderthals, and 6000 years ago they all got wiped out, and within just a few years Adam and Eve had been so busy with the babies that the human population had already spread all the way down the Nile, where the new settlers just moved into the old Neanderthal houses, working the fields just as the old Neanderthals had, making pottery just as the old Neanderthals had?

It is interesting to think how long the gap would have been. Say Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Even just a year or so, before getting pushed out. They raise four kids (say 15 years). Now there are six. Say for the sake of argument population grows at the same rate, trebling every 15 years, it will take 120 years to get to a population of over 10,000. This suggests to me a gap of at least a century, and probably rather more, between the Neanderthals in Naqada being killed and the new human settlers.

It is even worse for South America. How long would it take for the human population to get so big that it had filled Asia, and it was worth venturing across the Bering Straits, and then however many thousands of miles down North America, and into South America.

No mention of being dated by a written record

So therefore your faith-filter lets you dismiss the evidence.

SYA: 3. Mitochondrial Eve proves we all came from ONE WOMAN
and her dating methods are questioned look up " A shrinking date for ‘Eve’ by Carl Wieland"

Pix: Let us see what Wieland says (his emphasis): "This does not prove that she was the only woman alive at the time, but is consistent with it."
According to here, Mitochondrial Eve lived 200,000 years ago. From 2010, by the way.

SYA:

Just going to pretend that evidence does not exist? Ironic, as it was you who cited the paper in the first place.

Ah, well, that is about what we expect by now.

You do realize evolutionary science CAN NOT say the mitochondrial Eve was the ONLY woman alive at that time. by doing so they hand creationism a victory on a silver platter. they have no choice but to make up stories that allows her to exist and still keep evolution alive.

Science cannot say that because there is not evidence to support the claim. That is how it is with science.

They will tell you Eve was NOT the only woman alive, but she is only the most recent common ancestor. in order to believe this you must believe ALL the other women alive at that time with DIFFERENT mtDNA NEVER had any female children that passed on their DNA.

So? We are talking about a population bottle neck; there were very few humans alive at the time.

This is an absurd leap to say the least.

It is not a leap, it is what the evidence points to. I can see you are unable to discern the two.

You understand this is how inductive logic (the scientific method) works. it allows you to make up stories (no matter how absurd) to fit your presupposed conclusion.

It is the most likely story that fits the evidence (more technically, the story makes predictions that fit the evidence). If a more likely story is proposed, that will get accepted. If new evidence refutes the story, it gets rejected. Yes, this is how science works.

The scripture are shown in science. They will swallow a camel but strain on a gnat

Actually that sounds like you, and your faith-filter, the way you ignore all the inconvenient evidence.

The dating methods are constantly changing as are the dates. You can not trust a source to be accurate that is constantly changing. the only SURE thing we know about The Adam & Eve are everyone alive today came from them.

We can also be sure they were around along time before 6000!

[SirYapAlot]

Does that go for my post #23 as well? I think it got buried in Pixie's wall of text.

I can respond in detail to post #23 next week. No time right now

[SirYapAlot]

I will reply to your post #31 next week if I get time

Fail. The Altenberg-16 support evolution. I quoted one of the organisers saying just that.

The fact that you really, really want thento be anti-evolution just does not cut it I am afraid.

Of course they do. They are all ex-Darwinian evolutionists that have finally realized what creationists have been saying all the time. That is random copying errors & deletions can not write coherent digital information.

I said they are NOT embarrassing intelligent design, they are dismantling Darwinian evolution. That is the first step they must take. from there the information they gather will lead to further evidences intelligent design is the only way to get specific complex information written.

I just find it funny basic reasoning skills can not tell someone this.

[QUOTE=PIXIE]It is complicated, and the current theory needs refining to cope with that. It is an "evolving" theory, and will continue to evolve as we learn more. That alone does not help ID or creationism one jot.[/QUOTE

Sure it does. First of all you must realize there can be only TWO ways life on earth/the universe could have arisen, either by I.D. or abiogenesis, there is NO third option.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr.

You then must understand the ONLY mechanism abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution have for writing new information is copying errors and deletions. if the ONLY natural mechanisms can be shown to be invalid in writing coherent information, then a naturalistic theory is effectively proven FALSE.

We are on the threshold of doing just so.

Also a theistic prediction that goes without saying will also be evident as we learn to manipulate the information in DNA. That is, if I.D. is true, we should NOT be able to change the sequences for a rabbit and mix them with a dog.

There should be a static code that prevents this type of information from co-existing, and we should see either a species that will not develop or genome reorganization should remove it. Time will tell

So what?

May be we do not know. May be we do know, and these questioned are answered in other papers. I would guess that the reality is somewhere between the two; biologists have some idea of how it happened, but not the details. Whatever it is, does that prove evolution is wrong? Does it offer any evidence that creationism/ID is right? No!

The ONLY mechanism evolutionists have are random copying errors and deletions. This is why Shapiro said Dawkins rejects any theory that does not include random copying errors and deletions. Because Dawkins knows very well if you invalidate evolutions ONLY mechanism to write information, naturalism (atheistic evolution) is effectively dismantled.

Here is a web page about mutations in garter snakes, allowing those with the mutation to eat toxic newts:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008...ng-protei.html

I suggest you look up the Lederberg Experiments.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/mutations_07

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...ederberg.shtml

"The hypothesis for the experiment is that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure"

"The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin? The answer is no:"

"When the original plate is washed with penicillin, the same colonies (those in position X and Y) live—even though these colonies on the original plate have never encountered penicillin before."

"So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic."

The Lederbergs proved TWO THINGS. One is that mutations are not effected by environment, there are no directed mutations in response to environmental pressures. Mutations are 100% random. And two is that the information for resistance to penicillin existed in bacteria even before penicillin was invented. So natural selection (adaptation) selected FOR the organism with the information needed for survival.

This is nothing more than the selection of information ALREADY WRITTEN, so has no validity to naturalism. The time is OVER when the selection of existing information can be used to prove naturalism. We now know better

Here is a page about a mutation that allowed bacteria to eat Nylon: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

look up "The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste by Don Batten"

"The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection." Don Batten


The Japanese scientists (Yomo) involved in this research said

‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.

‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’

The evidence we have shows the evolutionary changes being made are not a result of random copying errors and deletions. but a result of a adaptation mechanism ALREADY WRITTEN.

This "new mechanism" is a thinking code that directs adaptation.
Biologist James Shapiro spoke of the cells ability to think and make decisions as showing signs of self awareness

"One can characterize this surveillance/inducible repair/checkpoint system as a molecular computation network demonstrating biologically useful properties of self-awareness and decision-making."

You seem to be unaware that examples of RAPID EVOLUTION (or adaptation) actually disprove the Darwinian theory of evolution. Its already been proven random mutations would need a lengthy amount of time to make even the smallest of changes. This point has been addressed over and over again by evolutionists that realize it and use the earths age to explain the time needed for information writing and selection of the fittest.

"We now know how fast fast is. And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before you start feeling uncomfortable?" Time magazine article (p. 70), paleontologist Samuel Bowring

Rapid adaptation can not happen VIA random copying errors. its proven statistically to be too slow. The only explanation left is there is a Static code that controls adaptation by knowing what must be done to keep the species alive and utilizing the resources available

If this is adaptation mechanism is shown to be a "thinking calculating code" as Barbra McClintocks "genome reorganization" research seems to imply and NOT random copying errors. Darwinian evolution must then address how the STATIC adaptation mechanism got written. You can see why Dawkins rejects this new mechanism. Evolutionary biologists had trouble explaining how randomness and subtractions could explain the old theory, they will never be able to explain a naturalistic mechanism for writing a code that thinks and makes decisions for a species survival.

The ability to adapt is a very important survival trait. We would expect evolution to produce organisms that remain relatively stable in an unchanging environment, but can change relatively quickly when conditions take a turn for the worse.

Yes its called the selection of information ALREADY ON FILE and does not support naturalism



"In a naturalistic theory the burden of proof rests on the theory making the claim." SYA

Unlike creationism, which just points to a passage in a book?

Creationism is all faith I agree. In fact the Bible says God intends to save those that exercise FAITH (and obedience). Jesus said blessed is he who believes and does not see.

Creationism is a whole other argument. I am debating intelligent design for which nothing is needed but basic logic and reasoning skills

I cannot find the phrase "cognitive ability" in the Shapiro article you linked to. Where exactly does he say this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053935

Abstract

"Forty years' experience as a bacterial geneticist has taught me that bacteria possess many cognitive, computational and evolutionary capabilities unimaginable in the first six decades of the twentieth century. Analysis of cellular processes such as metabolism, regulation of protein synthesis, and DNA repair established that bacteria continually monitor their external and internal environments and compute functional outputs based on information provided by their sensory apparatus. Studies of genetic recombination, lysogeny, antibiotic resistance and my own work on transposable elements revealed multiple widespread bacterial systems for mobilizing and engineering DNA molecules. Examination of colony development and organization led me to appreciate how extensive multicellular collaboration is among the majority of bacterial species. Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilise sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication and even have the ability to commandeer the basic cell biology of 'higher' plants and animals to meet their own needs. This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognise that even the smallest cells are sentient beings."

You see the more we learn, the more random copying errors and deletions have to prove. The evidence is quickly pointing to an intelligence behind the existence of the DNA/RNA codes


"Right, your problem is showing how these "genetic engineering functions" became in the first place. Darwinian evolution started with a single cell and no coded information (actually in the primordial soup but that's another topic). Darwinian evolution MUST SHOW natural mechanisms that can write multiple layers of complex information. The execution of existing information has NO VALIDITY in atheistic evolution" SYA

Early evolution would have involved mutations and selection. Basic Darwinian evolution.

Basic Darwinian evolution (random copying errors and deletions) is not the mechanisms the new evidence is pointing to.

"Wrong again. Genetic algorithms do proceed by random variation.

From here:"

Incorrect. Read what the page says

"Algorithm is started with a set of solutions (represented by chromosomes) called population. Solutions from one population are taken and used to form a new population. "

"First question is how to create chromosomes, what type of encoding choose"

Algorithms are programs with beginning, middle and ending SOLUTIONS BUILT IN to the program.

From WIKI "Each algorithm is a list of well-defined instructions for completing a task. Starting from an initial state, the instructions describe a computation that proceeds through a well-defined series of successive states, eventually terminating in a final ending state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as randomized algorithms, incorporate randomness."

Algorithms are NOT written VIA randomness and deletions, they are written the way ALL information and PC programs are written, with an intelligence.

The evolutionary algorithms incorporate randomness between the WELL DEFINED beginning, middle and ending steps. they also supply SOLUTIONS to the problem and allow a selection process to chose the most fit solution.

This does nothing but prove natural selection can eliminate the least fit organism and keep the most fit. it does NOT prove randomness and deletions can write PC programs.

What we see here is the evolution from "there is no natural way to get them written" to "Why are codes that are not subject to mutations static?" Also know as moving the goal posts.

I proved you wrong, you have to save face somehow. It is not as though you can admit you were wrong...

You can't even see you have no argument here. I can see my debate with you will not last long.

Try to understand this. The codes or sequences can ONLY be written if they can be changed. if they can not be changed, there is no natural way to get them written.

By what mechanism do you propose the static codes get written by?, If they are not subject to the only information generator evolution has, that is random copying errors, how do they get written?

You don't seem to grasp you need a mechanism to get them changed, AND you need a mechanism to get them to STOP changing.

"So quite easily. The trick is that, while the final sequence is static, there is no reason to suppose that any of the intermediates are static.

SYA: Thats a fantastic explanation for a serious problem if there was evidence for it. but there is none. Science is famous for inventing "plausible stories" with absolutely NO EVIDENCE for its validity.

Pix: You said it was impossible. I presented a plausible way it could happen. I do not know if that is how it happened, I have no evidence. But I have shown thatyou claim was wrong. It is trivuially easy to arrive at an unchanging code sequence

Do you understand you presented NO plausible mechanism to explain HOW AND WHY a code suddenly stops being subject to random copying errors. You don't seem to grasp "It just stopped by its self" is not a mechanism with explanatory power.

Science job is to explain WHY observable phenomenons happen and HOW observable phenomenons happen. thats all nothing more. You are not understanding if the final sequence is static, WHY is it static?. The logical answer is, it is static because it is NOT subject to change VIA the copying errors.

"its just stopped all by its self" it not a mechanism, so is NOT a scientific answer. If you can not understand this IM not wasting my time debating someone in which simple logical concepts are not understood.

Oh, yes. That.

You know why the identification of the designer comes later? So the ID movement can pretend they do not mean God while they try their best to push their supposedly non-religious pseudo-science into schools. The birth of the ID movement can be traced to a court case, Edwards v. Aguillard, in 1987 (there are hints of ID before then, but no real ID movement). In that court case, it was declared that teaching creationism was illegal in the US, because it promoted religion. This left the creationist with a problem, how could they push their religious faith in the science class? The answer was to delete God from the claims.

This is brilliantly illustrated by the creationist textbook "Of Pandas And People", which went though a simple search-and-replace to become an ID textbook. All the arguments were exactly the same, but every occurance of creator was replaced by intelligent designer. You can find more about this by searching for "cdesign proponentsists", but here is one useful resource that you will want to dismiss very quickly:

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cd...proponentsists

You seem to be a master of the obvious. of course Christians, Jews and muslims want the designer to be acknowledged as Yahweh. And Baha'is want their God acknowledged , Hindus want their God acknowledged, Shintos want their God acknowledged, Taoists want their God acknowledged, And the alien heads like Zecharia Sitchin want aliens to be acknowledged as the designer.

This goes without saying, and what religions are for. You can not put the cart before the horse. The horse (I.D.) comes first, then the religions will battle to hook up the cart to a already well established horse.

That said, every atheists I talk to seems to think if I.D. is accepted as a hypothesis in science, this automatically equates creationism. IT DOES NOT. planet earth and its inhabitants could be a science project by a vastly superior extraterrestrial college student. I firmly believe it is not, But you get my point. I.D. does NOT EQUATE religion

In real science, the identity of the designer would be a consideration right from the start. If IDists had a real interest in doing real science, they would start with a working hypothesis about what happened, which would take into consideration the capabilities and the purpose of the designer. This would then guide the research, suggesting exactly what to look for in the genome or in the fossil record.

You should not be debating this topic. in real science the the only thing that needs to be addresses is WHY AND HOW, not WHOM. Whom is the beyond their abilities of investigation.

And creationists have given a working hypothesis for the existence of the genome and the fossil record. Creationists predicted if I.D. was true we should expect to see a level of complexity that far surpasses our own. I have quotes from scores of biologists and geneticists that say from the 1950s up to today the level of complexity is getting more profound.

I have very little time right now but will be happy to give you a detailed account later (from the quotes) that describe how our understanding of the cell has changed drastically since the 1950s when we thought the cell was just a blob of protoplasm.

Heres just a few recent quotes from ENCODE

Source: "DNA unraveled A 'scientific revolution' is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle" By Colin Nickerson

"The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined."

"In any event, lots of basic biological beliefs are going out the window these days as new discoveries come so rapid-fire that the effect is almost more disorienting than illuminating."

"The discoveries have one common theme: Cellular processes long assumed to be "genetic" appear quite often to be the result of highly complex interactions occurring in regions of DNA void of genes."

""It's a radical concept, one that a lot of scientists aren't very happy with," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute."

""I think we're all pretty awed by what we're seeing," Collins said. "It amounts to a scientific revolution."

"To our shock and consternation, we're learning how little we know about the parts of the genome that may matter most," said Dr. David M. Altshuler, associate professor of genetics and medicine at Harvard Medical School and also a top researcher at the Broad Institute."

""The picture that's emerging" of how living cells actually operate and evolve "is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it's almost depressing," Rigoutsos said."

You understand the more we learn about the complexity of the cell the more we learn the cells are "so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined"

Why do you think this is "depressing" to evolutionary science that a lot of scientists "are NOT happy with"?. the answer is self evident, because the more complicated it gets the harder it is to explain how RANDOM COPYING ERRORS can produce it

Real science does admit the possibility of intelligent agents. Forensic science and archaeology, for example. In both cases a consideration of who the intelligent agent was goes hand-in-hand with the rest of the research. Archaelogists do not dig at random, they dig where they expect to find remains, and that expectation is guided by what they know of the ancient culture. Can you imagine a forensic science reporting to a detective like this:

I agree REAL SCIENCE does admit this. NASA does not need to observe extraterrestrial life in order to know it exists. it knows E.T.s exists by listening for signals that are KNOWN to only come from an intelligence and are never naturally produced. As do archeologists.

However evolutionary science (manned by atheists) have cleverly invented parameters that exclude intelligent design from any hypothesis by the falsification method.

"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)

“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
(Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)

"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." Todd, Scott C. [Department of Biology, Kansas State University, USA], "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate," Nature, Vol. 401, 30 September 1999, p.423)

Evolutionary science does not allow intelligent design as a hypothesis "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer".

The level of bias is unprecedented in science. Evolutionary science MUST adhere to naturalism no matter what the evidence is. How can you trust people that put their presuppositions before the data, and will FORCE a square peg into a round hole AT ALL COSTS because of a "prior commitment to naturalism"

FS: I have determined that the death was by design, and intelligent agent was involved
D: Okay. What can you tell me about the culprit? How'd he do it?
FS: You have to understand, this is very early in the investigation; as yet I cannot say anything about how it happened.
D: What? Surely you can say if the victim was shot, or stabbed, or something?
FS: All in good time.

Not going to happened. In reality, the forensic scientist is building a picture of the culprit and what the culprit did right from the start.

Yes he is. He has determined the death was from I.D. So he has established the proper grounds for investigation. Now he can investigate the IDENTITY of the culprit.

However what if the investigator STRICTLY ADHERES to a naturalistic cause of death NO MATTER what the evidence points to. My guess is he would be fired on the spot. Logically thinking investigators DO NOT rule out a cause on the grounds that IT CAN NOT BE RULED OUT (falsified). The very concept is void of logic and critical thinking. not surprising since falsification was invented by liberal minds

If you can't see this investigation is manned by men with presuppositions of naturalism (the cause) and will go to any lengths necessary to exclude any other hypothesis other than naturalism you are just as blind as they are.

So you accept there is archaeological evidence of cultures before 6000 years ago? Or do you just pretend it does not count, because they never wrote anything down?

There is no point for us to continue this "WALL OF TEXT" (as RBerman put it). if you are not comprehending my posts. I said more than once I am a OLD EARTH creationist that believes races of "people" existed before we did millions of years ago. please listen to what your reading

Shapiro's paper neatly explains this. A change in the environment causes stressin the organism, and mutation rates suiddenly shoot up.

Incorrect. The Lederberg experiments proved mutations are not effected by environment. Now environment may very well cause an adaptive code to recognize a need and select the best information for that environment. for example finch beaks that may need resizing to survive. but again this is nothing more than the selection of information already on file. no validity in proving naturalism

SYA "Biologists witnessed "evolution" within the cells and in real life with finch beaks and lizard heads etc..and ASSUMED a naturalistic mechanism for these changes. their presuppositions were WRONG."

That is your opinion, backed by no more than an ancient book and strong faith. I will stick with what the scientists say; they have evidence on their side.

Ok you really need to study the matter. You are many years behind the data.

http://www.genome.gov/25521554

"According to ENCODE researchers, this lack of evolutionary constraint may indicate that many species' genomes contain a pool of functional elements, including RNA transcripts, that provide no specific benefits in terms of survival or reproduction. As this pool turns over during evolutionary time, researchers speculate it may serve as a "warehouse for natural selection" by acting as a source of functional elements unique to each species and of elements that perform the similar functions among species despite having sequences that appear dissimilar."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1929099.ece

“It may be a kind of warehouse for natural selection,” Dr Birney

The selection of already existing information does nothing to prove Darwinian evolution no matter how much you would like it to. Darwinian evolution must provide evidence the mechanisms (random copying errors and deletions) can WRITE this information.

SYA:I can give you quote after quote from evolutionary biologists that say because of the scientific method of FALSIFICATION, I.D. CAN NOT be entertained on those grounds alone no matter what evidence is presented.

No need, I have seen it. They are right.

SYA:As John Walton puts it

"Science is not capable of exploring a designer or his purposes. ...

Patently false, as forensic science and archaeology prove.

LOL..your reasoning process is all over the place. OK which one is it. are they correct in excluding I.D. because of the falsification method or is John Walton statement "patently false"?. On one hand you say "they are right" for adhering to the parameters of falsification, then when I post John Waltons statement that states exactly what you agree with you say he is "patently false".

The truth is REAL science such as archeology, forensics and space sciences DO NOT adhere to the same criteria as evolutionary science. they DO NOT FORCE a naturalistic cause because a intelligent cause is not falsifiable.

Wake up to the atheistic bias in evolutionary science please

Those parameters were in place long before ID was around.

Do you want to change the rules of science, just to allow your own pet theory be allowed to call itself science? So did Behe in the Dover court case. Have a read of the transcipt for that afternoon, about two thirds of the way down. Hilarious. Just as a taster, here is Behe admitting that with his definition of science, astrology and the ether theory of light (rejected by real science about 100 years ago) should be considered science.

PIXIE. I know you would like to have it both ways, but in a logical debate it is impossible. "those parameters" do not exist in other areas of science as you JUST admitted. Aliens are not rejected by the space science and they are just as unfalsifiable as God is.

Pick ONE side of an argument and stick to it please. The parameters are either in science or they are NOT in science. You can only pick ONE, not either/or depending on the question your responding to at the time.

Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

A scientific theory should only propose an explanation of HOW observable phenomenons work and WHY observable phenomenons work. thats all nothing more. The atheists in science have decided to take a metaphysical position that God does NOT exist and build a naturalistic theory around it. its absurd to say the least to build a theory around what is NOT KNOWN.

Pix: All species are related. We share much of our genetic code with bananes.

SYA: Incorrect. Why don't bananas produce wings or eyes etc.. as a result of random mutations?. because its impossible for mutations to produce this information.

I have no idea how this supports your claim that I am incorrect. Do you?

From here (there are different ways to measure how similar DNA is, so you can find several different figures on the web; however, it is a fact that we do share some DNA with bananas):

You fail to understand what the similarities and differences are in the genome. the similarities are NOT in the coding regions but in the non-coding regions. this is why bananas do not produce eyes or wings from copying errors.

You also fail to understand if all species are TRULY all related to one another as evolution predicts the genomes of closely related species should be similar, and the genome of distantly related species should show more differences. This is not at all the case.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../284/5418/1305

In the article "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" by Elizabeth Pennisi, She says

"When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing many different genes in different organisms, the comparisons proved confounding. Rather than clarifying the tree that seeks to show how life evolved, they often produced new trees that differ from the traditional tree and conflict with each other as well."

"...with the full genome sequence in hand, for Aquifex and a dozen other microbes, biologists can draw up family trees based on other genes besides the ribosomal RNA gene that provided the original map. And the trees based on other genes show different maps that do not agree with the ribosomal RNA map. "Each picture is different, so there is tremendous confusion," Carl Woese

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientis..._avian_tre.php

"A fascinating paper was just published by some of my colleagues in the top-tier journal, Science, that analyzes the largest collection of DNA data ever assembled for birds. This analysis effectively redraws avian phylogeny, or family tree, thus shaking up our current understanding of the early, or "deep", evolutionary relationships of birds. For example, one of the most surprising findings of this analysis is that parrots and songbirds are "sister groups" -- each other's closest relatives!

"And here's another surprise; falcons are the sister group to the parrots and songbirds. Further, the falcons (Falconidae) include the New World vultures -- but Falcons are not closely related to eagles, hawks and osprey (Accipitridae), as previously thought."

"These analyses reveal two major findings: First, the classifications and conventional wisdom regarding the evolutionary relationships among many birds is wrong. Second, birds that have similar appearances or behaviors are not necessarily related to each other. According to these data;"

I suggest you read this article - Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

"New Scientist admitted that the tree of life "lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence…. [D]ifferent genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."2 Lawton, G. 2009. Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life. New Scientist. 2692: 34-39.

"The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse...“The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” therefore leading Syvanen to say regarding the relationships of these higher groups, “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life.”

I have pages and pages of quotes that annihilate the "tree of life we are all related" theory. But the MODS on here don't like excessive quotes. Ill be happy to send them ALL in I.M. if you like

All coded languages come from an intelligence (main premise)
DNA has a coded language (premise)
The codes in DNA came from an intelligence (conclusion)

Inductive logic moves from the SPECIFIC the the GENERAL ALL. A inductive conclusion may or may not be true. even if the main premise is 100% true. this does not insure the conclusion to be true

You have hidden you inductive argument in your main premise. You are assuming that because all the coded languages for which we know the origin comes from an intelligence then it must be true for all coded languages everywhere. Your main premise is unproven, we do NOT know that a coded languages must necessarily come from an intelligence (that is, afterall, what you are trying to prove).

If the main premise is unproven, then so is your conclusion.

Pixie don't debate things you do not understand. I don't have to "assume" I KNOW the main premise is irrefutable, this is why you gave no examples of coded information arising naturally. My main premise is 100% proven by the fact no examples of coded information are observed to arise naturally.

If the main premise is 100% accurate, the conclusion is also 100% accurate

[SirYapAlot]

I will reply to your post #31 next week if I get time

Fail. The Altenberg-16 support evolution. I quoted one of the organisers saying just that.

The fact that you really, really want thento be anti-evolution just does not cut it I am afraid.

Of course they do. They are all ex-Darwinian evolutionists that have finally realized what creationists have been saying all the time. That is random copying errors & deletions can not write coherent digital information.

I said they are NOT embarrassing intelligent design, they are dismantling Darwinian evolution. That is the first step they must take. from there the information they gather will lead to further evidences intelligent design is the only way to get specific complex information written.

I just find it funny basic reasoning skills can not tell someone this.

It is complicated, and the current theory needs refining to cope with that. It is an "evolving" theory, and will continue to evolve as we learn more. That alone does not help ID or creationism one jot.

Sure it does. First of all you must realize there can be only TWO ways life on earth/the universe could have arisen, either by I.D. or abiogenesis, there is NO third option.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr.

You then must understand the ONLY mechanism abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution have for writing new information is copying errors and deletions. if the ONLY natural mechanisms can be shown to be invalid in writing coherent information, then a naturalistic theory is effectively proven FALSE.

We are on the threshold of doing just so.

Also a theistic prediction that goes without saying will also be evident as we learn to manipulate the information in DNA. That is, if I.D. is true, we should NOT be able to change the sequences for a rabbit and mix them with a dog.

There should be a static code that prevents this type of information from co-existing, and we should see either a species that will not develop or genome reorganization should remove it. Time will tell

So what?

May be we do not know. May be we do know, and these questioned are answered in other papers. I would guess that the reality is somewhere between the two; biologists have some idea of how it happened, but not the details. Whatever it is, does that prove evolution is wrong? Does it offer any evidence that creationism/ID is right? No!

The ONLY mechanism evolutionists have are random copying errors and deletions. This is why Shapiro said Dawkins rejects any theory that does not include random copying errors and deletions. Because Dawkins knows very well if you invalidate evolutions ONLY mechanism to write information, naturalism (atheistic evolution) is effectively dismantled.

Here is a web page about mutations in garter snakes, allowing those with the mutation to eat toxic newts:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008...ng-protei.html

I suggest you look up the Lederberg Experiments.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/mutations_07

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...ederberg.shtml

"The hypothesis for the experiment is that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure"

"The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin? The answer is no:"

"When the original plate is washed with penicillin, the same colonies (those in position X and Y) live—even though these colonies on the original plate have never encountered penicillin before."

"So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic."

The Lederbergs proved TWO THINGS. One is that mutations are not effected by environment, there are no directed mutations in response to environmental pressures. Mutations are 100% random. And two is that the information for resistance to penicillin existed in bacteria even before penicillin was invented. So natural selection (adaptation) selected FOR the organism with the information needed for survival.

This is nothing more than the selection of information ALREADY WRITTEN, so has no validity to naturalism. The time is OVER when the selection of existing information can be used to prove naturalism. We now know better

Here is a page about a mutation that allowed bacteria to eat Nylon: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

look up "The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste by Don Batten"

"The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection." Don Batten


The Japanese scientists (Yomo) involved in this research said

‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.

‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’

The evidence we have shows the evolutionary changes being made are not a result of random copying errors and deletions. but a result of a adaptation mechanism ALREADY WRITTEN.

This "new mechanism" is a thinking code that directs adaptation.
Biologist James Shapiro spoke of the cells ability to think and make decisions as showing signs of self awareness

"One can characterize this surveillance/inducible repair/checkpoint system as a molecular computation network demonstrating biologically useful properties of self-awareness and decision-making."

You seem to be unaware that examples of RAPID EVOLUTION (or adaptation) actually disprove the Darwinian theory of evolution. Its already been proven random mutations would need a lengthy amount of time to make even the smallest of changes. This point has been addressed over and over again by evolutionists that realize it and use the earths age to explain the time needed for information writing and selection of the fittest.

"We now know how fast fast is. And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before you start feeling uncomfortable?" Time magazine article (p. 70), paleontologist Samuel Bowring

Rapid adaptation can not happen VIA random copying errors. its proven statistically to be too slow. The only explanation left is there is a Static code that controls adaptation by knowing what must be done to keep the species alive and utilizing the resources available

If this is adaptation mechanism is shown to be a "thinking calculating code" as Barbra McClintocks "genome reorganization" research seems to imply and NOT random copying errors. Darwinian evolution must then address how the STATIC adaptation mechanism got written. You can see why Dawkins rejects this new mechanism. Evolutionary biologists had trouble explaining how randomness and subtractions could explain the old theory, they will never be able to explain a naturalistic mechanism for writing a code that thinks and makes decisions for a species survival.

The ability to adapt is a very important survival trait. We would expect evolution to produce organisms that remain relatively stable in an unchanging environment, but can change relatively quickly when conditions take a turn for the worse.

Yes its called the selection of information ALREADY ON FILE and does not support naturalism



"In a naturalistic theory the burden of proof rests on the theory making the claim." SYA

Unlike creationism, which just points to a passage in a book?

Creationism is all faith I agree. In fact the Bible says God intends to save those that exercise FAITH (and obedience). Jesus said blessed is he who believes and does not see.

Creationism is a whole other argument. I am debating intelligent design for which nothing is needed but basic logic and reasoning skills

I cannot find the phrase "cognitive ability" in the Shapiro article you linked to. Where exactly does he say this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053935

Abstract

"Forty years' experience as a bacterial geneticist has taught me that bacteria possess many cognitive, computational and evolutionary capabilities unimaginable in the first six decades of the twentieth century. Analysis of cellular processes such as metabolism, regulation of protein synthesis, and DNA repair established that bacteria continually monitor their external and internal environments and compute functional outputs based on information provided by their sensory apparatus. Studies of genetic recombination, lysogeny, antibiotic resistance and my own work on transposable elements revealed multiple widespread bacterial systems for mobilizing and engineering DNA molecules. Examination of colony development and organization led me to appreciate how extensive multicellular collaboration is among the majority of bacterial species. Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilise sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication and even have the ability to commandeer the basic cell biology of 'higher' plants and animals to meet their own needs. This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognise that even the smallest cells are sentient beings."

You see the more we learn, the more random copying errors and deletions have to prove. The evidence is quickly pointing to an intelligence behind the existence of the DNA/RNA codes


"Right, your problem is showing how these "genetic engineering functions" became in the first place. Darwinian evolution started with a single cell and no coded information (actually in the primordial soup but that's another topic). Darwinian evolution MUST SHOW natural mechanisms that can write multiple layers of complex information. The execution of existing information has NO VALIDITY in atheistic evolution" SYA

Early evolution would have involved mutations and selection. Basic Darwinian evolution.

Basic Darwinian evolution (random copying errors and deletions) is not the mechanisms the new evidence is pointing to.

"Wrong again. Genetic algorithms do proceed by random variation.

From here:"

Incorrect. Read what the page says

"Algorithm is started with a set of solutions (represented by chromosomes) called population. Solutions from one population are taken and used to form a new population. "

"First question is how to create chromosomes, what type of encoding choose"

Algorithms are programs with beginning, middle and ending SOLUTIONS BUILT IN to the program.

From WIKI "Each algorithm is a list of well-defined instructions for completing a task. Starting from an initial state, the instructions describe a computation that proceeds through a well-defined series of successive states, eventually terminating in a final ending state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as randomized algorithms, incorporate randomness."

Algorithms are NOT written VIA randomness and deletions, they are written the way ALL information and PC programs are written, with an intelligence.

The evolutionary algorithms incorporate randomness between the WELL DEFINED beginning, middle and ending steps. they also supply SOLUTIONS to the problem and allow a selection process to chose the most fit solution.

This does nothing but prove natural selection can eliminate the least fit organism and keep the most fit. it does NOT prove randomness and deletions can write PC programs.

What we see here is the evolution from "there is no natural way to get them written" to "Why are codes that are not subject to mutations static?" Also know as moving the goal posts.

I proved you wrong, you have to save face somehow. It is not as though you can admit you were wrong...

You can't even see you have no argument here. I can see my debate with you will not last long.

Try to understand this. The codes or sequences can ONLY be written if they can be changed. if they can not be changed, there is no natural way to get them written.

By what mechanism do you propose the static codes get written by?, If they are not subject to the only information generator evolution has, that is random copying errors, how do they get written?

You don't seem to grasp you need a mechanism to get them changed, AND you need a mechanism to get them to STOP changing.

"So quite easily. The trick is that, while the final sequence is static, there is no reason to suppose that any of the intermediates are static.

SYA: Thats a fantastic explanation for a serious problem if there was evidence for it. but there is none. Science is famous for inventing "plausible stories" with absolutely NO EVIDENCE for its validity.

Pix: You said it was impossible. I presented a plausible way it could happen. I do not know if that is how it happened, I have no evidence. But I have shown thatyou claim was wrong. It is trivuially easy to arrive at an unchanging code sequence

Do you understand you presented NO plausible mechanism to explain HOW AND WHY a code suddenly stops being subject to random copying errors. You don't seem to grasp "It just stopped by its self" is not a mechanism with explanatory power.

Science job is to explain WHY observable phenomenons happen and HOW observable phenomenons happen. thats all nothing more. You are not understanding if the final sequence is static, WHY is it static?. The logical answer is, it is static because it is NOT subject to change VIA the copying errors.

"its just stopped all by its self" it not a mechanism, so is NOT a scientific answer. If you can not understand this IM not wasting my time debating someone in which simple logical concepts are not understood.

Oh, yes. That.

You know why the identification of the designer comes later? So the ID movement can pretend they do not mean God while they try their best to push their supposedly non-religious pseudo-science into schools. The birth of the ID movement can be traced to a court case, Edwards v. Aguillard, in 1987 (there are hints of ID before then, but no real ID movement). In that court case, it was declared that teaching creationism was illegal in the US, because it promoted religion. This left the creationist with a problem, how could they push their religious faith in the science class? The answer was to delete God from the claims.

This is brilliantly illustrated by the creationist textbook "Of Pandas And People", which went though a simple search-and-replace to become an ID textbook. All the arguments were exactly the same, but every occurance of creator was replaced by intelligent designer. You can find more about this by searching for "cdesign proponentsists", but here is one useful resource that you will want to dismiss very quickly:

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cd...proponentsists

You seem to be a master of the obvious. of course Christians, Jews and muslims want the designer to be acknowledged as Yahweh. And Baha'is want their God acknowledged , Hindus want their God acknowledged, Shintos want their God acknowledged, Taoists want their God acknowledged, And the alien heads like Zecharia Sitchin want aliens to be acknowledged as the designer.

This goes without saying, and what religions are for. You can not put the cart before the horse. The horse (I.D.) comes first, then the religions will battle to hook up the cart to a already well established horse.

That said, every atheists I talk to seems to think if I.D. is accepted as a hypothesis in science, this automatically equates creationism. IT DOES NOT. planet earth and its inhabitants could be a science project by a vastly superior extraterrestrial college student. I firmly believe it is not, But you get my point. I.D. does NOT EQUATE religion

In real science, the identity of the designer would be a consideration right from the start. If IDists had a real interest in doing real science, they would start with a working hypothesis about what happened, which would take into consideration the capabilities and the purpose of the designer. This would then guide the research, suggesting exactly what to look for in the genome or in the fossil record.

You should not be debating this topic. in real science the the only thing that needs to be addresses is WHY AND HOW, not WHOM. Whom is the beyond their abilities of investigation.

And creationists have given a working hypothesis for the existence of the genome and the fossil record. Creationists predicted if I.D. was true we should expect to see a level of complexity that far surpasses our own. I have quotes from scores of biologists and geneticists that say from the 1950s up to today the level of complexity is getting more profound.

I have very little time right now but will be happy to give you a detailed account later (from the quotes) that describe how our understanding of the cell has changed drastically since the 1950s when we thought the cell was just a blob of protoplasm.

Heres just a few recent quotes from ENCODE

Source: "DNA unraveled A 'scientific revolution' is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle" By Colin Nickerson

"The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined."

"In any event, lots of basic biological beliefs are going out the window these days as new discoveries come so rapid-fire that the effect is almost more disorienting than illuminating."

"The discoveries have one common theme: Cellular processes long assumed to be "genetic" appear quite often to be the result of highly complex interactions occurring in regions of DNA void of genes."

""It's a radical concept, one that a lot of scientists aren't very happy with," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute."

""I think we're all pretty awed by what we're seeing," Collins said. "It amounts to a scientific revolution."

"To our shock and consternation, we're learning how little we know about the parts of the genome that may matter most," said Dr. David M. Altshuler, associate professor of genetics and medicine at Harvard Medical School and also a top researcher at the Broad Institute."

""The picture that's emerging" of how living cells actually operate and evolve "is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it's almost depressing," Rigoutsos said."

You understand the more we learn about the complexity of the cell the more we learn the cells are "so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined"

Why do you think this is "depressing" to evolutionary science that a lot of scientists "are NOT happy with"?. the answer is self evident, because the more complicated it gets the harder it is to explain how RANDOM COPYING ERRORS can produce it

Real science does admit the possibility of intelligent agents. Forensic science and archaeology, for example. In both cases a consideration of who the intelligent agent was goes hand-in-hand with the rest of the research. Archaelogists do not dig at random, they dig where they expect to find remains, and that expectation is guided by what they know of the ancient culture. Can you imagine a forensic science reporting to a detective like this:

I agree REAL SCIENCE does admit this. NASA does not need to observe extraterrestrial life in order to know it exists. it knows E.T.s exists by listening for signals that are KNOWN to only come from an intelligence and are never naturally produced. As do archeologists.

However evolutionary science (manned by atheists) have cleverly invented parameters that exclude intelligent design from any hypothesis by the falsification method.

"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)

“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
(Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)

"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." Todd, Scott C. [Department of Biology, Kansas State University, USA], "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate," Nature, Vol. 401, 30 September 1999, p.423)

Evolutionary science does not allow intelligent design as a hypothesis "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer".

The level of bias is unprecedented in science. Evolutionary science MUST adhere to naturalism no matter what the evidence is. How can you trust people that put their presuppositions before the data, and will FORCE a square peg into a round hole AT ALL COSTS because of a "prior commitment to naturalism"

FS: I have determined that the death was by design, and intelligent agent was involved
D: Okay. What can you tell me about the culprit? How'd he do it?
FS: You have to understand, this is very early in the investigation; as yet I cannot say anything about how it happened.
D: What? Surely you can say if the victim was shot, or stabbed, or something?
FS: All in good time.

Not going to happened. In reality, the forensic scientist is building a picture of the culprit and what the culprit did right from the start.

Yes he is. He has determined the death was from I.D. So he has established the proper grounds for investigation. Now he can investigate the IDENTITY of the culprit.

However what if the investigator STRICTLY ADHERES to a naturalistic cause of death NO MATTER what the evidence points to. My guess is he would be fired on the spot. Logically thinking investigators DO NOT rule out a cause on the grounds that IT CAN NOT BE RULED OUT (falsified). The very concept is void of logic and critical thinking. not surprising since falsification was invented by liberal minds

If you can't see this investigation is manned by men with presuppositions of naturalism (the cause) and will go to any lengths necessary to exclude any other hypothesis other than naturalism you are just as blind as they are.

So you accept there is archaeological evidence of cultures before 6000 years ago? Or do you just pretend it does not count, because they never wrote anything down?

There is no point for us to continue this "WALL OF TEXT" (as RBerman put it). if you are not comprehending my posts. I said more than once I am a OLD EARTH creationist that believes races of "people" existed before we did millions of years ago. please listen to what your reading

Shapiro's paper neatly explains this. A change in the environment causes stressin the organism, and mutation rates suiddenly shoot up.

Incorrect. The Lederberg experiments proved mutations are not effected by environment. Now environment may very well cause an adaptive code to recognize a need and select the best information for that environment. for example finch beaks that may need resizing to survive. but again this is nothing more than the selection of information already on file. no validity in proving naturalism

SYA "Biologists witnessed "evolution" within the cells and in real life with finch beaks and lizard heads etc..and ASSUMED a naturalistic mechanism for these changes. their presuppositions were WRONG."

That is your opinion, backed by no more than an ancient book and strong faith. I will stick with what the scientists say; they have evidence on their side.

Ok you really need to study the matter. You are many years behind the data.

http://www.genome.gov/25521554

"According to ENCODE researchers, this lack of evolutionary constraint may indicate that many species' genomes contain a pool of functional elements, including RNA transcripts, that provide no specific benefits in terms of survival or reproduction. As this pool turns over during evolutionary time, researchers speculate it may serve as a "warehouse for natural selection" by acting as a source of functional elements unique to each species and of elements that perform the similar functions among species despite having sequences that appear dissimilar."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1929099.ece

“It may be a kind of warehouse for natural selection,” Dr Birney

The selection of already existing information does nothing to prove Darwinian evolution no matter how much you would like it to. Darwinian evolution must provide evidence the mechanisms (random copying errors and deletions) can WRITE this information.

SYA:I can give you quote after quote from evolutionary biologists that say because of the scientific method of FALSIFICATION, I.D. CAN NOT be entertained on those grounds alone no matter what evidence is presented.

No need, I have seen it. They are right.

SYA:As John Walton puts it

"Science is not capable of exploring a designer or his purposes. ...

Patently false, as forensic science and archaeology prove.

LOL..your reasoning process is all over the place. OK which one is it. are they correct in excluding I.D. because of the falsification method or is John Walton statement "patently false"?. On one hand you say "they are right" for adhering to the parameters of falsification, then when I post John Waltons statement that states exactly what you agree with you say he is "patently false".

The truth is REAL science such as archeology, forensics and space sciences DO NOT adhere to the same criteria as evolutionary science. they DO NOT FORCE a naturalistic cause because a intelligent cause is not falsifiable.

Wake up to the atheistic bias in evolutionary science please

Those parameters were in place long before ID was around.

Do you want to change the rules of science, just to allow your own pet theory be allowed to call itself science? So did Behe in the Dover court case. Have a read of the transcipt for that afternoon, about two thirds of the way down. Hilarious. Just as a taster, here is Behe admitting that with his definition of science, astrology and the ether theory of light (rejected by real science about 100 years ago) should be considered science.

PIXIE. I know you would like to have it both ways, but in a logical debate it is impossible. "those parameters" do not exist in other areas of science as you JUST admitted. Aliens are not rejected by the space science and they are just as unfalsifiable as God is.

Pick ONE side of an argument and stick to it please. The parameters are either in science or they are NOT in science. You can only pick ONE, not either/or depending on the question your responding to at the time.

Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

A scientific theory should only propose an explanation of HOW observable phenomenons work and WHY observable phenomenons work. thats all nothing more. The atheists in science have decided to take a metaphysical position that God does NOT exist and build a naturalistic theory around it. its absurd to say the least to build a theory around what is NOT KNOWN.

Pix: All species are related. We share much of our genetic code with bananes.

SYA: Incorrect. Why don't bananas produce wings or eyes etc.. as a result of random mutations?. because its impossible for mutations to produce this information.

I have no idea how this supports your claim that I am incorrect. Do you?

From here (there are different ways to measure how similar DNA is, so you can find several different figures on the web; however, it is a fact that we do share some DNA with bananas):

You fail to understand what the similarities and differences are in the genome. the similarities are NOT in the coding regions but in the non-coding regions. this is why bananas do not produce eyes or wings from copying errors.

You also fail to understand if all species are TRULY all related to one another as evolution predicts the genomes of closely related species should be similar, and the genome of distantly related species should show more differences. This is not at all the case.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../284/5418/1305

In the article "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" by Elizabeth Pennisi, She says

"When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing many different genes in different organisms, the comparisons proved confounding. Rather than clarifying the tree that seeks to show how life evolved, they often produced new trees that differ from the traditional tree and conflict with each other as well."

"...with the full genome sequence in hand, for Aquifex and a dozen other microbes, biologists can draw up family trees based on other genes besides the ribosomal RNA gene that provided the original map. And the trees based on other genes show different maps that do not agree with the ribosomal RNA map. "Each picture is different, so there is tremendous confusion," Carl Woese

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientis..._avian_tre.php

"A fascinating paper was just published by some of my colleagues in the top-tier journal, Science, that analyzes the largest collection of DNA data ever assembled for birds. This analysis effectively redraws avian phylogeny, or family tree, thus shaking up our current understanding of the early, or "deep", evolutionary relationships of birds. For example, one of the most surprising findings of this analysis is that parrots and songbirds are "sister groups" -- each other's closest relatives!

"And here's another surprise; falcons are the sister group to the parrots and songbirds. Further, the falcons (Falconidae) include the New World vultures -- but Falcons are not closely related to eagles, hawks and osprey (Accipitridae), as previously thought."

"These analyses reveal two major findings: First, the classifications and conventional wisdom regarding the evolutionary relationships among many birds is wrong. Second, birds that have similar appearances or behaviors are not necessarily related to each other. According to these data;"

I suggest you read this article - Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

"New Scientist admitted that the tree of life "lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence…. [D]ifferent genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."2 Lawton, G. 2009. Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life. New Scientist. 2692: 34-39.

"The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse...“The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” therefore leading Syvanen to say regarding the relationships of these higher groups, “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life.”

I have pages and pages of quotes that annihilate the "tree of life we are all related" theory. But the MODS on here don't like excessive quotes. Ill be happy to send them ALL in I.M. if you like

All coded languages come from an intelligence (main premise)
DNA has a coded language (premise)
The codes in DNA came from an intelligence (conclusion)

Inductive logic moves from the SPECIFIC the the GENERAL ALL. A inductive conclusion may or may not be true. even if the main premise is 100% true. this does not insure the conclusion to be true

You have hidden you inductive argument in your main premise. You are assuming that because all the coded languages for which we know the origin comes from an intelligence then it must be true for all coded languages everywhere. Your main premise is unproven, we do NOT know that a coded languages must necessarily come from an intelligence (that is, afterall, what you are trying to prove).

If the main premise is unproven, then so is your conclusion.

Pixie don't debate things you do not understand. I don't have to "assume" I KNOW the main premise is irrefutable, this is why you gave no examples of coded information arising naturally. My main premise is 100% proven by the fact no examples of coded information are observed to arise naturally.

If the main premise is 100% accurate, the conclusion is also 100% accurate

[lao tzu]

Dang, yappers. That's a lot of intellectual effort spent in service to maintaining ignorance.

I KNOW the main premise is irrefutable

DNA is itself the primary example of "coded information" arising naturally, as is immediately evident in the creation of novel proteins, such as those which allowed a Flavobacterium to learn to digest nylon. Here we're speaking of information in the necessarily ambiguous vernacular sense, not to be confused with the information of information theorists that underpins the multi-trillion dollar information industry. Information in that sense is trivially created naturally. I've yet to find an IDist who can represent the latter accurately, or present "information" in any alternative, coherent sense.

That's before we even launch into the great unknown, the ironically unspecified "specified complexity."

As ever, Jesse

[The Pixie]

The Altenberg-16

I just want to deal quickly with this as it highlights some interesting points.

Of course they do. They are all ex-Darwinian evolutionists that have finally realized what creationists have been saying all the time. That is random copying errors & deletions can not write coherent digital information.

I said they are NOT embarrassing intelligent design, they are dismantling Darwinian evolution. That is the first step they must take. from there the information they gather will lead to further evidences intelligent design is the only way to get specific complex information written.

I just find it funny basic reasoning skills can not tell someone this.

Look, I get you you really, really want evolution to be in crisis, but wishful thinking really does not cut much ice in a debate.

I posted this before, but this is what the chair of the conference said before it started:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...cientific.html

As is common in these circumstances, some creationist claims are in fact correct, but trivially so, while the use that creationists attempt to make of the claims themselves is highly (and possibly willfully) misleading.
...
[b]Now, did you see anything in the above that suggests that evolution is “a theory in crisis”? Did I say anything about intelligent designers, or the rejection of Darwinism, or any of the other nonsense that has filled the various uninformed and sometimes downright ridiculous commentaries that have appeared on the web about the Altenberg meeting? Didn’t think so.[b]

Here is how it was reported after it had finished:

http://www.science20.com/rationally_..._what_happened

By incorporating these new results and insights into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves.

Later they published a book; here is the summary (on a German Amazon site, but the summary is in English):

http://www.amazon.de/Evolution-Exten.../dp/0262513676

In this volume, sixteen leading evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science survey the conceptual changes that have emerged since Huxley's landmark publication, not only in such traditional domains of evolutionary biology as quantitative genetics and paleontology but also in such new fields of research as genomics and EvoDevo. Most of the contributors to Evolution--The Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure--just as the architects of the Modern Synthesis themselves expanded and modulated previous versions of Darwinism.

These guys are all supports of evolution. They want the theory to be tweaked, to include new findings, but that tweaking has been going on for a long time already (but then, the Altenberg conferences occur twice a year, so they too have been going on for some time).

The "Altenberg-16 are: Sergey Gavrilets, Stuart Newman, David Sloan Wilson, John Beatty, John Odling-Smee, Michael Purugganan, Greg Wray, David Jablonski, Marc Kirschner, Eörs Szathmary, Günter Wagner, Werner Callebaut, Eva Jablonka, Gerd Müller, Massimo Pigliucci, Alan Love. See if you can find any evidence that any one of them are "ex-Darwinian evolutionists". I have presented three web pages that support my view, your turn to find some evidence that supports your view. Should be easy for you, sure - afterall, you have God on your side, right?

What I find interesting about this issue is how the whole creationist/ID industry is using the writing of one journalist, Suzan Mazur, as the basis of their claim. You can read about this at Uncommon Descent, the Discovery Institute and other places. The whole thing about the Altenbrg-16 was engendered by here (afterall, why was that conference so special, why not the Altenberg conference six months before or six months after). Seriously, do creationists/IDists cite any other source other than her book to support the claim that the Altenberg-16 was anti-evolution?

I think not. Creationists/IDists all have this faith-filter, which lets them ignore the evidence they do not like - like what the people at the conference actually said - and only accept the second-hand accounts that align neatly with their religious beliefs.

[The Pixie]

SirYapAlot

Sure it does. First of all you must realize there can be only TWO ways life on earth/the universe could have arisen, either by I.D. or abiogenesis, there is NO third option.

The problem is that neither actually say what happened. Merely labelling it ID or abiogenesis tells us precious little. What we want to know is what actually happened. There are a vast number of theories that fall under each label, and what we want is to know which one is right.

It is like dividing the world population into those who like Marmite and those who do not. It tells you if a person like Marmitre, but absolutely nothing else. If all you care about is whether it was abiogenesis or creation, then dividing between abiogenesis and creation I guess might work for you.

Science, however, wants to know what actually happened.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr.

I guess that explains why he believed in spiritualism.

You then must understand the ONLY mechanism abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution have for writing new information is copying errors and deletions. if the ONLY natural mechanisms can be shown to be invalid in writing coherent information, then a naturalistic theory is effectively proven FALSE.

We are on the threshold of doing just so.

Again I think we are seeing this faith-filter at work. By considering only the evidence for one side, and ignoring the rather better and larger evidence on the other side, one might indeed come to the conclusion that Darwinism's demise is imminent. There is a helpful list of creationists (and more recently creationist/IDists) asserting just that that you can read here:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html

The reality is... rather different. Evolution is as strong today as it was 10, 20 or 50 years ago. It is not perfect; it will continue to be tweaked, to evolve into simething better, but as yet there are no signs of its demise (not if you look at all the evidence.

Also a theistic prediction that goes without saying will also be evident as we learn to manipulate the information in DNA. That is, if I.D. is true, we should NOT be able to change the sequences for a rabbit and mix them with a dog.

There should be a static code that prevents this type of information from co-existing, and we should see either a species that will not develop or genome reorganization should remove it. Time will tell

You mean transgenic animals?

The ONLY mechanism evolutionists have are random copying errors and deletions.

Actually there are several mechanisms by which mutations arise (frameshoft, duplication, point, insertion, deletion, maybe others), but perhaps that is just ntipicking. More importantly, you miss the selection part of evolution, and that is a pretty big deal.

This is why Shapiro said Dawkins rejects any theory that does not include random copying errors and deletions.

So now you are saying Shapiro's theory includes random mutations? I thought you were claiming that Shapiro was anti-evolution.

Because Dawkins knows very well if you invalidate evolutions ONLY mechanism to write information, naturalism (atheistic evolution) is effectively dismantled.

I think you have this backwards. You seem to be of the opinion that Dawkins is an atheist first, and that that atheism causes him to see science in a certain way; he has to reject ID because it challenges his atheism. I can see how you would think that, as it is apparent you do the same - sieveing all evidence through your faith-filter. However, I would guess that for Dawkins it is the other way around. He believes evolution because of the evidence, and his atheism is (in part) a result of what he sees in science.

I notice how you focus on an atheist evolutionist. Should we consider a Christian evolutionist, and ask he accepts this process of random mutation and selection? Yes, yes, I know you want to paint the poor guy as a false Christian because he does not subscribe to your particular interpretation of the Bible, but Christians who accept evolutionist do so despite not being tied to naturalism.

By the way, what fraction of Christians (i.e, people who consider themselves Christians) actually do think God wiped out all life 6000 years ago, then created Adam and Eve? I bet it is a pretty small. It they are the only true Christians, that would make "True Christianity" quite a minority religion.

"The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin? The answer is no:"

That is what I was saying before with regards to directed evolution. The bacteria cannot devise a new DNA sequence that will allow it to survive better, there is no directed evolution in that sense (only in the sense of a higher mutation rate when the organism is under stress).

But let us take this back a step, and consider your hypothesis. What you are claiming here is that God built code into the DNA that would allow his precious bacteria to become resistant to anti-biotics. Have I understood your position correctly? God deliberately engineered that bacteria to cause extra suffering.

The Lederbergs proved TWO THINGS. One is that mutations are not effected by environment, there are no directed mutations in response to environmental pressures. Mutations are 100% random.

Cool, you got that.

And two is that the information for resistance to penicillin existed in bacteria even before penicillin was invented. So natural selection (adaptation) selected FOR the organism with the information needed for survival.

Sure. Does it therefore follow that all information must already be there? No.

This "new mechanism" is a thinking code that directs adaptation.

Oh, dear. I thought you had got this bit. Remember when you said "mutations are not effected by environment, there are no directed mutations in response to environmental pressures". How does that square with "thinking code that directs adaptation"?

You seem to be unaware that examples of RAPID EVOLUTION (or adaptation) actually disprove the Darwinian theory of evolution. Its already been proven random mutations would need a lengthy amount of time to make even the smallest of changes. This point has been addressed over and over again by evolutionists that realize it and use the earths age to explain the time needed for information writing and selection of the fittest.

Not true. The mutations are occuring all the time, with detrimental ones removed by selection. When the environment changes, there is already a whole bunch of mutations in the population waiting to be utilised, perhaps activited by just one change, switching on a new gene. Sure, the vast majority of those neutral mutations will remain neutral, but it only takes the one. So you end up with systems able to mutate the phenotype very fast due to very small changes in the genotype.

Rapid adaptation can not happen VIA random copying errors. its proven statistically to be too slow. The only explanation left is there is a Static code that controls adaptation by knowing what must be done to keep the species alive and utilizing the resources available

Something like that could work, sure, it is the same sort of idea I think.

You can see why Dawkins rejects this new mechanism.

Can you provide any evidence that he does reject it? McClintock's work was some 40 years ago, and is now well accepted in biology; I wold be very surprised to discover that Dawkins rejects it.

Evolutionary biologists had trouble explaining how randomness and subtractions could explain the old theory, they will never be able to explain a naturalistic mechanism for writing a code that thinks and makes decisions for a species survival.

No need. Remember when you said "mutations are not effected by environment, there are no directed mutations in response to environmental pressures".

Yes its called the selection of information ALREADY ON FILE and does not support naturalism

It does not support naturalism, but it is compatible with naturalism.

Creationism is all faith I agree. In fact the Bible says God intends to save those that exercise FAITH (and obedience). Jesus said blessed is he who believes and does not see.

Me, I will stick with what there is evidence for. If God wanted us to accept without asking, why did he give us the ability to reason?

"Forty years' experience as a bacterial geneticist has taught me that bacteria possess many cognitive, computational and evolutionary capabilities unimaginable in the first six decades of the twentieth century. Analysis of cellular processes such as metabolism, regulation of protein synthesis, and DNA repair established that bacteria continually monitor their external and internal environments and compute functional outputs based on information provided by their sensory apparatus. Studies of genetic recombination, lysogeny, antibiotic resistance and my own work on transposable elements revealed multiple widespread bacterial systems for mobilizing and engineering DNA molecules. Examination of colony development and organization led me to appreciate how extensive multicellular collaboration is among the majority of bacterial species. Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilise sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication and even have the ability to commandeer the basic cell biology of 'higher' plants and animals to meet their own needs. This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognise that even the smallest cells are sentient beings."

You see the more we learn, the more random copying errors and deletions have to prove. The evidence is quickly pointing to an intelligence behind the existence of the DNA/RNA codes

I see nothing there that is at all troubling to evolution. Yes, bacteria are complicated organisms, but they are the pinacle of about 4 billion years evolution.

I do see somethng troubling to creationism. Exactly why did God make these bacteria so great at making us ill? Let us consider leprosy, a terrible disease that has caused untold suffering for thousands of years. Why did God put so much effort in to organisms that cause so much suffering?

Basic Darwinian evolution (random copying errors and deletions) is not the mechanisms the new evidence is pointing to.

The new evidence points to addition mechanisms. It is not saying the other mechanisms do not apply as well.

Algorithms are programs with beginning, middle and ending SOLUTIONS BUILT IN to the program.

From WIKI "Each algorithm is a list of well-defined instructions for completing a task. Starting from an initial state, the instructions describe a computation that proceeds through a well-defined series of successive states, eventually terminating in a final ending state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as randomized algorithms, incorporate randomness."

Algorithms are NOT written VIA randomness and deletions, they are written the way ALL information and PC programs are written, with an intelligence.

The algorithm is the program within which evolution is happening. The solution is the replicator, analogous to an organism. A set of solutions is like a population of organisms. The process has a way to measure fitness. The fitness of a solution is how well it answers the question posed. The fitness of the organism is how well it survives in the environment. At each iteration, the less fit solutions are discarded, the more fit solutions survive. At each generation the less fit organisms die, the more fit ones survive to reproduce. In the next iteration or the next generation new mutations appear at random.

After so many interations you have a population that has undergone numerous mutations, and is significantly better than the starting population. Yes, they have the beginning solutions built in, but not the middle and end solutions. They are the product of a random process.

And this methodology is sufficiently successful that it is marketed commercially.

Try to understand this. The codes or sequences can ONLY be written if they can be changed. if they can not be changed, there is no natural way to get them written.

That is flawed logic. If ABCABC cannot be changed, but ABBABC can be, then we can get from the latter to the former by changing the third letter.

You appear to be assuming that because we cannot change from them, then it must be the case that we cannot change to them. Why on Earth should we suppose that?

You don't seem to grasp you need a mechanism to get them changed, AND you need a mechanism to get them to STOP changing.

ABCABC later gets used in a protein sequence, that protein sequence later becames vital to the organism living. Any mutation to ABCABC leads to an unviable young, so mutations in ABCABC are never seen.

Do you understand you presented NO plausible mechanism to explain HOW AND WHY a code suddenly stops being subject to random copying errors. You don't seem to grasp "It just stopped by its self" is not a mechanism with explanatory power.

That was not the question, as I understood it. However it is now answered.

You seem to be a master of the obvious. of course Christians, Jews and muslims want the designer to be acknowledged as Yahweh. And Baha'is want their God acknowledged , Hindus want their God acknowledged, Shintos want their God acknowledged, Taoists want their God acknowledged, And the alien heads like Zecharia Sitchin want aliens to be acknowledged as the designer.

This goes without saying, and what religions are for. You can not put the cart before the horse. The horse (I.D.) comes first, then the religions will battle to hook up the cart to a already well established horse.

The point is that these religions have some very different ideas about how their respective God (or Gods) created the world, and those differences should be what creationist scientists look for. If you believe all extant species were created from nothing 6000 years ago, you should be looking in the genome of several disparate "kinds" to show a population bottle neck 6000 years ago. If you are a Hindu, you need to look for evidence of a universe some 100 trillion years old. Some do this, baraminology is trying to identify "kinds", so is a step in the right direction.

ID is a step in the wrong direction. If is removing the identityof the designer for political reasons, not for science.

You should not be debating this topic. in real science the the only thing that needs to be addresses is WHY AND HOW, not WHOM. Whom is the beyond their abilities of investigation.

Who are you to dictate what can and cannot be debated?

Are you going to tell archaeologiats they cannot investigate WHO built that house or forged that sword? Are youi going to tell forensic scientists they cannot provide DNA evidence to determine who handled the gun?

WHOM is beyond the ID investigation only because it is (or was) politically expediant to make it so.

I have very little time right now but will be happy to give you a detailed account later (from the quotes) that describe how our understanding of the cell has changed drastically since the 1950s when we thought the cell was just a blob of protoplasm.

Great, so creationists predicted "its way complicated".

Meanwhile, evolution predicts the ordering of fossils in the geological column, the existence of transitional species, the nested hierarchy.

However evolutionary science (manned by atheists) have cleverly invented parameters that exclude intelligent design from any hypothesis by the falsification method.

I think you have listened to much to the creationist propaganda. Evolutionary science is accepted by virtually all biologists, including Christians.

“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”

This is describing how all science works. It is restricted to the natural world because that is what it can study. Simple as that.
[quoe]Evolutionary science does not allow intelligent design as a hypothesis "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer".

The level of bias is unprecedented in science.[/quote]
Contradicted by the quotes YOU supplied. This is how all science works.

And this is why Behe wanted to redefine science, inadvertently allowing astrology to be considered science.

Yes he is. He has determined the death was from I.D. So he has established the proper grounds for investigation. Now he can investigate the IDENTITY of the culprit.

Back in the real world, the two go hand in hand. Every bit of data that points to ID is also a clue to the culprit. Gunshots wounds indicate the culprit had access to a gun, and knew how to use it, for example.

It is only in the bizarro world of ID that these two are separated off into two distinct stages of the investigation.

However what if the investigator STRICTLY ADHERES to a naturalistic cause of death NO MATTER what the evidence points to. My guess is he would be fired on the spot. Logically thinking investigators DO NOT rule out a cause on the grounds that IT CAN NOT BE RULED OUT (falsified). The very concept is void of logic and critical thinking. not surprising since falsification was invented by liberal minds

On the contrary, any investigator who suggested a supernatural cause would be fired. No forensic scientist seriously bothers to consider any non-naturalistic cause of death.

There is no point for us to continue this "WALL OF TEXT" (as RBerman put it). if you are not comprehending my posts. I said more than once I am a OLD EARTH creationist that believes races of "people" existed before we did millions of years ago. please listen to what your reading

The archaelogical evidence indicates a continuous culture living on the Nile for over 6000 years. How can that be if God destroyed them all 6000 years ago, and the world then got repopulated from Adam and Eve?

"According to ENCODE researchers, this lack of evolutionary constraint may indicate that many species' genomes contain a pool of functional elements, including RNA transcripts, that provide no specific benefits in terms of survival or reproduction. As this pool turns over during evolutionary time, researchers speculate it may serve as a "warehouse for natural selection" by acting as a source of functional elements unique to each species and of elements that perform the similar functions among species despite having sequences that appear dissimilar."

See this is what I was talking about earlier with regards to rapid mutation rates. Neutral mutations build up over time while the environment is steady, then are there ready to be used when necessary.

Do you know what "this lack of evolutionary constraint" refers to? They mean that this part of the DNA is not static, that it does undergo mutations. This "pool of functional elements" is not information coded by God, but - the scientists say - the product of random mutation.

SYA:I can give you quote after quote from evolutionary biologists that say because of the scientific method of FALSIFICATION, I.D. CAN NOT be entertained on those grounds alone no matter what evidence is presented.

No need, I have seen it. They are right.

SYA:As John Walton puts it

"Science is not capable of exploring a designer or his purposes. ...

Patently false, as forensic science and archaeology prove.

LOL..your reasoning process is all over the place. OK which one is it. are they correct in excluding I.D. because of the falsification method or is John Walton statement "patently false"?. On one hand you say "they are right" for adhering to the parameters of falsification, then when I post John Waltons statement that states exactly what you agree with you say he is "patently false".

ID is a pseudo-science that makes a positive effort to avoid proposing a hypothesis about what actually happened. Therefore, it cannot be falsified. That is not an intrinsic fault with ID, it is a fault with what IDists are currently doing.

Forensic science and archaeology show that you can include a designer in science. Potentially, ID could too. The trouble is that IDists do not want to.

The truth is REAL science such as archeology, forensics and space sciences DO NOT adhere to the same criteria as evolutionary science. they DO NOT FORCE a naturalistic cause because a intelligent cause is not falsifiable.

Both archaeology and forensic science stay firmly with naturalistic causes.

PIXIE. I know you would like to have it both ways, but in a logical debate it is impossible. "those parameters" do not exist in other areas of science as you JUST admitted. Aliens are not rejected by the space science and they are just as unfalsifiable as God is.

I had no idea aliens were accepted in mainstream science...

Pix: All species are related. We share much of our genetic code with bananes.

SYA: Incorrect. Why don't bananas produce wings or eyes etc.. as a result of random mutations?. because its impossible for mutations to produce this information.

Pix: I have no idea how this supports your claim that I am incorrect. Do you?

SYA: You fail to understand what the similarities and differences are in the genome. the similarities are NOT in the coding regions but in the non-coding regions. this is why bananas do not produce eyes or wings from copying errors.

Many of the similaries are in the coding regions; for example cytochrome-c is a protein are used by both humans and bananas.

In any case, how would that help your case that I am incorrect to say we share much of our genetic code with bananas?

You also fail to understand if all species are TRULY all related to one another as evolution predicts the genomes of closely related species should be similar, and the genome of distantly related species should show more differences. This is not at all the case.

This is a strong prediction by common descent, and it is one that has proven true.

Yes, there are some exceptions; a few areas where the morphology led scientists astray, but they are relatively few and far between. I note that you quote a paper about "Aquifex and a dozen other microbes", and clearly birds were a problem.

Can you find any where in these articles saying that common descent is wrong, that it should be rejected? Of course not! All they are saying is that the exactly relationship between some species was wrong and the Tree of Life has been updated. The details have been modified, and the Tree of Life still stands tall and proud.

I have pages and pages of quotes that annihilate the "tree of life we are all related" theory. But the MODS on here don't like excessive quotes. Ill be happy to send them ALL in I.M. if you like

Just find the quotes that say common descent should now be rejected. That is what you need to prove that, well, common descent has now been rejected.

Pixie don't debate things you do not understand. I don't have to "assume" I KNOW the main premise is irrefutable, this is why you gave no examples of coded information arising naturally. My main premise is 100% proven by the fact no examples of coded information are observed to arise naturally.

When you say "All coded languages" are you basing that on the coded languages actually known to mankind, or all the coded languages ever across the universe? If you can just clarify that, I will see if I can address your logic.

[The Pixie]

I thought it might be interesting to look at what was going on in Egypt 6000 years ago. According to SirYapAlot's theory, this was when God destroyed all life and started over. Up to 4000 BC, there were Neanderthals, but after their genocide, God created Adam and Eve, and from these two, humanity spread out to populate the world.


Badari

http://www.touregypt.net/elbadari.htm
In reconstructing Egyptian history, the term Badarian is derived from the name of this small village South of Asyut. The term refers to the earliest era of the Predynastic period, when the Egyptians truly became and agricultural and stock breeding society. The cemetery nearby has yielded considerable artifacts dating from 5500 to 3800 BC.

Here is a culture that was around 1500 years before the genocide, and still going until 200 years after the genocide. Odd that.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html
The Badarian culture (named after al-Badari); is the earliest known "civilized Egyptian civilization" based on farming, hunting and mining. They lived at about 4500 B.C. and may have even been as far back as 5500 B.C. These farmers grew barley, wheat, flax and wove linen fabrics in addition to tending flocks.
...
Badarians produced fine pottery and carved objects as well as acquiring turquoise and wood through trading.
Green malachite ore, so important for the beautification of the eyes, was ground on cosmetic palettes. They were found together with grinding pebbles which were used to grind the ore into powder to be used as green eye-paint. Malachite ore is mined in the Eastern Desert and in Sinai. The Eastern Desert is the long strip of land between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea. The castor plant, which grew wild, supplied them with oil to lubricate their skins, or to fill their lamps. Grain was stored in clay bins; made into bread, apparent remains of which are found in graves.
...
The Badarians gave their dogs, cattle, sheep, jackals, and cows ceremonial burial.

This was a sophoisicated and relatively advanced culture that God supposedly destoyed. It is interesting that they had exactly the same animals as were around after the genocide. There were already dogs, cattle, sheep, jackals, and cows; apparently God destoyed them all, then created new species of dogs, cattle, sheep, jackals, and cows ... that have genomes that fit into the nested hierarchy predicted by common descent.

http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kun...edynastic.html
The people who are believed to be the ancestors to the predynastic Egyptians were a people known as the Badarian people. They lived in Upper Egypt, on the eastern bank of the Nile, near the village of Badari, south of Asiut. Archaeologists have found both a series of settlement sites as well as various cemeteries. They lived at about 4400 BC and may have even been as far back as 5000 BC.

So here we have a people living more than 6000 years ago - before the genocide - who are ancestors to the later Egyptians!


Naqada

http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kun...edynastic.html
Succeeding the Badari, the Naqada people took over. They were one of the most important prehistoric cultures in Upper Egypt, and their development can be traced to the founding of the Egyptian state.
...
The Amratian (Naqada I) started as a parallel culture to the Badari, but eventually superimposed itself on the other, and finally replaced it. These, though, were the race thought of as the first 'true Egyptians', and dominated between 4500-3100 BC.

Another culture that straddles the genocide in 6000.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/naqada.htm
The study of the burials and their goods indicate the early stages of the Egyptian belief in an afterlife. Most of the inhabitants were buried in simple rectangular pits three to four feet deep, which were roofed with crude ceilings of interwoven branches and brush and capes of low mounds of dirt. The dead were laid on reed mats in a contracted, fetal position, reclining on their left side with legs flexed and arms bent, hands in front of the face or neck. With few exceptions, the head lay at the southern end of the tomb with the face pointing to the west. The deceased were accompanied by grave offerings reflecting their relative wealth and aspects of their daily life: tools like flint knives, scrapers and arrowheads; green slate grinding palettes with pigment stones; copper punches, awls and adzes, ornaments (some imported) such as shell and stone beads, containers crafted from stone, and a variety of fine, handmade polished red ware and black-topped red-ware jars, baked clay figurines, amulets and carved ivory plaques.

What is interesting here is the start of the ancient Egyption religion. In SirYapAlot's scenario, these people would be just a few generations from Adam and Eve (indeed, Adam and Eve lived to about 900, so died about the same time the Naqada culture ended), two people who directed talked to God. What possible reason could the people of Naqada have for abandoning Judaism in favour of false gods under those circumstances? Why would an all powerful God allow false religion to flourish so very quickly? Note that this is rather faster than the uptake of Christianity, which took centuries to be adopted as a state religion.


What we see in Egypt is the rise and fall of settlements over thousands of years, but the culture of those settlements gets carried through into the next era. The burial rites of the Badarians were continued in Naqada and developed in to the mummification and pyramid building that is so famous. There is no gap in the history record, between God destroying all life, and mankind eventually becoming sufficiently populous to spread all the way down the Nile. There is no sign of a new monotheistic culture taking over as we might expect if the relatives of Adam and Eve had replaced the original population.

All the evidence shows that there was no genocide 6000 years ago.

[SirYapAlot]

More goalpost shifting. We were discussing writing code that has 12 different layers of meaning. Code that has 12 different layers of meaning is beyond what any sane programmer would want to write.

And why would this be?. If not for the space saving convenience alone it would be done. Making claims without explaining the reasoning process behind them has no relevance to me in a debate. Why would a programmer not utilize every angle he/she could to maximize their programs potential, they would.

SYA"Also because there is so much integrated information (information that relies on other information to be in proper order to function properly) in the cells, each step along the way would have to successively build upon previous information for the whole system to work as it does. The ONLY way this can be done is through intelligent foresight just as PC programs are written."

Wrong. To "successively build upon previous information for the whole system" is exactly what evolution does. In contrast, creation states that each "kind" is built in isolation, that the designer started from scratch for each one.

You have no idea what your talking about to put it bluntly. Ill say it one more time. Making claims without evidence is 100% useless in a debate. Give me the testable evidence random copying errors and selection can slowly build information successively upon previous information.

Creationism believes the designer designed one cell and programmed RNA and DNA to build all carbon based life forms from ONE cell design. very simple concept

SYA"The theory of randomness and deletions, when put to the test, fails miserably. There is not one application that it works in. try to write a novel or build blue prints or a PC code by random copying errors of the digits in question, then selection of the best and worst copying errors."

Wrong again. Generic algorithms are a commercial success, as I already pointed out. The fact that you pretend otherwise tells us a lot about your ability to objectively assess the data.

GENETIC algorithms are written PC programs. I find it funny you continue to put forth unsubstantiated personal speculations as facts even when I have showed you there is NO evidence of your claims that random changes to a code can write the information (or any information) in question. It appears you have no idea you exercise just as much FAITH in your beliefs as Christians do theirs. However your beliefs that multiple layers of specific coded information can be written by copying errors has no place in rational thought, so you win the battle of the biggest faith

Its the only theory you have left when you eliminate I.D. on the grounds it can not be eliminated. So by the parameters put in place by atheistic science , the foolishness of randomness writing complex specified information is the only theory you are left with.

Indeed, you appear to have a sort of "faith-filter", that means you just ignore any evidence that challenges your own pet theory. We can see this in action a lot throughout your post.

SYA "If we have a crime scene (planet earth) in which there can be only TWO suspects for the perpetrator of the crime (origins of species) , we call their names "SUSPECT 1-Abiogenesis and SUSPECT-2 Intelligent Design" Neither of which can be directly observed. The best we have are logical inferences for SUSPECT 2 I.D."

In real science, there are a large number of possible scenarios. God created the whole universe 6000 years ago; God created the universe 17 billion years ago, and has been seeding the planet with new "kinds" over the course of 4 billion years; the planet was seeded with life that was engineered to evolve by aliens 4 billion years ago; RNA world; protein world. Each hypothesis has to stand on its own strengths, and falls on its own weaknesses.

yes "REAL SCIENCE" should consider all angles of origins. However evolutionary science is not REAL SCIENCE. its a metaphysical presupposition established by atheists and built around what is not known. And this presupposition must be taught and believed at ALL COSTS no matter what the evidence points to. This has nothing to do with REAL SCIENCE. and some atheists in science are starting to understand this.

In a speech by Darwinian evolutionist agnostic professor Michael Ruse Feb 13th 1993 he admitted Darwinian evolution makes metaphysical claims about the non-existence of God. He understands claiming God does NOT exist is just as much a metaphysical position as claiming God DOES exist.

"But we did talk much more about the whole question of metaphysics, the whole question of philosophical bases. And what Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like Gish or somebody like that. And to a certain extent, I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself. And, in fact, when I first thought of putting together my collection But Is It Science?, I think Eugenie was right, I was inclined to say, well, yes, creationism is not science and evolution is, and that's the end of it, and you know just trying to prove that."

"Now I'm starting to feel -- I'm no more of a creationist now than I ever was, and I'm no less of an evolutionist now that I ever was -- but I'm inclined to think that we should move our debate now onto another level, or move on. And instead of just sort of, just -- I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these things, I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things." Professor Michael Ruse

SYA"That logical inference is, WE exist therefore other life CAN exist (God)..."

How do you define life? Just curious, as the usual biological definition would not include God. If you want to define it by intellect, make sure your definion encompasses E. Coli and oak trees.

But anyway, I accept that God might exist (though certaily not for the reason you offer).

I define life as a self replicating single cell, and Im sure the way most biologists define life. Being alive and being sentient are not one in the same.

And if you believe God might exist then your not an atheist but an agnostic. You also show you have some degree of rational thought in believing God could exist. atheism is 100% emotionally based with no logic involved

One does not even KNOW what is in our own solar system let alone the entire universe. Atheism makes a positive claim there are no other life forms in the universe with God-like attributes. This is clearly a position of FAITH and not knowledge.

Theists BELIEVE God exists
Agnostics BELIEVE its impossible to know if God exists
Atheists BELIEVE God does not exist

Theists Do NOT believe God does not exist
Agnostics DO NOT believe its possible to know if God exists
Atheists DO NOT believe God exists

Both theism and atheism are positions of faith. However theism is logically based. Atheism has no logical references to use for its position.

"But an atheist has to regard the orderliness of the universe as an axiom, a proposition accepted without proof, and which bears no relation to his other axiom of atheism. The Biblical theist is in a better position because he can treat the orderliness of the universe as a theorem, derived from his axiom that the Bible’s propositions are true, including that the universe was created by a God of order, not confusion." Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

Creationists laugh at the anthropic principle. When the atheists are faced with overwhelming evidence against them, they just invent a principle to explain it away.

SYA"A logical thinking investigator will say to himself "can either of the suspects be ruled OUT?" if not then a good investigator must NOT rule out a potential suspect."

A good scientist looks at what we expect from a given scenario. This is called the scientific method. What are the predictions that follow if we assume the hypothesis is true. This is something so-called "ID scientists" totally fail to do - because the politics of ID forbiddens them from making a hypothesis in he first place. "Creationist scinentists" do better; Walt Brown, for example, has a pretty involved hypothesis. Where they fall down is that most of the predictions from the hypothesis fails to match reality (they just ignore those predictions with their own faith-filter, and stick with the ones that work).

Incorrect, the scientific method is based on what is not known (falsification)> if something can not be ruled out, then it is ruled out (lol@ the scientific liberal mindset)

And believe me you do not want to go through the list of evolutions failed predictions, they are numerous. Junk DNA being one of them

Predictions of non-functionality of “junk DNA” were made by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980, Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Again you are incorrect with your "predictions" scenario. The creationists hypothesis is a very simple one. A pre-existing intellect (God) programmed RNA and DNA to build 3 dimensional machines. And the ONLY thing needed besides the raw material is a intelligence capable of writing the codes in DNA/RNA. Nothing more. Stop making it out to be more than it is

[QUOTE-PIXIE]Let us take, for example, your own pet theory, that God wiped out all life 6000 years ago, then started again. What should we expect to see? In the genome, we should see a population bottleneck 6000 years ago. There is one for humans, but about 100,000 years too early. Is there a population bottleneck for dogs, spiders and oak trees? Not that I know of. In fact, dogs are believed to have been domesticated from wolves 15,000 years ago, which is going to be a problem for your pet theory.

What about the fossil record? We should see a large number of species suddenly become extinct 6000 years ago, and a whole bunch of new ones suddenly appear. Where is the evidence in the geological column?[/QUOTE]

First of all the dating predictions are constantly changing for both the mitochondrial Eve and the Y chromosome Adam. I told you look up "A shrinking date for 'Eve'. by Carl Wieland" Secondly in the second account of creation (Gen 2) Adam was created first (in Gen 1 both male and female were created on the same day) , then after a unknown period of time God created Eve. We do not know how long of a period elapsed before the two events. We do know Adam took the time to name every species of animal. This could explain the apparent different ages between the mitochondrial eve and the Y chromosome Adam.

And you do not want to use the geological column as evidence for evolution. This is another embarrassment for naturalists. Just Google "Geologic Column Out of order". Naturalists have to invent plausible stories to explain why its "out of order"

If your not familiar with them, Google "Polystrate fossils". these are fossils that extend through more than one layer of strata. In the attempt to explain Polystrate fossils evolutionists contradict their own theories.

For example when extensive time is needed to explain the evolutionary theory, the strata is laid down over millions of years. However when Polystrate fossils extending through many MILLIONS of years are shown, then science makes up new "plausible stories" to explain how strata can be laid down rapidly. The GOAL POST shifting is an invention of evolutionary science

"Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it (1997, p. 96).The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse

Science , because of its presuppositions believes the fossil record and geological column should show the time a species "came into existence". But in reality the fossil record and geological column shows at what time a species DIED. The creationists explanation of the evidence is far more plausible. That is fossilization is produced by death by rapid burial. therefore each layer of strata in which we have fossils is grave yard that shows the time of death. NOT the time of origins.

This explains the Cambrian explosion far better than a "super turbo charged punctuated equilibrium", another hypothesis creationists laugh at.

Punctuated Equilibrium- Evolution so fast it leaves no evidence.

Too bad creationists can't just make up new theories to explain away the lack of evidence. And the funny thing is, the public accepts this without question

The "Cambrian explosion" is in fact the "Cambrian grave yard".

Archaeology can play its role too. We should see absolutely no sign of human culture before 6000 years ago, and then from that time, we should see human culture slowly spread out from the Middle East, as mankind's population gradually rises, and spreads. Unfortunately for your pet theory, archaeological evidence suggests human culture had already spread right across Asia, across the Bering Straits, all the way down North America and into South America by 6500BC (and there is no evidence that there was a first wave of Neanderthals, a sudden disappearance in 4000 BC, and then a new waves of humans arriving in South America many centuries later).

What is the point of me debating with you if your not going to comprehend my posts. In each response you appear as is you have read nothing in my previous responses.

LISTEN. I am a old earth creationists that believes there were races of "people" on earth millions of years ago. And I have biblical support for it.

Forget about logic, try to let a little common sense rule your thoughts. Hypothetically speaking, if God exists and he came down and destroyed ALL LIFE on earth tomorrow. Then created mostly all new species, what would the fossil record show?.

The fact is you would see NO evidence of this new creation other than the sudden appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record. This is exactly what you see. The evidence we do have for a sudden creation 6000 years ago does exist and I posted it for you.

We have records that coincidentally suddenly appear 6000 years ago. FACTS that support a special creation 6000 years ago. be it the first second or tenth creation event has no relevance.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolu...ed_history.htm

Here is an academic paper that compares the genetics of various peoples, and proves that settlers (human settlers, not Neanaderthals) were moving from Asia in the America 20,000 years ago.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Fagundes-et-al.pdf

First of all, if they are intelligent homosapiens, why then no recorded history for 20,000 years?

"The earliest written language, Sumerian cuneiform, goes back to about 3500 B.C."—*Ashley Montagu, Man: His First Million Years (1957), p. 116.

"Historical records of any human civilization before 4000 B.C. are completely absent."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1967)? p. 137.

"In the last six thousand years, man has advanced far more rapidly than he did in the million or more years of his prehistoric existence."—*Louise Eisman and *Charles Tanzer, Biology and Human Progress (1958), p. 509.

"The earliest records we have of human history go back only about 5,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 edition, Vol. 6, p. 12.

"It is a common error to think of man's existence in terms of recorded history, Historical records go back to about 3000 B.C., but this is only a small fraction of the time man has lived on earth."—*A.M. Winchester, Biology and Its Relation to Mankind (1964), p. 600.

"In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 1000 and 5000 B.C. . . Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records."—*Reader's Digest, the Last Two Million Years (1984), pp. 9, 29.

Secondly you do not seem to know the dating methods are circular. They start with the presuppositions that the strata is a certian age, then date the fossils accordingly.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of timescales." (American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53)

"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them." Welles,

"Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie." Samuel Paul, "Paleontology," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15, 1978.)

"Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. ...And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the pattern of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Eldridge, Niles, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52)

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?" (Kemp, Tom, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.)

So its completely meaningless to say we can "prove" non-neanderthals existed 100,000 years ago. they date the fossils by a presupposition of the age of the strata its in.

SYA"So it does not surprise me that these same men can believe the universe was un-caused and came from nothing which goes against any form of critical thinking AND the first law of thermodynamics."

The first law of thermodynamics says energy is conserved. Before the Big Bang there was zero, and after the Big Bang there was... zero.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts.

I expect that is another inconvenient fact you will want to sweep under the carpet.

You need to read the whole article before you use it as a reference

"The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy."

AND

"If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct"

Physicist Paul Davies says of the inflationary theory

“The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre-existing energy into material form.”


"it is no part of Hoyle's theory that this process is causeless, but I want to be more definite about this, and to say that if it is causeless, then what is alleged to happen is fantastic and incredible. If it is possible for objects-objects, now, which really are objects, "substances endowed with capacities"-to start existing without a cause, then it is incredible that they should all turn out to be objects of the same sort, namely, hydrogen atoms. The peculiar nature of hydrogen atoms cannot possibly be what makes such starting-to-exist possible for them but not for objects of any other sort; for hydrogen atoms do not have this nature until they are there to have it, i.e. until their starting-to-exist has already occurred. That is Edwards's argument, in fact; and here it does seem entirely cogent. . . ."A.N. Prior, "Limited Indeterminism," in Papers on Time and Tense (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 65.

Another argument you have failed to address in your mind is if a causeless universe is plausible, That is if "things" can just POP into existence with no cause or reason, then you can not say a God CAN NOT just POP into existence, or flying spaghetti monsters for that matter.

Because in order to explain WHY flying spaghetti monsters can NOT just POP into existence, one must explain the cause to prove flying spaghetti monsters can not just POP into existence.

You would say "flying spaghetti monster can not just POP into existence BECAUSE (BE the CAUSE) ...." and then go on to explain the CAUSE in order to prove they CANT just pop into existence.

Because only by explaining A CAUSE can one PROVE "something" can not happen.

SYA"First of all there is no JUNK DNA as was predicted by evolutionists. look it up"

Perhaps we should talk about pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are closely related to real sections of DNA that encode proteins, but the pseudogene has some fault in it that stops the protein ever forming. All primates have a pseudogene for vitamin C production. We all have a section of genetic code that should encode proteins that would allow us to make our own vitamin C (just as cats and dogs and mice and kangeroos do).

The theory of evolution says that a random mutation in a very early primate caused the pseudogene. A perfectly functional section of code developed a random error, and stopped working. Not a problem for the fruit-loving primate, as he got plenty of vitamin C in his diet. The mutation spread and was passed down to all the descendant species, including mankind.

How does your pet theory explain this? Why did the creator design our DNA with this flawed genetic code? And why is this flaw common to all primates, which are any number of different kinds? Just how intelligent is this intelligent designer?

You really need to study the matter instead of believing what talkorigins tells you. they will never tell you the full truth on anything

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

Many unrelated species share the same defect. The question is why. If species that have been supposedly evolving separately for millions of years share the same "errors". they clearly did not inherit them VIA common decent. there must be another common reason. A recent hypothesis that fits the evidence is MUTATIONAL HOTSPOTS

"Consider the GULOP (or GULO) pseudogene for example. In most mammals this is an active gene encoding the enzyme L-glucono-?-lactone oxidase (LGGLO). GULO is located on chromosome 8 at p21.1 in a region that is rich in genes (see figure). This is the enzyme that catalyzes the last step in the synthesis of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). As it turns out, this particular gene is defective in humans and other primates as well as several other creatures to include guinea pigs, bats and certain kinds of fish"

"In 2003, the same Japanese group published the complete sequence of the guinea pig GLO pseudogene, which is thought to have evolved independently, and compared it to that of humans [Inai et al, 2003]. 21 Surprisingly, they reported many shared mutations (deletions and substitutions) present in both humans and guinea pigs. Remember now that humans and guinea pigs are thought to have diverged at the time of the common ancestor with rodents. Therefore, a mutational difference between a guinea pig and a rat should not be shared by humans with better than random odds. But, this was not what was observed. Many mutational differences were shared by humans, including the one at position 97. According to Inai et al, this indicated some form of non-random bias that was independent of common descent or evolutionary ancestry. The probability of the same substitutions in both humans and guinea pigs occurring at the observed number of positions was calculated, by Inai et al, to be 1.84x10-12 - consistent with mutational hotspots."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...05120/abstract

"Pseudogenes lack biological function and are therefore free from selective pressure. This makes them extremely useful tools for the study of mutation processes and especially to estimate the pattern of spontaneous mutation in the genome. The nonrandomness of the mutational processes and the existence of mutational hot spots have also been deduced from studies on pseudogenes."

So the common decent argument has no relevance to pseudogenes if identical mutational hotspots exist in supposedly distantly related species.

SYA" The DNA double helix is the best information storage container we know of (most information in the smallest space). Just a coincidence it happened this way I know :)"

Not at all. The best solution early evolution could find.

The best solution early evolution could find?. So complete and total random chance just happened to pick the best structure for complex information ?, another spectacular stroke of luck. have you ever added up the number of lucky streaks evolution must have to get going. I have a suspicion you have no idea how many. But you do exercise FAITH they all happened

You need to spend more time studying this matter. Start with the half lives of the chemicals in question.

"For example, at 100ºC (boiling point of water), the half lives of the nucleic acids Adenine and Guanine are 1 year, uracil is 12 years, and cytozine is 19 days20 (nucleic acids and other important proteins such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin have never been synthesized in origin-of-life type experiments19). Such short-lived molecules could never be stockpiled, even if they could be produced naturally. even though even at that low temperature Ribose, a sugar which helps build DNA, has a short half-life of 44 years,14 and cytozine a relatively short half-life of 17,000 years.20 Either way the rate of degradation is too high to accumulate enough pre-biotic organics to form a soup. But models for earth's formation indicate the earth was hot, meaning degradation would occur even faster! If it the earth had been cold, this would work against the OOL by slowing the chemical reactions that supposedly allowed life to form, increasing the time needed for the OOL."

Atheist biologist Francis Crick did the math and realized the absurdity so turned his hypothesis to panspermia so he did not have to address the absurdity of naturalisms foundation which is abiogenesis.

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Crick Life Itself (1981) p.88

"This preliminary study, of how DNA is actually encoded, clearly indicates that most, if not the entire 100%, of the DNA is “poly-functional”. Poly-functional simply means the DNA exhibits extreme data compression in its character. “Poly-functional” DNA sequences will exhibit several different meanings on several different levels"

As one would expect from an iterative process slowly adding information over 4 billion years.

4 billion years?, PIXIE you are so far removed from the facts its ridiculous. There is NO EVIDENCE of abiogenesis before the Cambrian explosion

"Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. (Stephen Jay Gould, An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65)

This debate is will be ending soon. You post your assertions as if they are facts, when in fact they are far from being so. You do not seem to realize you need one small bit of material to prove your assertions, that is FACTS/testable evidence, of which you have none. You post nothing BUT assertions with no evidence or quotes to back them up.

You have not one shred of evidence random copying errors can produce coded information, and yet you continue to make these assertions as if they are proven. Your cluelessness on this matter is amazing, but you debate as if you know what your talking about and you clearly do not.

Do you even understand we can simulate millions of years of random copying errors in just weeks on a PC. what do you think they produce? No one in their right mind can believe random copying errors of a code can build a better code. Do you understand the theory IS testable

You can take a small 1MB program, subject it to random copying errors, then select and save the best copying errors, and if the theory is valid you should be able to produce windows 7 (or similar) as well as a host of other viable programs along the way.

The problem is the 1MB program will CRASH and cease to work, subjecting a viable program to random copying errors will destroy the program. This is why you will find very FEW PC programmers or engineers that believe in this ridiculous theory. And the few that do are no doubt liberal thinkers in capable of rational thought.

Random copying errors will NEVER produce what is claimed. The fact that we are even debating the validity of this theory is complete foolishness. Anyone that believes randomness can write information is totally controlled by their emotions instead of logic and reason.

Just the little fact that randomness cant write PC programs does not phase you. Can you even see how much (illogical) FAITH you exercise.

Do you understand the theory of RANDOMNESS AND SELECTION can NEVER produce coherent information. It will not work in ANY application. The theory is 100% testable. We can create 3D models of DNA with random arrangements of nucleotides. We can then make as many RANDOM copying errors as you would like, we can use INTELLIGENT selection and let minds select the best of the copying errors, It will NEVER produce anything resembling coded information.

In fact the more ANY valid program is subjected to random changes, no matter how the selection process is conducted, the less coherent the information will become.

SYA"The more we learn, the more the mechanisms of random copying errors and deletions are laughable candidates for the mechanisms behind the existence of the codes."

Wrong, and the Shapiro paper explains why.

It does?. then why did you not post the references?. You make it abundantly clear you didn't read Shapiros information and you have now resorted to just making things up. Its pointless to debate intellectually dishonest people because they will lie to avoid defeat.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html

A Third Way by James A. Shapiro

"How all of this modularity, complexity, and integration arose and changed during the history of life on earth is a central evolutionary question. Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for."

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems."

"The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates."

"What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?"

"However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science."

Again PIXIE you are incorrect

"There is abundant evidence for the selection of information already written. There is NO evidence complex error correction mechanisms can arise from random copying errors and selection. This is NOT reasonable to believe."

So you assert, but assertion is all you have. Where is the evidence or reasoning to support the claim?

PIXIE the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. YOU ASSERT random copying errors and selection can produce coherent information. YOU need to show the theories validity.

You seem to think that the theory of evolution (randomness and selection) is a proven fact unless proven other wise by its detractors. this is not how scientific theories work PIXIE. You needs testable evidence of a theories validity. YOU HAVE NONE. And the funny thing is you don't seem to know this.

SYA"You do NOT want to tackle abiogenesis (atheism's foundation)."

Why not? Sure, there is a lot we do not know about abiogenesis, but that does not make it impossible.

SYA"you will quickly find out WHY atheists separate their evolutionary starting point from Darwinian evolution."

It is because they are two different processes.

You have shown a huge degree of intellectual dishonesty in your "wall of text". I can just imagine what fantasies you would come up with to defend abiogenesis.

One single cell is far beyond our intellectual abilities to recreate.

""The simplest bacteria is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it [the natural chemical origins of life] happened"
(Harold P. Klein, Santa Clara University, affiliate of National Academy of Sciences)

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
(Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)

"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?", EVOLUTION, A THEORY IN CRISIS, 1985, pp. 327-8, 342.

Abiogenesis has numerous "chicken & egg" problems and is laughable to a thinking person. This one thing I give Crick credit for understanding. And without abiogenesis naturalism NEVER gets off the ground.

This alone is why atheists separate abiogenesis (their foundation) from speciation. They know very well if the foundation or MOTHER OF SPECIES (abiogenesis) is proven invalid, then the children (species) can never exist, and naturalism (atheistic evolution) is effectively proven invalid.

Pix: Tell me, what are creationists doing to support the claim that God killed all living things 6000 years ago? Oh, right. Nothing.

SYA: Most Creationists are young earth creationists, of which a belief in has nothing to do with salvation. so is not important. Old earth creationists like myself are making our views known.

So in fact all you are doing to support your pet theory is making your view known? No one is actually looking for evidence, or anything like that?

Of course not. It will prove you wrong. You cited the human population bottleneck in a previous post. If you actually examined the evidence, you found discover this proves mankind was around 100,000 years ago. Evidence is so darn inconvenient, right?

LOL..evidence of species older than 6000 years. I think that has been well established thank you PIXIE.

The 100,000 year quote is dated by the strata its in. So by your logic and reasoning EACH LAYER OF polystrate tree fossils are a different age. So how can this be PIXIE?

The fact is the LAYER of strata a fossil is located in, is the layer it ended up in after it was rapidly buried. This is why we have dinosaurs with soft blood tissue found by Mary Higby Schweitzer. The fact is soft blood tissue CAN NOT last for 80 million years, but yet we have a supposedly 80 million year old dinosaur with soft blood tissue.

This proves the dogmatic presupposition that the strata can accurately date the fossil IS PROVEN INVALID. because soft tissue can not last 80 MY. Evolutionary science knowing very well a 80 million year old dinosaur cant have collagen so they claimed the dinosaur MUST HAVE BEEN contaminated by other collagen because of our PRESUPPOSITIONS that the strata can accurately date the fossils. AGAIN they are proven wrong

"Further update 10 August 2009: Schweitzer’s original find of soft tissue remains in a T. rex was strongly disputed, with some suggesting that the proteins found were the result of contamination. However, a reanalysis due to be published September 4 in the Journal of Proteome Research “has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage.” (Reexamination Of T. Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains, www.ScienceDaily.com, July 31, 2009)"

ALL of your evolutionary presuppositions are wrong PIXIE

Pix: So God designed us so we would have cancer, even though, as you admit, it was within his power to prevent it.

SYA:

What? No comment? Just another inconvient truth for your faith-filter to ignore, I suppose.

No God designed us with free will. We chose to disobey and the consequences for disobedience (cancer pain death) will be an eternal reminder of the consequences of disobedience for future creations to come.

The new data suggest cancer is a result of an error in the error correction mechanism. The tree of life (I believe) would have had transportable elements that kept DNA copying at 100% accuracy thus preventing cancer.

SYA: IM a OEC (old earth creationist) that believes in at least two maybe three races of humanoids on earth. Adam & Eve were the most recent 6000 years ago. Neanderthal was a separate species that existed before we did, and was destroyed by God"

Pix: Another genocide by the all-loving Christian God.

You fail at every level of critical thinking. You don't understand if you are a creation of another life form, that life form holds the rights to your life. Your life does not belong to you, it belongs to the one who created it.

Life is GOD GIFT, not your inherent right. He can kill who he wants when he wants without anyone's approval. Only a naturally produced being (by abiogenesis) or an eternal being has the inherent RIGHT to live in this universe.

SYA: No God designed us with free will so we could chose the way of death or the way of life. it was within OUR power to prevent it.

What? We could prevent God from commiting genecide before the human race was created? How does that work?

Yes by obeying him. Just as potential criminals have the ability to keep from being punished by OBEDIENCE to a law.

SYA" You do not seem to understand you have NO RIGHTS to live in this universe."

I find that attitude horrifying. Countless people have fought, and many have died, for our basic human rights, and here you are telling us that actually a man does not even have the most basic right to exist? What is so scary about your attitude is the implications. Anyone (and I am thinking about both God and mankind here) who believes humans have no rights at all is at liberty to treat humans as casually as a boy poking a stick into a pile of ants.

You SCREAM "Im a flaming emotional liberal" with that last statement

You do not grasp the obvious. You do NOT EXIST if God does not create you, therefore you can have no rights unless they have been dictated by your creator.

If an animal kills a man, that animal is then hunted down and is killed, who decided that animal no longer has the right to live? Does that animal have the inherent right to continue to live and kill men or not?, IM sure the animal would disagree he must die. Where does the animal get his right from?

SYA"And I believe the tree of life had transposable elements that would kept us 100% healthy and young"

That would be the Tree of Life that mankind was forbidden to touch, right?

Forbidden to touch until after the conditions for its consumption had been met. The conditions (obedience) were not met. The tree of life does NOT belong to us, WE didn't create it. You fail to understand this

Pix: Did you know Neanderthals would bury their dead, often with flowers and tools, leading some experts to think they believed in a life after death. They had music and art too. Until they were all murdered by God, so he could create Adam and Eve.

SYA: So do humans. these attributes do not prohibit us from committing acts worthy of death. death row is filled with people who love music and art etc..

So that justifies genocide? An entire race of sentient beings just destroyed, and that does not cause you any concern? Was there nothing God could do to save them (you know, like send his only son, that kind of thing). Hey, they had no right to survive, so God could do what he wanted, in your universe.

I never once said or implied a pre-adamic race can not receive eternal life after the resurrection. We have no idea of Gods plan. If my scenario is true I will 100% guarantee you God made it known to them the wages of disobedience is death. Just as criminals know the wages of law breaking is JAIL TIME. its a choice.

SYA"Intelligent design is nothing more than using an intellect to rearrange matter/energy to form things that do not form naturally (in most all cases). Don't let this simple concept go over your head."

See, this is why atheists think that creations are dishonest. Intelligent design, as we are using the term, is about the origins of life. When a creationist is obliged to slip and slide between definitions during a debate, it is clear he: (1) is dishonest; and (2) knows he cannot win by any legitimate way.

The simple concept went over your head.

Craig Venter and many others perform I.D. in the lab all the time. They call it "rational design" to keep from looking like hypocrites.

All you need is a way to create long stands of DNA and RNA, then encapsulate them in a cell, that is the easy part. the hard part is writing the coherent codes in DNA and RNA. And all that is needed for that is an I.Q. sufficient for the task. Can you say that I.Q. does NOT EXIST?, of course not.

Understand this PIXIE- Once you open the door of possibility for other life in the universe to exist , you now need a LOGICAL NOT EMOTIONAL reason to limits this life forms attributes to be less than God-like....What is your reason?

I bet you can not even tell the difference between a emotional decision and a logically based one

Let rational thought rule your decisions rather than presuppositions based in emotions.

SYA"All this does is prove two things. One is that a intelligence DOES have the ability to create DNA and rearrange nucleotides, and TWO that the intelligence needed to design the cell and write the codes is beyond our own."

You need much, much more than the mere possibility to make your case.

Well considering intelligent design has a "mere possibility" and abiogenesis does not even have that. And there can be ONLY TWO candidates for the origins of life. What candidate wins?

P.S. do not attempt to debate abiogenesis. you will make yourself look even more ill-informed than you already are.

SYA"Now if the best programmers in the world can not write the codes for DNA/RNA. what makes you thing RANDOMNESS AND DELETIONS can do it? could it be FAITH?"

No, it is called science. You would not recognise it.

LOL.... Thats a good one coming from someone that does not understand what is fact and speculation and what is empirically verified and what is faith.

"Although our knowledge .... The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered."

Now if you can just get some details on what this non-Darwinian theory is, and can show it supports your claims, you have at least one scientist on your side.

There is only one theory left, its I.D.

If random copying errors and deletions are proven invalid mechanisms for writing coherent information, what other alternative do you have for changing DNA sequences to form coherent information?

I.D. is the ONLY candidate left. However you blind yourself to the reality of this fact. And DO NOT tell me there is another natural way to get the sequences arranged without explaining what it is. You have a very bad habit of making claims with no evidence to back it up. This is typical of atheists I have found

Error correction is well-known to evolutionary biologists, and has already been discussed. Nothing neo-Darwinist here.

Yes its well known but how the error correction mechanisms arose by a natural process is far from being known or proven. Error correction mechanisms are known to arise by an intelligent source, they are NOT known to arise by natural unguided means. But lets not confuse PIXE withe FACTS because the facts get in he way of her metaphysical presuppositions that God does not exist.

"It has been a surprise to learn how ..."

Same again.

Shapiro is NOT claiming creationists are right.

Got that right. What he is doing, and you totally failed to find, is proposing new mechanisms for how genetic change happens. If he can give good evidence for that, then modern evolutionary theory will include it (though it may well take a decade or so to get properly established). If that happens, creationists will then be railing against the new theory of evolution, and Shapiro will then be their enemy!

Again you have faild to understand Shapiros statements. First Shapiro is claiming what creationists already knew, that is random copying errors and deletions are poor candidates for writing 12 layers of coherent coded information.

Secondly Shapiro has NO EXPLANATION of the mechanisms that created the codes in question. The new mechanisms for writing this information is NOT KNOW by him or anyone else. The ONLY thing he is proposing at this time is RANDOMNESS and DELETIONS CANT DO IT. that's all PIXIE.

Now on to the next step... anyone smell I.D.?

The site is dated less than 6000 years ago so there is no point to be made here other than it proves my point of no RECORDED history before 6000 years ago. this is evident by "prehistoric, pre-dynastic period"

SYA"Prehistoric means pre-history or a time BEFORE things were written down and recorded. prehistoric does not mean before "humans" existed"

Your faith has so blinded you that you are obliged to filter any evidence that threatens it. There is abundant evidence of human culture before 6000, but because they had no writing, your faith-filter allows you to pretend it does not exist. I find that sort of selective blindness fascinating.

I told you I am a old earth creationist that believes "People" were on this earth millions of years ago, not just 15,000.

Some of the examples I gave had a continous history up to modern day. Eyption archaeolgy, for example, can be traced back continuously to about 5500 BC. The Naqada culture was already expanding up the Nile 6000 years ago.

What are you thinking here? That the people of Naqada were originally Neanderthals, and 6000 years ago they all got wiped out, and within just a few years Adam and Eve had been so busy with the babies that the human population had already spread all the way down the Nile, where the new settlers just moved into the old Neanderthal houses, working the fields just as the old Neanderthals had, making pottery just as the old Neanderthals had?

This is getting painful to reiterate over and over again. You did not grasp it the first time and your still not getting it.

Fossils of civilizations that have been accurately dated to be older than 6000 years ago does NOTHING to discredit old earth creationism. OEC predicts these things. You do not think things through to their logical conclusions

As I said If ALL life on earth was wiped out tomorrow and God started over again with brand new species. The ONLY thing evident in the fossil record 6000 years from then would be the sudden appearance of the NEW SPECIES. Sounds a little bit like punctuated equilibrium?

Sudden appearance of species in the fossil record is the hallmark of I.D.

It is interesting to think how long the gap would have been. Say Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Even just a year or so, before getting pushed out. They raise four kids (say 15 years). Now there are six. Say for the sake of argument population grows at the same rate, trebling every 15 years, it will take 120 years to get to a population of over 10,000. This suggests to me a gap of at least a century, and probably rather more, between the Neanderthals in Naqada being killed and the new human settlers.

It is even worse for South America. How long would it take for the human population to get so big that it had filled Asia, and it was worth venturing across the Bering Straits, and then however many thousands of miles down North America, and into South America.

We have no idea how long Adam & Eve would have been in the garden before they started populating the earth. it would be all speculation based on no evidence. And as I said numerous times, the fossils of the recently dead species would appear right next to the new created species giving no indication of a change in civilizations other than a sudden appearance in the fossil record. Hence P.E. is invented. COMPRENDE?

SYA: 3. Mitochondrial Eve proves we all came from ONE WOMAN
and her dating methods are questioned look up " A shrinking date for ‘Eve’ by Carl Wieland"

Pix: Let us see what Wieland says (his emphasis): "This does not prove that she was the only woman alive at the time, but is consistent with it."
According to here, Mitochondrial Eve lived 200,000 years ago. From 2010, by the way.

SYA:

Just going to pretend that evidence does not exist? Ironic, as it was you who cited the paper in the first place.

Ah, well, that is about what we expect by now.

No it does not prove she was the only woman alive at the time, however it DOES PROVE none of the other women "supposedly" alive at that time gave birth to any female children that also gave birth to female children.

Its a completely foolish scenario with astronomical odds against it, but is a necessary scenario to escape losing the argument with creationists. You really have no choice but force foolish scenarios into theories when you have established naturalism at ALL COSTS.

You either do not read my posts or you think by ignoring them you can compete in a debate. PIXIE your credibility is quickly waning thin here.

Why is it you did not address my posts that explains in detail how the dating method used to determine the age of mitochondrial eve (the molecular clock) DOES NOT WORK.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17157408

"Large discrepancies have been found in dates of evolutionary events obtained using the molecular clock. Twofold differences have been reported between the dates estimated from molecular data and those from the fossil record; furthermore, different molecular methods can give dates that differ 20-fold. New software attempts to incorporate appropriate allowances for this uncertainty into the calculation of the accuracy of date estimates. Here, we propose that these innovations represent welcome progress towards obtaining reliable dates from the molecular clock, but warn that they are currently unproven, given that the causes and pattern of the discrepancies are the subject of ongoing research. This research implies that many previous studies, even some of those using recently developed methods, might have placed too much confidence in their date estimates, and their conclusions might need to be revised."

"Calculating the different mutation rates for three well-known genes for 78 species, researchers found widely different mutation rates even for closely related species. "Molecular clocks are much more erratic than previously thought and practically useless to keep accurate evolutionary time," says Schilthuizen. The authors of the research conclude that the neutral theory of molecular evolution (predictable or constant rates of change) is flawed and that changes in the rate of variation are left to the vagaries of natural selection (randomness). With no evidence to confirm the neutral theory of molecular evolution, scientists say this amounts to a "denial of there being a molecular clock."

Its hilarious to see you keep repeating the same arguments without ever addressing the responses that clearly refute it. You need to learn debate 101 before you start posting these "walls of text" with an apparent confidence that is amusing.

I think your comments ("Just going to pretend that evidence does not exist?") reveal your own hypocrisy, and should be directed at yourself.

SYA"They will tell you Eve was NOT the only woman alive, but she is only the most recent common ancestor. in order to believe this you must believe ALL the other women alive at that time with DIFFERENT mtDNA NEVER had any female children that passed on their DNA."

So? We are talking about a population bottle neck; there were very few humans alive at the time.

SYA"This is an absurd leap to say the least."

It is not a leap, it is what the evidence points to. I can see you are unable to discern the two.

Incorrect this is what the DATA points to, how the data in interpreted is the argument. Because of your presuppositions of naturalism AT ALL COSTS no matter what the evidence shows, you have no choice but to interpret the data to fit your presupposition.

Just like with P.E. , when the data of the fossil record was contradicting the theory, science because of its dogmatic presuppositions HAD TO invent a hypothesis to fit the presupposition.

Evolutionist COLIN PATTERSON on P.E. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence. ", COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H.,Quoted in: DARWIN'S ENIGMA, p. 100

Even if the data pointed to young earth creationism, I have NO DOUBT science, because of its naturalistic presuppositions, would invent a SUPER TURBO CHARGED P.E. to explain it all away. When the data does not fit your theory, just reinterpret the data so it does fit your theory. How convenient a method you have.

SYA"You understand this is how inductive logic (the scientific method) works. it allows you to make up stories (no matter how absurd) to fit your presupposed conclusion."

It is the most likely story that fits the evidence (more technically, the story makes predictions that fit the evidence). If a more likely story is proposed, that will get accepted. If new evidence refutes the story, it gets rejected. Yes, this is how science works.

PIXIE your lack of understanding on how science works is beyond humorous now.

Misia Landau has detected narratives parading as scientific theory. Following are some of her observations:

“Scientists are generally aware of the influence of theory on observation. Seldom do they recognize, however, that many scientific theories are essentially narratives … they may be unaware of the narrative presuppositions which inform their science … Multiple interpretations and ambiguity are no strangers to readers of evolutionary biology … by comparing the narrative ‘roles’ played by fossils, scientists may become more explicit about the subjective—and often highly imaginative—ways in which they reconstruct human ancestors.”110


"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism … Moreover, that materialism
is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

—Richard Lewontin
Evolutionary geneticist, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor, Harvard University, “Billions and billions of Demons,” The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data.”109

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.

-H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980

"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism."

-Todd, Scott C. [Department of Biology, Kansas State University, USA], "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate," Nature, Vol. 401, 30 September 1999, p.423)

There are only TWO options for origins of species. abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution or intelligent design. Science has ruled out one of them because it can NOT be ruled out (liberals are hilarious). So this leaves ONLY ONE theory left

Its abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution by hook or crook because of the ILLOGICAL falsification method. There is NO second option to chose from in science no matter WHAT the evidence points to.

A thinking person can not accept this level of dogmatism in what is supposed to be science.

SYA"The scripture are shown in science. They will swallow a camel but strain on a gnat"

Actually that sounds like you, and your faith-filter, the way you ignore all the inconvenient evidence.

And you can't see you have a "faith-filter" in what you believe


".... Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data.”

-Evolutionist Richard Lewontin

[SirYapAlot]

More goalpost shifting. We were discussing writing code that has 12 different layers of meaning. Code that has 12 different layers of meaning is beyond what any sane programmer would want to write.

And why would this be?. If not for the space saving convenience alone it would be done. Making claims without explaining the reasoning process behind them has no relevance to me in a debate. Why would a programmer not utilize every angle he/she could to maximize their programs potential, they would.

SYA"Also because there is so much integrated information (information that relies on other information to be in proper order to function properly) in the cells, each step along the way would have to successively build upon previous information for the whole system to work as it does. The ONLY way this can be done is through intelligent foresight just as PC programs are written."

Wrong. To "successively build upon previous information for the whole system" is exactly what evolution does. In contrast, creation states that each "kind" is built in isolation, that the designer started from scratch for each one.

You have no idea what your talking about to put it bluntly. Ill say it one more time. Making claims without evidence is 100% useless in a debate. Give me the testable evidence random copying errors and selection can slowly build information successively upon previous information.

Creationism believes the designer designed one cell and programmed RNA and DNA to build all carbon based life forms from ONE cell design. very simple concept

SYA"The theory of randomness and deletions, when put to the test, fails miserably. There is not one application that it works in. try to write a novel or build blue prints or a PC code by random copying errors of the digits in question, then selection of the best and worst copying errors."

Wrong again. Generic algorithms are a commercial success, as I already pointed out. The fact that you pretend otherwise tells us a lot about your ability to objectively assess the data.

GENETIC algorithms are written PC programs. I find it funny you continue to put forth unsubstantiated personal speculations as facts even when I have showed you there is NO evidence of your claims that random changes to a code can write the information (or any information) in question. It appears you have no idea you exercise just as much FAITH in your beliefs as Christians do theirs. However your beliefs that multiple layers of specific coded information can be written by copying errors has no place in rational thought, so you win the battle of the biggest faith

Its the only theory you have left when you eliminate I.D. on the grounds it can not be eliminated. So by the parameters put in place by atheistic science , the foolishness of randomness writing complex specified information is the only theory you are left with.

Indeed, you appear to have a sort of "faith-filter", that means you just ignore any evidence that challenges your own pet theory. We can see this in action a lot throughout your post.

SYA "If we have a crime scene (planet earth) in which there can be only TWO suspects for the perpetrator of the crime (origins of species) , we call their names "SUSPECT 1-Abiogenesis and SUSPECT-2 Intelligent Design" Neither of which can be directly observed. The best we have are logical inferences for SUSPECT 2 I.D."

In real science, there are a large number of possible scenarios. God created the whole universe 6000 years ago; God created the universe 17 billion years ago, and has been seeding the planet with new "kinds" over the course of 4 billion years; the planet was seeded with life that was engineered to evolve by aliens 4 billion years ago; RNA world; protein world. Each hypothesis has to stand on its own strengths, and falls on its own weaknesses.

yes "REAL SCIENCE" should consider all angles of origins. However evolutionary science is not REAL SCIENCE. its a metaphysical presupposition established by atheists and built around what is not known. And this presupposition must be taught and believed at ALL COSTS no matter what the evidence points to. This has nothing to do with REAL SCIENCE. and some atheists in science are starting to understand this.

In a speech by Darwinian evolutionist agnostic professor Michael Ruse Feb 13th 1993 he admitted Darwinian evolution makes metaphysical claims about the non-existence of God. He understands claiming God does NOT exist is just as much a metaphysical position as claiming God DOES exist.

"But we did talk much more about the whole question of metaphysics, the whole question of philosophical bases. And what Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like Gish or somebody like that. And to a certain extent, I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself. And, in fact, when I first thought of putting together my collection But Is It Science?, I think Eugenie was right, I was inclined to say, well, yes, creationism is not science and evolution is, and that's the end of it, and you know just trying to prove that."

"Now I'm starting to feel -- I'm no more of a creationist now than I ever was, and I'm no less of an evolutionist now that I ever was -- but I'm inclined to think that we should move our debate now onto another level, or move on. And instead of just sort of, just -- I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these things, I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things." Professor Michael Ruse

SYA"That logical inference is, WE exist therefore other life CAN exist (God)..."

How do you define life? Just curious, as the usual biological definition would not include God. If you want to define it by intellect, make sure your definion encompasses E. Coli and oak trees.

But anyway, I accept that God might exist (though certaily not for the reason you offer).

I define life as a self replicating single cell, and Im sure the way most biologists define life. Being alive and being sentient are not one in the same.

And if you believe God might exist then your not an atheist but an agnostic. You also show you have some degree of rational thought in believing God could exist. atheism is 100% emotionally based with no logic involved

One does not even KNOW what is in our own solar system let alone the entire universe. Atheism makes a positive claim there are no other life forms in the universe with God-like attributes. This is clearly a position of FAITH and not knowledge.

Theists BELIEVE God exists
Agnostics BELIEVE its impossible to know if God exists
Atheists BELIEVE God does not exist

Theists Do NOT believe God does not exist
Agnostics DO NOT believe its possible to know if God exists
Atheists DO NOT believe God exists

Both theism and atheism are positions of faith. However theism is logically based. Atheism has no logical references to use for its position.

"But an atheist has to regard the orderliness of the universe as an axiom, a proposition accepted without proof, and which bears no relation to his other axiom of atheism. The Biblical theist is in a better position because he can treat the orderliness of the universe as a theorem, derived from his axiom that the Bible’s propositions are true, including that the universe was created by a God of order, not confusion." Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

Creationists laugh at the anthropic principle. When the atheists are faced with overwhelming evidence against them, they just invent a principle to explain it away.

SYA"A logical thinking investigator will say to himself "can either of the suspects be ruled OUT?" if not then a good investigator must NOT rule out a potential suspect."

A good scientist looks at what we expect from a given scenario. This is called the scientific method. What are the predictions that follow if we assume the hypothesis is true. This is something so-called "ID scientists" totally fail to do - because the politics of ID forbiddens them from making a hypothesis in he first place. "Creationist scinentists" do better; Walt Brown, for example, has a pretty involved hypothesis. Where they fall down is that most of the predictions from the hypothesis fails to match reality (they just ignore those predictions with their own faith-filter, and stick with the ones that work).

Incorrect, the scientific method is based on what is not known (falsification)> if something can not be ruled out, then it is ruled out (lol@ the scientific liberal mindset)

And believe me you do not want to go through the list of evolutions failed predictions, they are numerous. Junk DNA being one of them

Predictions of non-functionality of “junk DNA” were made by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980, Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Again you are incorrect with your "predictions" scenario. The creationists hypothesis is a very simple one. A pre-existing intellect (God) programmed RNA and DNA to build 3 dimensional machines. And the ONLY thing needed besides the raw material is a intelligence capable of writing the codes in DNA/RNA. Nothing more. Stop making it out to be more than it is

Let us take, for example, your own pet theory, that God wiped out all life 6000 years ago, then started again. What should we expect to see? In the genome, we should see a population bottleneck 6000 years ago. There is one for humans, but about 100,000 years too early. Is there a population bottleneck for dogs, spiders and oak trees? Not that I know of. In fact, dogs are believed to have been domesticated from wolves 15,000 years ago, which is going to be a problem for your pet theory.

What about the fossil record? We should see a large number of species suddenly become extinct 6000 years ago, and a whole bunch of new ones suddenly appear. Where is the evidence in the geological column?

First of all the dating predictions are constantly changing for both the mitochondrial Eve and the Y chromosome Adam. I told you look up "A shrinking date for 'Eve'. by Carl Wieland" Secondly in the second account of creation (Gen 2) Adam was created first (in Gen 1 both male and female were created on the same day) , then after a unknown period of time God created Eve. We do not know how long of a period elapsed before the two events. We do know Adam took the time to name every species of animal. This could explain the apparent different ages between the mitochondrial eve and the Y chromosome Adam.

And you do not want to use the geological column as evidence for evolution. This is another embarrassment for naturalists. Just Google "Geologic Column Out of order". Naturalists have to invent plausible stories to explain why its "out of order"

If your not familiar with them, Google "Polystrate fossils". these are fossils that extend through more than one layer of strata. In the attempt to explain Polystrate fossils evolutionists contradict their own theories.

For example when extensive time is needed to explain the evolutionary theory, the strata is laid down over millions of years. However when Polystrate fossils extending through many MILLIONS of years are shown, then science makes up new "plausible stories" to explain how strata can be laid down rapidly. The GOAL POST shifting is an invention of evolutionary science

"Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it (1997, p. 96).The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse

Science , because of its presuppositions believes the fossil record and geological column should show the time a species "came into existence". But in reality the fossil record and geological column shows at what time a species DIED. The creationists explanation of the evidence is far more plausible. That is fossilization is produced by death by rapid burial. therefore each layer of strata in which we have fossils is grave yard that shows the time of death. NOT the time of origins.

This explains the Cambrian explosion far better than a "super turbo charged punctuated equilibrium", another hypothesis creationists laugh at.

Punctuated Equilibrium- Evolution so fast it leaves no evidence.

Too bad creationists can't just make up new theories to explain away the lack of evidence. And the funny thing is, the public accepts this without question

The "Cambrian explosion" is in fact the "Cambrian grave yard".

Archaeology can play its role too. We should see absolutely no sign of human culture before 6000 years ago, and then from that time, we should see human culture slowly spread out from the Middle East, as mankind's population gradually rises, and spreads. Unfortunately for your pet theory, archaeological evidence suggests human culture had already spread right across Asia, across the Bering Straits, all the way down North America and into South America by 6500BC (and there is no evidence that there was a first wave of Neanderthals, a sudden disappearance in 4000 BC, and then a new waves of humans arriving in South America many centuries later).

What is the point of me debating with you if your not going to comprehend my posts. In each response you appear as is you have read nothing in my previous responses.

LISTEN. I am a old earth creationists that believes there were races of "people" on earth millions of years ago. And I have biblical support for it.

Forget about logic, try to let a little common sense rule your thoughts. Hypothetically speaking, if God exists and he came down and destroyed ALL LIFE on earth tomorrow. Then created mostly all new species, what would the fossil record show?.

The fact is you would see NO evidence of this new creation other than the sudden appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record. This is exactly what you see. The evidence we do have for a sudden creation 6000 years ago does exist and I posted it for you.

We have records that coincidentally suddenly appear 6000 years ago. FACTS that support a special creation 6000 years ago. be it the first second or tenth creation event has no relevance.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolu...ed_history.htm

Here is an academic paper that compares the genetics of various peoples, and proves that settlers (human settlers, not Neanaderthals) were moving from Asia in the America 20,000 years ago.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Fagundes-et-al.pdf

First of all, if they are intelligent homosapiens, why then no recorded history for 20,000 years?

"The earliest written language, Sumerian cuneiform, goes back to about 3500 B.C."—*Ashley Montagu, Man: His First Million Years (1957), p. 116.

"Historical records of any human civilization before 4000 B.C. are completely absent."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1967)? p. 137.

"In the last six thousand years, man has advanced far more rapidly than he did in the million or more years of his prehistoric existence."—*Louise Eisman and *Charles Tanzer, Biology and Human Progress (1958), p. 509.

"The earliest records we have of human history go back only about 5,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 edition, Vol. 6, p. 12.

"It is a common error to think of man's existence in terms of recorded history, Historical records go back to about 3000 B.C., but this is only a small fraction of the time man has lived on earth."—*A.M. Winchester, Biology and Its Relation to Mankind (1964), p. 600.

"In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 1000 and 5000 B.C. . . Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records."—*Reader's Digest, the Last Two Million Years (1984), pp. 9, 29.

Secondly you do not seem to know the dating methods are circular. They start with the presuppositions that the strata is a certian age, then date the fossils accordingly.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of timescales." (American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53)

"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them." Welles,

"Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie." Samuel Paul, "Paleontology," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15, 1978.)

"Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. ...And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the pattern of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Eldridge, Niles, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52)

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?" (Kemp, Tom, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.)

So its completely meaningless to say we can "prove" non-neanderthals existed 100,000 years ago. they date the fossils by a presupposition of the age of the strata its in.

SYA"So it does not surprise me that these same men can believe the universe was un-caused and came from nothing which goes against any form of critical thinking AND the first law of thermodynamics."

The first law of thermodynamics says energy is conserved. Before the Big Bang there was zero, and after the Big Bang there was... zero.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts.

I expect that is another inconvenient fact you will want to sweep under the carpet.

You need to read the whole article before you use it as a reference

"The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy."

AND

"If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct"

Physicist Paul Davies says of the inflationary theory

“The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre-existing energy into material form.”


"it is no part of Hoyle's theory that this process is causeless, but I want to be more definite about this, and to say that if it is causeless, then what is alleged to happen is fantastic and incredible. If it is possible for objects-objects, now, which really are objects, "substances endowed with capacities"-to start existing without a cause, then it is incredible that they should all turn out to be objects of the same sort, namely, hydrogen atoms. The peculiar nature of hydrogen atoms cannot possibly be what makes such starting-to-exist possible for them but not for objects of any other sort; for hydrogen atoms do not have this nature until they are there to have it, i.e. until their starting-to-exist has already occurred. That is Edwards's argument, in fact; and here it does seem entirely cogent. . . ."A.N. Prior, "Limited Indeterminism," in Papers on Time and Tense (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 65.

Another argument you have failed to address in your mind is if a causeless universe is plausible, That is if "things" can just POP into existence with no cause or reason, then you can not say a God CAN NOT just POP into existence, or flying spaghetti monsters for that matter.

Because in order to explain WHY flying spaghetti monsters can NOT just POP into existence, one must explain the cause to prove flying spaghetti monsters can not just POP into existence.

You would say "flying spaghetti monster can not just POP into existence BECAUSE (BE the CAUSE) ...." and then go on to explain the CAUSE in order to prove they CANT just pop into existence.

Because only by explaining A CAUSE can one PROVE "something" can not happen.

SYA"First of all there is no JUNK DNA as was predicted by evolutionists. look it up"

Perhaps we should talk about pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are closely related to real sections of DNA that encode proteins, but the pseudogene has some fault in it that stops the protein ever forming. All primates have a pseudogene for vitamin C production. We all have a section of genetic code that should encode proteins that would allow us to make our own vitamin C (just as cats and dogs and mice and kangeroos do).

The theory of evolution says that a random mutation in a very early primate caused the pseudogene. A perfectly functional section of code developed a random error, and stopped working. Not a problem for the fruit-loving primate, as he got plenty of vitamin C in his diet. The mutation spread and was passed down to all the descendant species, including mankind.

How does your pet theory explain this? Why did the creator design our DNA with this flawed genetic code? And why is this flaw common to all primates, which are any number of different kinds? Just how intelligent is this intelligent designer?

You really need to study the matter instead of believing what talkorigins tells you. they will never tell you the full truth on anything

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

Many unrelated species share the same defect. The question is why. If species that have been supposedly evolving separately for millions of years share the same "errors". they clearly did not inherit them VIA common decent. there must be another common reason. A recent hypothesis that fits the evidence is MUTATIONAL HOTSPOTS

"Consider the GULOP (or GULO) pseudogene for example. In most mammals this is an active gene encoding the enzyme L-glucono-?-lactone oxidase (LGGLO). GULO is located on chromosome 8 at p21.1 in a region that is rich in genes (see figure). This is the enzyme that catalyzes the last step in the synthesis of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). As it turns out, this particular gene is defective in humans and other primates as well as several other creatures to include guinea pigs, bats and certain kinds of fish"

"In 2003, the same Japanese group published the complete sequence of the guinea pig GLO pseudogene, which is thought to have evolved independently, and compared it to that of humans [Inai et al, 2003]. 21 Surprisingly, they reported many shared mutations (deletions and substitutions) present in both humans and guinea pigs. Remember now that humans and guinea pigs are thought to have diverged at the time of the common ancestor with rodents. Therefore, a mutational difference between a guinea pig and a rat should not be shared by humans with better than random odds. But, this was not what was observed. Many mutational differences were shared by humans, including the one at position 97. According to Inai et al, this indicated some form of non-random bias that was independent of common descent or evolutionary ancestry. The probability of the same substitutions in both humans and guinea pigs occurring at the observed number of positions was calculated, by Inai et al, to be 1.84x10-12 - consistent with mutational hotspots."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...05120/abstract

"Pseudogenes lack biological function and are therefore free from selective pressure. This makes them extremely useful tools for the study of mutation processes and especially to estimate the pattern of spontaneous mutation in the genome. The nonrandomness of the mutational processes and the existence of mutational hot spots have also been deduced from studies on pseudogenes."

So the common decent argument has no relevance to pseudogenes if identical mutational hotspots exist in supposedly distantly related species.

SYA" The DNA double helix is the best information storage container we know of (most information in the smallest space). Just a coincidence it happened this way I know :)"

Not at all. The best solution early evolution could find.

The best solution early evolution could find?. So complete and total random chance just happened to pick the best structure for complex information ?, another spectacular stroke of luck. have you ever added up the number of lucky streaks evolution must have to get going. I have a suspicion you have no idea how many. But you do exercise FAITH they all happened

You need to spend more time studying this matter. Start with the half lives of the chemicals in question.

"For example, at 100ºC (boiling point of water), the half lives of the nucleic acids Adenine and Guanine are 1 year, uracil is 12 years, and cytozine is 19 days20 (nucleic acids and other important proteins such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin have never been synthesized in origin-of-life type experiments19). Such short-lived molecules could never be stockpiled, even if they could be produced naturally. even though even at that low temperature Ribose, a sugar which helps build DNA, has a short half-life of 44 years,14 and cytozine a relatively short half-life of 17,000 years.20 Either way the rate of degradation is too high to accumulate enough pre-biotic organics to form a soup. But models for earth's formation indicate the earth was hot, meaning degradation would occur even faster! If it the earth had been cold, this would work against the OOL by slowing the chemical reactions that supposedly allowed life to form, increasing the time needed for the OOL."

Atheist biologist Francis Crick did the math and realized the absurdity so turned his hypothesis to panspermia so he did not have to address the absurdity of naturalisms foundation which is abiogenesis.

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Crick Life Itself (1981) p.88

"This preliminary study, of how DNA is actually encoded, clearly indicates that most, if not the entire 100%, of the DNA is “poly-functional”. Poly-functional simply means the DNA exhibits extreme data compression in its character. “Poly-functional” DNA sequences will exhibit several different meanings on several different levels"

As one would expect from an iterative process slowly adding information over 4 billion years.

4 billion years?, PIXIE you are so far removed from the facts its ridiculous. There is NO EVIDENCE of abiogenesis before the Cambrian explosion

"Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. (Stephen Jay Gould, An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65)

This debate is will be ending soon. You post your assertions as if they are facts, when in fact they are far from being so. You do not seem to realize you need one small bit of material to prove your assertions, that is FACTS/testable evidence, of which you have none. You post nothing BUT assertions with no evidence or quotes to back them up.

You have not one shred of evidence random copying errors can produce coded information, and yet you continue to make these assertions as if they are proven. Your cluelessness on this matter is amazing, but you debate as if you know what your talking about and you clearly do not.

Do you even understand we can simulate millions of years of random copying errors in just weeks on a PC. what do you think they produce? No one in their right mind can believe random copying errors of a code can build a better code. Do you understand the theory IS testable

You can take a small 1MB program, subject it to random copying errors, then select and save the best copying errors, and if the theory is valid you should be able to produce windows 7 (or similar) as well as a host of other viable programs along the way.

The problem is the 1MB program will CRASH and cease to work, subjecting a viable program to random copying errors will destroy the program. This is why you will find very FEW PC programmers or engineers that believe in this ridiculous theory. And the few that do are no doubt liberal thinkers in capable of rational thought.

Random copying errors will NEVER produce what is claimed. The fact that we are even debating the validity of this theory is complete foolishness. Anyone that believes randomness can write information is totally controlled by their emotions instead of logic and reason.

Just the little fact that randomness cant write PC programs does not phase you. Can you even see how much (illogical) FAITH you exercise.

Do you understand the theory of RANDOMNESS AND SELECTION can NEVER produce coherent information. It will not work in ANY application. The theory is 100% testable. We can create 3D models of DNA with random arrangements of nucleotides. We can then make as many RANDOM copying errors as you would like, we can use INTELLIGENT selection and let minds select the best of the copying errors, It will NEVER produce anything resembling coded information.

In fact the more ANY valid program is subjected to random changes, no matter how the selection process is conducted, the less coherent the information will become.

SYA"The more we learn, the more the mechanisms of random copying errors and deletions are laughable candidates for the mechanisms behind the existence of the codes."

Wrong, and the Shapiro paper explains why.

It does?. then why did you not post the references?. You make it abundantly clear you didn't read Shapiros information and you have now resorted to just making things up. Its pointless to debate intellectually dishonest people because they will lie to avoid defeat.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html

A Third Way by James A. Shapiro

"How all of this modularity, complexity, and integration arose and changed during the history of life on earth is a central evolutionary question. Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for."

"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems."

"The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates."

"What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?"

"However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science."

Again PIXIE you are incorrect

"There is abundant evidence for the selection of information already written. There is NO evidence complex error correction mechanisms can arise from random copying errors and selection. This is NOT reasonable to believe."

So you assert, but assertion is all you have. Where is the evidence or reasoning to support the claim?

PIXIE the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. YOU ASSERT random copying errors and selection can produce coherent information. YOU need to show the theories validity.

You seem to think that the theory of evolution (randomness and selection) is a proven fact unless proven other wise by its detractors. this is not how scientific theories work PIXIE. You needs testable evidence of a theories validity. YOU HAVE NONE. And the funny thing is you don't seem to know this.

SYA"You do NOT want to tackle abiogenesis (atheism's foundation)."

Why not? Sure, there is a lot we do not know about abiogenesis, but that does not make it impossible.

SYA"you will quickly find out WHY atheists separate their evolutionary starting point from Darwinian evolution."

It is because they are two different processes.

You have shown a huge degree of intellectual dishonesty in your "wall of text". I can just imagine what fantasies you would come up with to defend abiogenesis.

One single cell is far beyond our intellectual abilities to recreate.

""The simplest bacteria is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it [the natural chemical origins of life] happened"
(Harold P. Klein, Santa Clara University, affiliate of National Academy of Sciences)

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
(Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)

"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?", EVOLUTION, A THEORY IN CRISIS, 1985, pp. 327-8, 342.

Abiogenesis has numerous "chicken & egg" problems and is laughable to a thinking person. This one thing I give Crick credit for understanding. And without abiogenesis naturalism NEVER gets off the ground.

This alone is why atheists separate abiogenesis (their foundation) from speciation. They know very well if the foundation or MOTHER OF SPECIES (abiogenesis) is proven invalid, then the children (species) can never exist, and naturalism (atheistic evolution) is effectively proven invalid.

Pix: Tell me, what are creationists doing to support the claim that God killed all living things 6000 years ago? Oh, right. Nothing.

SYA: Most Creationists are young earth creationists, of which a belief in has nothing to do with salvation. so is not important. Old earth creationists like myself are making our views known.

So in fact all you are doing to support your pet theory is making your view known? No one is actually looking for evidence, or anything like that?

Of course not. It will prove you wrong. You cited the human population bottleneck in a previous post. If you actually examined the evidence, you found discover this proves mankind was around 100,000 years ago. Evidence is so darn inconvenient, right?

LOL..evidence of species older than 6000 years. I think that has been well established thank you PIXIE.

The 100,000 year quote is dated by the strata its in. So by your logic and reasoning EACH LAYER OF polystrate tree fossils are a different age. So how can this be PIXIE?

The fact is the LAYER of strata a fossil is located in, is the layer it ended up in after it was rapidly buried. This is why we have dinosaurs with soft blood tissue found by Mary Higby Schweitzer. The fact is soft blood tissue CAN NOT last for 80 million years, but yet we have a supposedly 80 million year old dinosaur with soft blood tissue.

This proves the dogmatic presupposition that the strata can accurately date the fossil IS PROVEN INVALID. because soft tissue can not last 80 MY. Evolutionary science knowing very well a 80 million year old dinosaur cant have collagen so they claimed the dinosaur MUST HAVE BEEN contaminated by other collagen because of our PRESUPPOSITIONS that the strata can accurately date the fossils. AGAIN they are proven wrong

"Further update 10 August 2009: Schweitzer’s original find of soft tissue remains in a T. rex was strongly disputed, with some suggesting that the proteins found were the result of contamination. However, a reanalysis due to be published September 4 in the Journal of Proteome Research “has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage.” (Reexamination Of T. Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains, www.ScienceDaily.com, July 31, 2009)"

ALL of your evolutionary presuppositions are wrong PIXIE

Pix: So God designed us so we would have cancer, even though, as you admit, it was within his power to prevent it.

SYA:

What? No comment? Just another inconvient truth for your faith-filter to ignore, I suppose.

No God designed us with free will. We chose to disobey and the consequences for disobedience (cancer pain death) will be an eternal reminder of the consequences of disobedience for future creations to come.

The new data suggest cancer is a result of an error in the error correction mechanism. The tree of life (I believe) would have had transportable elements that kept DNA copying at 100% accuracy thus preventing cancer.

SYA: IM a OEC (old earth creationist) that believes in at least two maybe three races of humanoids on earth. Adam & Eve were the most recent 6000 years ago. Neanderthal was a separate species that existed before we did, and was destroyed by God"

Pix: Another genocide by the all-loving Christian God.

You fail at every level of critical thinking. You don't understand if you are a creation of another life form, that life form holds the rights to your life. Your life does not belong to you, it belongs to the one who created it.

Life is GOD GIFT, not your inherent right. He can kill who he wants when he wants without anyone's approval. Only a naturally produced being (by abiogenesis) or an eternal being has the inherent RIGHT to live in this universe.

SYA: No God designed us with free will so we could chose the way of death or the way of life. it was within OUR power to prevent it.

What? We could prevent God from commiting genecide before the human race was created? How does that work?

Yes by obeying him. Just as potential criminals have the ability to keep from being punished by OBEDIENCE to a law.

SYA" You do not seem to understand you have NO RIGHTS to live in this universe."

I find that attitude horrifying. Countless people have fought, and many have died, for our basic human rights, and here you are telling us that actually a man does not even have the most basic right to exist? What is so scary about your attitude is the implications. Anyone (and I am thinking about both God and mankind here) who believes humans have no rights at all is at liberty to treat humans as casually as a boy poking a stick into a pile of ants.

You SCREAM "Im a flaming emotional liberal" with that last statement

You do not grasp the obvious. You do NOT EXIST if God does not create you, therefore you can have no rights unless they have been dictated by your creator.

If an animal kills a man, that animal is then hunted down and is killed, who decided that animal no longer has the right to live? Does that animal have the inherent right to continue to live and kill men or not?, IM sure the animal would disagree he must die. Where does the animal get his right from?

SYA"And I believe the tree of life had transposable elements that would kept us 100% healthy and young"

That would be the Tree of Life that mankind was forbidden to touch, right?

Forbidden to touch until after the conditions for its consumption had been met. The conditions (obedience) were not met. The tree of life does NOT belong to us, WE didn't create it. You fail to understand this

Pix: Did you know Neanderthals would bury their dead, often with flowers and tools, leading some experts to think they believed in a life after death. They had music and art too. Until they were all murdered by God, so he could create Adam and Eve.

SYA: So do humans. these attributes do not prohibit us from committing acts worthy of death. death row is filled with people who love music and art etc..

So that justifies genocide? An entire race of sentient beings just destroyed, and that does not cause you any concern? Was there nothing God could do to save them (you know, like send his only son, that kind of thing). Hey, they had no right to survive, so God could do what he wanted, in your universe.

I never once said or implied a pre-adamic race can not receive eternal life after the resurrection. We have no idea of Gods plan. If my scenario is true I will 100% guarantee you God made it known to them the wages of disobedience is death. Just as criminals know the wages of law breaking is JAIL TIME. its a choice.

SYA"Intelligent design is nothing more than using an intellect to rearrange matter/energy to form things that do not form naturally (in most all cases). Don't let this simple concept go over your head."

See, this is why atheists think that creations are dishonest. Intelligent design, as we are using the term, is about the origins of life. When a creationist is obliged to slip and slide between definitions during a debate, it is clear he: (1) is dishonest; and (2) knows he cannot win by any legitimate way.

The simple concept went over your head.

Craig Venter and many others perform I.D. in the lab all the time. They call it "rational design" to keep from looking like hypocrites.

All you need is a way to create long stands of DNA and RNA, then encapsulate them in a cell, that is the easy part. the hard part is writing the coherent codes in DNA and RNA. And all that is needed for that is an I.Q. sufficient for the task. Can you say that I.Q. does NOT EXIST?, of course not.

Understand this PIXIE- Once you open the door of possibility for other life in the universe to exist , you now need a LOGICAL NOT EMOTIONAL reason to limit this life forms attributes to be less than God-like....What is your reason?

I bet you can not even tell the difference between a emotional decision and a logically based one

Let rational thought rule your decisions rather than presuppositions based in emotions.

SYA"All this does is prove two things. One is that a intelligence DOES have the ability to create DNA and rearrange nucleotides, and TWO that the intelligence needed to design the cell and write the codes is beyond our own."

You need much, much more than the mere possibility to make your case.

Well considering intelligent design has a "mere possibility" and abiogenesis does not even have that. And there can be ONLY TWO candidates for the origins of life. What candidate wins?

P.S. do not attempt to debate abiogenesis. you will make yourself look even more ill-informed than you already are.

SYA"Now if the best programmers in the world can not write the codes for DNA/RNA. what makes you thing RANDOMNESS AND DELETIONS can do it? could it be FAITH?"

No, it is called science. You would not recognise it.

LOL.... Thats a good one coming from someone that does not understand what is fact and speculation and what is empirically verified and what is faith.

"Although our knowledge .... The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered."

Now if you can just get some details on what this non-Darwinian theory is, and can show it supports your claims, you have at least one scientist on your side.

There is only one theory left, its I.D.

If random copying errors and deletions are proven invalid mechanisms for writing coherent information, what other alternative do you have for changing DNA sequences to form coherent information?

I.D. is the ONLY candidate left. However you blind yourself to the reality of this fact. And DO NOT tell me there is another natural way to get the sequences arranged without explaining what it is. You have a very bad habit of making claims with no evidence to back it up. This is typical of atheists I have found

Error correction is well-known to evolutionary biologists, and has already been discussed. Nothing neo-Darwinist here.

Yes its well known but how the error correction mechanisms arose by a natural process is far from being known or proven. Error correction mechanisms are known to arise by an intelligent source, they are NOT known to arise by natural unguided means. But lets not confuse PIXE withe FACTS because the facts get in he way of her metaphysical presuppositions that God does not exist.

"It has been a surprise to learn how ..."

Same again.

Shapiro is NOT claiming creationists are right.

Got that right. What he is doing, and you totally failed to find, is proposing new mechanisms for how genetic change happens. If he can give good evidence for that, then modern evolutionary theory will include it (though it may well take a decade or so to get properly established). If that happens, creationists will then be railing against the new theory of evolution, and Shapiro will then be their enemy!

Again you have faild to understand Shapiros statements. First Shapiro is claiming what creationists already knew, that is random copying errors and deletions are poor candidates for writing 12 layers of coherent coded information.

Secondly Shapiro has NO EXPLANATION of the mechanisms that created the codes in question. The new mechanisms for writing this information is NOT KNOW by him or anyone else. The ONLY thing he is proposing at this time is RANDOMNESS and DELETIONS CANT DO IT. that's all PIXIE.

Now on to the next step... anyone smell I.D.?

The site is dated less than 6000 years ago so there is no point to be made here other than it proves my point of no RECORDED history before 6000 years ago. this is evident by "prehistoric, pre-dynastic period"

SYA"Prehistoric means pre-history or a time BEFORE things were written down and recorded. prehistoric does not mean before "humans" existed"

Your faith has so blinded you that you are obliged to filter any evidence that threatens it. There is abundant evidence of human culture before 6000, but because they had no writing, your faith-filter allows you to pretend it does not exist. I find that sort of selective blindness fascinating.

I told you I am a old earth creationist that believes "People" were on this earth millions of years ago, not just 15,000.

Some of the examples I gave had a continous history up to modern day. Eyption archaeolgy, for example, can be traced back continuously to about 5500 BC. The Naqada culture was already expanding up the Nile 6000 years ago.

What are you thinking here? That the people of Naqada were originally Neanderthals, and 6000 years ago they all got wiped out, and within just a few years Adam and Eve had been so busy with the babies that the human population had already spread all the way down the Nile, where the new settlers just moved into the old Neanderthal houses, working the fields just as the old Neanderthals had, making pottery just as the old Neanderthals had?

This is getting painful to reiterate over and over again. You did not grasp it the first time and your still not getting it.

Fossils of civilizations that have been accurately dated to be older than 6000 years ago does NOTHING to discredit old earth creationism. OEC predicts these things. You do not think things through to their logical conclusions

As I said If ALL life on earth was wiped out tomorrow and God started over again with brand new species. The ONLY thing evident in the fossil record 6000 years from then would be the sudden appearance of the NEW SPECIES. Sounds a little bit like punctuated equilibrium?

Sudden appearance of species in the fossil record is the hallmark of I.D.

It is interesting to think how long the gap would have been. Say Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Even just a year or so, before getting pushed out. They raise four kids (say 15 years). Now there are six. Say for the sake of argument population grows at the same rate, trebling every 15 years, it will take 120 years to get to a population of over 10,000. This suggests to me a gap of at least a century, and probably rather more, between the Neanderthals in Naqada being killed and the new human settlers.

It is even worse for South America. How long would it take for the human population to get so big that it had filled Asia, and it was worth venturing across the Bering Straits, and then however many thousands of miles down North America, and into South America.

We have no idea how long Adam & Eve would have been in the garden before they started populating the earth. it would be all speculation based on no evidence. And as I said numerous times, the fossils of the recently dead species would appear right next to the new created species giving no indication of a change in civilizations other than a sudden appearance in the fossil record. Hence P.E. is invented. COMPRENDE?

SYA: 3. Mitochondrial Eve proves we all came from ONE WOMAN
and her dating methods are questioned look up " A shrinking date for ‘Eve’ by Carl Wieland"

Pix: Let us see what Wieland says (his emphasis): "This does not prove that she was the only woman alive at the time, but is consistent with it."
According to here, Mitochondrial Eve lived 200,000 years ago. From 2010, by the way.

SYA:

Just going to pretend that evidence does not exist? Ironic, as it was you who cited the paper in the first place.

Ah, well, that is about what we expect by now.

No it does not prove she was the only woman alive at the time, however it DOES PROVE none of the other women "supposedly" alive at that time gave birth to any female children that also gave birth to female children.

Its a completely foolish scenario with astronomical odds against it, but is a necessary scenario to escape losing the argument with creationists. You really have no choice but force foolish scenarios into theories when you have established naturalism at ALL COSTS.

You either do not read my posts or you think by ignoring them you can compete in a debate. PIXIE your credibility is quickly waning thin here.

Why is it you did not address my posts that explains in detail how the dating method used to determine the age of mitochondrial eve (the molecular clock) DOES NOT WORK.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17157408

"Large discrepancies have been found in dates of evolutionary events obtained using the molecular clock. Twofold differences have been reported between the dates estimated from molecular data and those from the fossil record; furthermore, different molecular methods can give dates that differ 20-fold. New software attempts to incorporate appropriate allowances for this uncertainty into the calculation of the accuracy of date estimates. Here, we propose that these innovations represent welcome progress towards obtaining reliable dates from the molecular clock, but warn that they are currently unproven, given that the causes and pattern of the discrepancies are the subject of ongoing research. This research implies that many previous studies, even some of those using recently developed methods, might have placed too much confidence in their date estimates, and their conclusions might need to be revised."

"Calculating the different mutation rates for three well-known genes for 78 species, researchers found widely different mutation rates even for closely related species. "Molecular clocks are much more erratic than previously thought and practically useless to keep accurate evolutionary time," says Schilthuizen. The authors of the research conclude that the neutral theory of molecular evolution (predictable or constant rates of change) is flawed and that changes in the rate of variation are left to the vagaries of natural selection (randomness). With no evidence to confirm the neutral theory of molecular evolution, scientists say this amounts to a "denial of there being a molecular clock."

Its hilarious to see you keep repeating the same arguments without ever addressing the responses that clearly refute it. You need to learn debate 101 before you start posting these "walls of text" with an apparent confidence that is amusing.

I think your comments ("Just going to pretend that evidence does not exist?") reveal your own hypocrisy, and should be directed at yourself.

SYA"They will tell you Eve was NOT the only woman alive, but she is only the most recent common ancestor. in order to believe this you must believe ALL the other women alive at that time with DIFFERENT mtDNA NEVER had any female children that passed on their DNA."

So? We are talking about a population bottle neck; there were very few humans alive at the time.

SYA"This is an absurd leap to say the least."

It is not a leap, it is what the evidence points to. I can see you are unable to discern the two.

Incorrect this is what the DATA points to, how the data in interpreted is the argument. Because of your presuppositions of naturalism AT ALL COSTS no matter what the evidence shows, you have no choice but to interpret the data to fit your presupposition.

Just like with P.E. , when the data of the fossil record was contradicting the theory, science because of its dogmatic presuppositions HAD TO invent a hypothesis to fit the presupposition.

Evolutionist COLIN PATTERSON on P.E. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence. ", COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H.,Quoted in: DARWIN'S ENIGMA, p. 100

Even if the data pointed to young earth creationism, I have NO DOUBT science, because of its naturalistic presuppositions, would invent a SUPER TURBO CHARGED P.E. to explain it all away. When the data does not fit your theory, just reinterpret the data so it does fit your theory. How convenient a method you have.

SYA"You understand this is how inductive logic (the scientific method) works. it allows you to make up stories (no matter how absurd) to fit your presupposed conclusion."

It is the most likely story that fits the evidence (more technically, the story makes predictions that fit the evidence). If a more likely story is proposed, that will get accepted. If new evidence refutes the story, it gets rejected. Yes, this is how science works.

PIXIE your lack of understanding on how science works is beyond humorous now.

Misia Landau has detected narratives parading as scientific theory. Following are some of her observations:

“Scientists are generally aware of the influence of theory on observation. Seldom do they recognize, however, that many scientific theories are essentially narratives … they may be unaware of the narrative presuppositions which inform their science … Multiple interpretations and ambiguity are no strangers to readers of evolutionary biology … by comparing the narrative ‘roles’ played by fossils, scientists may become more explicit about the subjective—and often highly imaginative—ways in which they reconstruct human ancestors.”110


"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism … Moreover, that materialism
is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

—Richard Lewontin
Evolutionary geneticist, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor, Harvard University, “Billions and billions of Demons,” The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data.”109

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.

-H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980

"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism."

-Todd, Scott C. [Department of Biology, Kansas State University, USA], "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate," Nature, Vol. 401, 30 September 1999, p.423)

There are only TWO options for origins of species. abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution or intelligent design. Science has ruled out one of them because it can NOT be ruled out (liberals are hilarious). So this leaves ONLY ONE theory left

Its abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution by hook or crook because of the ILLOGICAL falsification method. There is NO second option to chose from in science no matter WHAT the evidence points to.

A thinking person can not accept this level of dogmatism in what is supposed to be science.

SYA"The scripture are shown in science. They will swallow a camel but strain on a gnat"

Actually that sounds like you, and your faith-filter, the way you ignore all the inconvenient evidence.

And you can't see you have a "faith-filter" in what you believe


".... Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data.”

-Evolutionist Richard Lewontin

[SirYapAlot]

Dang, yappers. That's a lot of intellectual effort spent in service to maintaining ignorance.



DNA is itself the primary example of "coded information" arising naturally, as is immediately evident in the creation of novel proteins, such as those which allowed a Flavobacterium to learn to digest nylon. Here we're speaking of information in the necessarily ambiguous vernacular sense, not to be confused with the information of information theorists that underpins the multi-trillion dollar information industry. Information in that sense is trivially created naturally. I've yet to find an IDist who can represent the latter accurately, or present "information" in any alternative, coherent sense.

That's before we even launch into the great unknown, the ironically unspecified "specified complexity."

As ever, Jesse

lao, starting a naturalistic theory with static adaptive codes already written will not suffice in this debate. Evolutionists have a habit of starting the theory well after the hard part of code writing is already done.

lao tzu, tell me why a PC program will not run on a MAC and visa versa.

Also I have only 1 or 2 days a week a few hours a day on line right now so my responses maybe slow in coming. But I will respond

[SirYapAlot]

Sorry I may not get to your response this week, I had to spend too much time on PIXIE. I do not want to gloss over it. So give me time I will respond

[The Pixie]

SirYapAlot

And why would this be?. If not for the space saving convenience alone it would be done. Making claims without explaining the reasoning process behind them has no relevance to me in a debate. Why would a programmer not utilize every angle he/she could to maximize their programs potential, they would.

Is space at a premium in DNA? Human DNA has about 3 billion base pairs, but here is a page showing that some algae has much longer genomes (up to 670 billion). There seems no reason to have 12 layers to conserve space. So if there is no pressure to conserve space, why indulge in laying programs on top of one another?

Here are a couple of web pages about programming that espouse modularity - that is, keeping chucks of code separate.
http://www.aivosto.com/vbtips/restructuring.html
http://www.atomicobject.com/pages/En...and+Modularity

Many creatures have the same sort of eye. If a human designer was building the genome, he would devise a DNA sequence that codes for an eye, and use that sequence in every creature that is to have that type of eye. Similarly with all the other features; an intelligent designer would construct modules of DNA sequences for each feature, which he can add to the genome of a specific species as required.

Of course, I am talking here about how a human would do it, but that was the original point, right? A 12 layered program is not what a human designer would do.

SYA: Also because there is so much integrated information (information that relies on other information to be in proper order to function properly) in the cells, each step along the way would have to successively build upon previous information for the whole system to work as it does. The ONLY way this can be done is through intelligent foresight just as PC programs are written.

Pix: Wrong. To "successively build upon previous information for the whole system" is exactly what evolution does. In contrast, creation states that each "kind" is built in isolation, that the designer started from scratch for each one.

SYA: You have no idea what your talking about to put it bluntly. Ill say it one more time. Making claims without evidence is 100% useless in a debate. Give me the testable evidence random copying errors and selection can slowly build information successively upon previous information.

You made the claim that "The ONLY way this can be done is through intelligent foresight just as PC programs are written", so give the testable evidence for your claim first. Show how that is the ONLY way.

Creationism believes the designer designed one cell and programmed RNA and DNA to build all carbon based life forms from ONE cell design. very simple concept

I take creationism to usually mean that each "kind" was designed and created individually. What you describe here sounds like "front-loaded evolution", and does not fit with your claim that all life was wiped out 6000 years ago and all the "kinds" we see today were created by God at that time. Have I misunderstood something here?

GENETIC algorithms are written PC programs. I find it funny you continue to put forth unsubstantiated personal speculations as facts even when I have showed you there is NO evidence of your claims that random changes to a code can write the information (or any information) in question. It appears you have no idea you exercise just as much FAITH in your beliefs as Christians do theirs. However your beliefs that multiple layers of specific coded information can be written by copying errors has no place in rational thought, so you win the battle of the biggest faith

Genetic algorithms are programs that use random changes to come up with unique, viable solutions to a problem. This refutes your claim that a process of random changes cannot achieve anything.

This is not a question of faith. There are companies that make money from do this, and I posted links to them before. I appreciate that this contradicts your faith-beliefs, and you need some handle to rationalise away this inconvenient fact.

yes "REAL SCIENCE" should consider all angles of origins. However evolutionary science is not REAL SCIENCE. its a metaphysical presupposition established by atheists and built around what is not known. And this presupposition must be taught and believed at ALL COSTS no matter what the evidence points to. This has nothing to do with REAL SCIENCE. and some atheists in science are starting to understand this.

Evolutionary science is not a metaphysical presupposition. It is based on excellent scientific grounds. It has a mountain of evidence supporting it. It makes testable predictions that turn out to be true.

Furthermore, it is widely accepted by theists of all religions. It is not something established just by atheists, but by people from many different metaphysical positions.

This theory must be taught because it is the theory best supported by the evidence. That is what happens in science.

In a speech by Darwinian evolutionist agnostic professor Michael Ruse Feb 13th 1993 he admitted Darwinian evolution makes metaphysical claims about the non-existence of God. He understands claiming God does NOT exist is just as much a metaphysical position as claiming God DOES exist.

That is indeed a metaphysical claim, and should not be a part of science. However, I note that the quote you provided by Ruse does not actually include the word "god", so I am unconvinced that he meant what you claim he did.

SYA"That logical inference is, WE exist therefore other life CAN exist (God)..."

Pix: How do you define life? Just curious, as the usual biological definition would not include God.

SYA: I define life as a self replicating single cell, and Im sure the way most biologists define life. Being alive and being sentient are not one in the same.

Okay, so under your definition (which is about how biologists would define it) God is not alive.

Which kind of exposes a flaw in your argument "That logical inference is, WE exist therefore other life CAN exist (God)..." Yes, other life can exist, but that has no impact on the question of God's existence, as God is not alive.

And if you believe God might exist then your not an atheist but an agnostic. You also show you have some degree of rational thought in believing God could exist. atheism is 100% emotionally based with no logic involved

I would say I was a weak atheist, as I think it is possible that God exists but I think probably not. If you feel happier labelling me as an agnostic, then that is fine with me.

Creationists laugh at the anthropic principle. When the atheists are faced with overwhelming evidence against them, they just invent a principle to explain it away.

More or less. When science finds something unexplained, new hypotheses are devised to try to explain it. Atheists do that too.

As this web page shows, the anthropic principle is just a hypothesis, a possible explanation.

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html
Another example of reasoning that invokes observation selection effects is the attempt to provide a possible (not necessarily the only) explanation of why the universe appears fine-tuned for intelligent life in the sense that if any of various physical constants or initial conditions had been even very slightly different from what they are then life as we know it would not have existed.

Why do creationist laugh when people offer a possible explanation for some unexplained phenomenon? Because the explanation challenges their faith-beliefs, and ridicule is the only counter available to them. Fine, that helps you maintain your blinkered faith, but it is not for me. I prefer to be open-minded, and to look at the evidence.

Pix: A good scientist looks at what we expect from a given scenario. This is called the scientific method. What are the predictions that follow if we assume the hypothesis is true. This is something so-called "ID scientists" totally fail to do - because the politics of ID forbiddens them from making a hypothesis in he first place. "Creationist scinentists" do better; Walt Brown, for example, has a pretty involved hypothesis. Where they fall down is that most of the predictions from the hypothesis fails to match reality (they just ignore those predictions with their own faith-filter, and stick with the ones that work).

SYA: Incorrect, the scientific method is based on what is not known (falsification)> if something can not be ruled out, then it is ruled out (lol@ the scientific liberal mindset)

If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not considered to be science, but that does not mean it is not true.

Say there are two hypotheses proposed, A and B, and A can be falsified, while B cannot. If A is not falsified, then A will be accepted as the better hypothesis. If, on the other hand, A is falsified, then the scientific position is that we do not know.

The idea of falsification is related to making predictions. A hypothesis can be falsified by testing the predictions it makes. Evolution makes strong predictions about the genome of living things forming a nested hierarchy. If that prediction failed, evolution would be falsified. As it turned out, the prediction was spot on.

And believe me you do not want to go through the list of evolutions failed predictions, they are numerous. Junk DNA being one of them

You need to show that 100% of the genome is used before you can claim this. I do not believe that that is the case.

Again you are incorrect with your "predictions" scenario. The creationists hypothesis is a very simple one. A pre-existing intellect (God) programmed RNA and DNA to build 3 dimensional machines. And the ONLY thing needed besides the raw material is a intelligence capable of writing the codes in DNA/RNA. Nothing more. Stop making it out to be more than it is

Where are the predictions that a scientist can test in the lab or field?

What should we expect to see in the fossil record? What patterns should be expected in the distribution of species, in the genomes, etc.?

First of all the dating predictions are constantly changing for both the mitochondrial Eve and the Y chromosome Adam. I told you look up "A shrinking date for 'Eve'. by Carl Wieland"

I did look it up. What Wieland does is massage the data to get the figure he wants to support his pet theory.

The evidence actually points to a data in the hundred thousands. Of course, you faith-filter - like Wieland's - will not let you see that, so you cling to this desparate idea that the dates are "constantly changing" like that actually means it will one day hit upon a figure of 6000. Wieland found an article that suggests a different muation rate. From it:

http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf...e_romanovs.pdf
...Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other? "I'm worried that people who are looking at very recent events, such as the peopling of Europe, are ignoring this problem," says Laurent Excoffier, a population geneticist at the University of Geneva. Indeed, the mysterious and sudden expansion of modern humans into Europe and other parts of the globe, which other genetic evidence puts at about 40,000 years ago, may actually have happened 10,000 to 20,000 years ago--around the time of agriculture, says Excoffier. And mtDNA studies now date the peopling of the Americas at 34,000 years ago, even though the oldest noncontroversial archaeological sites are 12,500 years old. Recalibrating the mtDNA clock would narrow the difference (Science, 28 February 1997, p. 1256).

Hmm, so the review stated that no one thinks that is the case, but Wieland is still touting that figure.

Secondly in the second account of creation (Gen 2) Adam was created first (in Gen 1 both male and female were created on the same day) , then after a unknown period of time God created Eve. We do not know how long of a period elapsed before the two events. We do know Adam took the time to name every species of animal. This could explain the apparent different ages between the mitochondrial eve and the Y chromosome Adam.

That is brilliant!

The problem with that is that their offspring will be the same age - that is Adam's children will be the same age as Eve's. If you study the genetics of their descendants, all you can pin-point is the moment when they diverged. Adam could be a billion years old, and mutating like crazy. It does not matter what is significant is what his genome in his germline cells was like at the time he was procreating. Which would be the same time Eve was procreating.

And anyway, if you advocate a global flood, what you need to find is Noah and his unnamed wife. Wieland needs to bring that bottleneck down to just 4500 years! Goid luck on that.

And you do not want to use the geological column as evidence for evolution. This is another embarrassment for naturalists. Just Google "Geologic Column Out of order". Naturalists have to invent plausible stories to explain why its "out of order"

The thing about evolution is that (a) it proposes an order; (b) the majority of fossils are in the right order; and (c) there are - as you say - plausible stories to explain the out-of-order fossils.

While creationists only have implausible stories.

Talking about the geological column, can you state which layers are due to the Noachian flood? Why did a single event produce layers that are so distinct? Why are different, but separate, layers so similar to each other (eg multiple layers contain coal)?

"Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it (1997, p. 96).The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse

Polystratic trees were explained by John William Dawson way back in 1868 (see here for example).

Science , because of its presuppositions believes the fossil record and geological column should show the time a species "came into existence". But in reality the fossil record and geological column shows at what time a species DIED.

It shows when an individual died, and therefore when a species existed. It cannot say when the species appeared or disappeared, except by noting the absence of fossils.

The creationists explanation of the evidence is far more plausible. That is fossilization is produced by death by rapid burial. therefore each layer of strata in which we have fossils is grave yard that shows the time of death. NOT the time of origins.

So how does this model explain the order of fossils in the record? Why are fish records only since in the top half of the record, flowering plants and mammals are only seen in a small fraction at the top?

What about radiometric dating? As an old Earther, I would guess you accept the results of radiometric dating, but even if you do not, you have a curious pattern to explain. Why is it that rocks with depleted radioisotopes are seen consistently at the bottom of the layer, while rocks that are not depleted are seen at the top, and a continuum of depletion levels runs right through the column? I would love to hear what mechanism can sort rocks like that.

This explains the Cambrian explosion far better than a "super turbo charged punctuated equilibrium", another hypothesis creationists laugh at.

So talk me though this explanation.

Pix: Archaeology can play its role too. We should see absolutely no sign of human culture before 6000 years ago, and then from that time, we should see human culture slowly spread out from the Middle East, as mankind's population gradually rises, and spreads. Unfortunately for your pet theory, archaeological evidence suggests human culture had already spread right across Asia, across the Bering Straits, all the way down North America and into South America by 6500BC (and there is no evidence that there was a first wave of Neanderthals, a sudden disappearance in 4000 BC, and then a new waves of humans arriving in South America many centuries later).

SYA: What is the point of me debating with you if your not going to comprehend my posts. In each response you appear as is you have read nothing in my previous responses.
LISTEN. I am a old earth creationists that believes there were races of "people" on earth millions of years ago. And I have biblical support for it.
Forget about logic, try to let a little common sense rule your thoughts. Hypothetically speaking, if God exists and he came down and destroyed ALL LIFE on earth tomorrow. Then created mostly all new species, what would the fossil record show?

Curious how you say I am not listening to you, then respond to a point about archaeology by talking about fossils.

So what would we see in the fossil record? Well we would see a new layer in the geological column, given that all the plant life is new. We would see the sudden appearance of new animals unrelated to animals before the event. Of course, it would be a long time before these new animals formed true fossils (in which the organic matter is replaced by stone).

What of the archaeology record? We would see evidence of numerous settlements spread right across the globe. Then we would see a gap, a time when there was zero activity by intelligent agents across virtually all the globe. Over the course of a few centuries, millenia even, that activity would slowly reappear, spreading outwards from where ever new man had been seeded.

Neither of these fit what is observed for 6000 years ago.

The fact is you would see NO evidence of this new creation other than the sudden appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record. This is exactly what you see. The evidence we do have for a sudden creation 6000 years ago does exist and I posted it for you.

Actually, the evidence is that all the well-known species around today are rather more than 6000 years old.

We have records that coincidentally suddenly appear 6000 years ago.

Sure, because you (or some other creationist) cherry-picked an event that happened 6000 years ago. Writing emerged 6000 years ago, so you just ignore anything before that. Why not look at agriculture? Agriculture started over 100,000 years ago, so your faith-filter steps in, and stops you considering that as the starting point.

Secondly you do not seem to know the dating methods are circular. They start with the presuppositions that the strata is a certian age, then date the fossils accordingly.

Ever heard of radiometric dating?

You need to read the whole article before you use it as a reference

"The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy."

I did read it. It goes on to say that: "Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing." That little bit of energy to get it started could have been just quantum fluctuation. No problem there.

"If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct"

That is how science is. It is just a hypothesis. Not falsifiable, so not accepted as science, just a possibility.

Physicist Paul Davies says of the inflationary theory
“The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre-existing energy into material form.”

Do you have a reference for that? I would like to see the context before commenting.

Another argument you have failed to address in your mind is if a causeless universe is plausible, That is if "things" can just POP into existence with no cause or reason, then you can not say a God CAN NOT just POP into existence, or flying spaghetti monsters for that matter.

Are they zero energy? I would not have though so.

So the common decent argument has no relevance to pseudogenes if identical mutational hotspots exist in supposedly distantly related species.

Ah, I see. So God created us with a bad gene that would become inoperable with a few generations because of a design fault. And he put the same bad gene in a bunch of unrelated animals that creationist Carl Linnaeus grouped together as primates before Darwin was born.

Kind of odd that the design fault did not cause problems for any carnivores or birds or fish. Or trees, come to that.

The best solution early evolution could find?. So complete and total random chance just happened to pick the best structure for complex information ?, another spectacular stroke of luck. have you ever added up the number of lucky streaks evolution must have to get going. I have a suspicion you have no idea how many. But you do exercise FAITH they all happened

What has luck got to do with it? Do you think Usain Bolt wins by being lucky? No, he wins by being the best. The best structure for complex information got used by early life because it is the best structure for complex information .

You need to spend more time studying this matter. Start with the half lives of the chemicals in question.

"For example, at 100ºC (boiling point of water), the half lives of the nucleic acids Adenine and Guanine are 1 year, uracil is 12 years, and cytozine is 19 days20 (nucleic acids and other important proteins such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin have never been synthesized in origin-of-life type experiments19). Such short-lived molecules could never be stockpiled, even if they could be produced naturally. even though even at that low temperature Ribose, a sugar which helps build DNA, has a short half-life of 44 years,14 and cytozine a relatively short half-life of 17,000 years.20 Either way the rate of degradation is too high to accumulate enough pre-biotic organics to form a soup. But models for earth's formation indicate the earth was hot, meaning degradation would occur even faster! If it the earth had been cold, this would work against the OOL by slowing the chemical reactions that supposedly allowed life to form, increasing the time needed for the OOL."

When I read "a relatively short half-life of 17,000 years" I know I am reading BS!

Why are they even talking about half-lives at 100°C? Maybe the Earth was hot when it formed, but that does not mean it was still that hot when life formed.

Seems more likely to me that life will have started at temperatures around 25 to 30°C. As a rough rule of thumb, a chemical reaction will double in speed when you raise the temperature 10°C, so dropping the temperature 70°C will increase the half-life of adenine to 64 years. That is quite a few generaytions for a single-celled organism.

4 billion years?, PIXIE you are so far removed from the facts its ridiculous. There is NO EVIDENCE of abiogenesis before the Cambrian explosion

Plenty of pre-Cambrian fossils have been found, see for example here:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobio...an-Fossils.htm

Another one for your faith-filter to shut out, I guess.

In fact the more ANY valid program is subjected to random changes, no matter how the selection process is conducted, the less coherent the information will become.

I just skipped most of the preceding. It sounds suspiciosly like a rant, and was only repeating what you had already said and I have already responded to.

SYA"The more we learn, the more the mechanisms of random copying errors and deletions are laughable candidates for the mechanisms behind the existence of the codes."

Pix: Wrong, and the Shapiro paper explains why.

SYA: It does?. then why did you not post the references?.

Sorry, my bad, I was thinking about the other papers you had linked to:

http://www.genome.gov/25521554
According to ENCODE researchers, this lack of evolutionary constraint may indicate that many species' genomes contain a pool of functional elements, including RNA transcripts, that provide no specific benefits in terms of survival or reproduction. As this pool turns over during evolutionary time, researchers speculate it may serve as a "warehouse for natural selection" by acting as a source of functional elements unique to each species and of elements that perform the similar functions among species despite having sequences that appear dissimilar.

You seem to think that the theory of evolution (randomness and selection) is a proven fact unless proven other wise by its detractors. this is not how scientific theories work PIXIE. You needs testable evidence of a theories validity. YOU HAVE NONE. And the funny thing is you don't seem to know this.

The theory of evolution makes testable predictions that have proved to be right. No other theory that seeks to explain the diversity of life has done that. It wins.

Sure, your faith-filter causes you to ignore all that evidence, but it is there nevertheless. That is why virtually all biologists of whatever religious beliefs accept it.

You have shown a huge degree of intellectual dishonesty in your "wall of text". I can just imagine what fantasies you would come up with to defend abiogenesis.

How quickly you dismiss the evidence. If a large explanation is presented, just label it a "wall of text", that saves you having to deal with evidence that might challenge your position. If someone disagrees with your cherished faith-based claims, just accuse them of "intellectual dishonesty", that saves you having to question whether he might be right. If someone proposes alternatives to your religious beliefs, dismiss it as "fantasies", that saves you having to consider if they might be valid.

This alone is why atheists separate abiogenesis (their foundation) from speciation. They know very well if the foundation or MOTHER OF SPECIES (abiogenesis) is proven invalid, then the children (species) can never exist, and naturalism (atheistic evolution) is effectively proven invalid.

Two different things involving different agents. Hence, scientists consider them to be two different things. It is not roclket science.

Pix: Tell me, what are creationists doing to support the claim that God killed all living things 6000 years ago? Oh, right. Nothing.

SYA: Most Creationists are young earth creationists, of which a belief in has nothing to do with salvation. so is not important. Old earth creationists like myself are making our views known.

Pix: So in fact all you are doing to support your pet theory is making your view known? No one is actually looking for evidence, or anything like that?
Of course not. It will prove you wrong. You cited the human population bottleneck in a previous post. If you actually examined the evidence, you found discover this proves mankind was around 100,000 years ago. Evidence is so darn inconvenient, right?

SYA: LOL..evidence of species older than 6000 years. I think that has been well established thank you PIXIE.

So to prove that your pet theory is correct, you offer... evidence that there were species older than 6000 years?

Is that it? Is that the best you can do?

If you actually think about what your theory claims, you will see that it makes a number of interesting predictions:

1. A large number of species present in the fossil record right up to 6000 years ago, then a whole set of new and unrelated species since then (so any cat, dog, shark, crow, etc. fossils that date before 6000 will refute your theory).
2. All early cultures stop abruptly 6000 years ago, and new, unrelated cultures, with strong Judaic beliefs spread out slowly from a single origin from that point.
3. Spread of all extant species (including plants and bacteria) starting from that same single point (i.e., the Garden of Eden, where Adam named each and every one). Expect to see faster species moving further, while slow species (snails and sloths) rather more slowly.

Then there are the predictions if there really was a global flood

4. Radioisotopes distributed randomly though the geological column*
5. Organisms sorted by mobility or flotation in the geological column*
6. Further sudden disappearance of culture, followed by the slow spread of culture, again with strong Judaic beliefs, spread out slowly from a single origin
7. All pre-flood archaeological evidence at the bottom of the geological column*
8. All species show a population bottle neck from this event, a mere 4500 years ago.

* Specifically, that part of the geological column that was laid downby the flood.

There you go, eight predictions that must be true if your pet theory is true. And all are false.

The fact is the LAYER of strata a fossil is located in, is the layer it ended up in after it was rapidly buried. This is why we have dinosaurs with soft blood tissue found by Mary Higby Schweitzer. The fact is soft blood tissue CAN NOT last for 80 million years, but yet we have a supposedly 80 million year old dinosaur with soft blood tissue.

Apparently some tissue can survive. And it went on to show that T. Rex is very similar to ostriches, exactly as evolution says. Another prediction confirmed.

This proves the dogmatic presupposition that the strata can accurately date the fossil IS PROVEN INVALID. because soft tissue can not last 80 MY.

This is based on your own presupposition that soft tissue can not last 80 MY.

The new data suggest cancer is a result of an error in the error correction mechanism. The tree of life (I believe) would have had transportable elements that kept DNA copying at 100% accuracy thus preventing cancer.

That would be the Tree of Life that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat the fruit of even before they disobeyed God?

You fail at every level of critical thinking. You don't understand if you are a creation of another life form, that life form holds the rights to your life. Your life does not belong to you, it belongs to the one who created it.

I disagree; I think people have certain rights by virtue of being thinking beings. But I accept we have different moralities. Clearly the Christian view is that as far as God is concerned with have zero rights, and he can treat us as casually as tissues, discarding whole races without any qualms.

Life is GOD GIFT, not your inherent right. He can kill who he wants when he wants without anyone's approval. Only a naturally produced being (by abiogenesis) or an eternal being has the inherent RIGHT to live in this universe.

We also have a different understanding of the word "gift", it seems. For me it works like this: When you give a gift, that does not give you the right to take it back whenever you please, no matter the cost to the person you gave it to. I think this sort of misunderstanding of simple words like "gift" is the root of many disagreements between atheists and Christians. Hmm, gives a whole new slant on handing out Christmas presents.

SYA: No God designed us with free will so we could chose the way of death or the way of life. it was within OUR power to prevent it.

Pix: What? We could prevent God from commiting genecide before the human race was created? How does that work?

SYA: Yes by obeying him. Just as potential criminals have the ability to keep from being punished by OBEDIENCE to a law.

So if we were all obedient God, that would stop God killing the Neanderthals? So... then they would be here instead of us, right? Have you thought this through?

Pix: I find that attitude horrifying. Countless people have fought, and many have died, for our basic human rights, and here you are telling us that actually a man does not even have the most basic right to exist? What is so scary about your attitude is the implications. Anyone (and I am thinking about both God and mankind here) who believes humans have no rights at all is at liberty to treat humans as casually as a boy poking a stick into a pile of ants.

SYA: You SCREAM "Im a flaming emotional liberal" with that last statement

Yes, I admit it. I think humans have worth.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

You do not grasp the obvious. You do NOT EXIST if God does not create you, therefore you can have no rights unless they have been dictated by your creator.

I get the not exist if God does not create me. Talk me through why that gives him the right to kill me whenever he feels like it.

If an animal kills a man, that animal is then hunted down and is killed, who decided that animal no longer has the right to live? Does that animal have the inherent right to continue to live and kill men or not?, IM sure the animal would disagree he must die. Where does the animal get his right from?

I thought we were talking about thinking, sentient beings, not dumb animals.

Forbidden to touch until after the conditions for its consumption had been met. The conditions (obedience) were not met. The tree of life does NOT belong to us, WE didn't create it. You fail to understand this

Where do you get this from? Where in the Bible does it say anything about God ever letting mankind eat the fruit of the Tree of Life?

All you need is a way to create long stands of DNA and RNA, then encapsulate them in a cell, that is the easy part. the hard part is writing the coherent codes in DNA and RNA. And all that is needed for that is an I.Q. sufficient for the task. Can you say that I.Q. does NOT EXIST?, of course not.

Genetic engineering is in no way supportive of ID. ID claims that life on this planet was designed, while genetic engineering does what you describe above. The fact that mankind can manipulate DNA offers no support to your claims that God created life.

Understand this PIXIE- Once you open the door of possibility for other life in the universe to exist , you now need a LOGICAL NOT EMOTIONAL reason to limits this life forms attributes to be less than God-like....What is your reason?

Well, God is not alive, according to the definition you gave. Is that LOGICAL enough for you?

Oh, and I do accept God is a possibility.

Well considering intelligent design has a "mere possibility" and abiogenesis does not even have that. And there can be ONLY TWO candidates for the origins of life. What candidate wins?

The one that makes bold testable predictions. We shall see how that turns out.

Even if the data pointed to young earth creationism, I have NO DOUBT science, because of its naturalistic presuppositions, would invent a SUPER TURBO CHARGED P.E. to explain it all away. When the data does not fit your theory, just reinterpret the data so it does fit your theory. How convenient a method you have.

Science actually started presupposing YEC. it only adopted OEC (and later evolution) because the evidence was so persuasive. This was at a time when the vast majority of scientists were Christians, by the way.

It is interesting to note that actually YECers require a "SUPER TURBO CHARGED" evolution model to get from perhaps 15,754 animals on the Ark (to use Woodmorappe's figure) to the vast number of species around today. How many animals do you think were on the ark, by the way? Do you advocate a dimensionally-challenged ark with huge numbers of animals, or merely an over-crowded ark, with "SUPER TURBO CHARGED" evolution as soon as they reach shore.

Furthermore, are you sure that the same accusation cannot be made at your own pet theory built on your own presuppositions? I have pointed out the necessary consequences of that theory, and clearly they do not match up with the evidence. So what are you going to do? Look at the evidence, see what it really points to? Or just ignore it, pretend it does not exist, so you can keep your cherished faith-based claims?

[SirYapAlot]

Sorry for the delay. very little free time lately

One of the reasons I said OK we agree to disagree is because OEC or pre-adamic races have nothing to do with salvation in my opinion. Most Christians believe in a pre-trib rapture, as did I. However when I debate the pre-trib rapture doctrine I lay out my case against it just one time. If they do not accept my interpretation, then I leave it alone because as I said its not a salvation issue. I believed and defended the pre-trib rapture doctrine for years until I was ready to look at the evidence objectively and was prepared to be WRONG. Most Christians I find are not prepared to be wrong in their doctrine. This is why we have over 30,000 of them.

Paul said we see as through a dark glass (not clearly). So the only thing I believe is needed for salvation is to believe in the "right Jesus". (Mormons JWs & Catholics among others excluded) Other doctrinal differences are not relevant to salvation.

'Owlam, whose etymology is the word "hidden," means "So long a time, you can't remember it." In a partiular text that might mean "a long time" or "forever" in either past or future, as seen in these texts:

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”


Isaiah 42:14

For a long time I have kept silent,
I have been quiet and held myself back.
But now, like a woman in childbirth,
I cry out, I gasp and pant.


Jeremiah 5:15

People of Israel,” declares the LORD,
“I am bringing a distant nation against you—
an ancient and enduring nation,
a people whose language you do not know,
whose speech you do not understand.


That's exactly how the word is used in Ecclesiastes 1:10, which basically says, "Anything that seems new has actually been around for as long as we can remember." The text doesn't attach "so long as we can remember" to any particular point in time, whether during Genesis 1, before, or after.

Ecclesiastes uses Owlam in the same manner it is used in Genesis, Isaiah and Jeremiah. In ALL references it is referring to something that is "concealed" or "out of mind"

Genesis 3:22 clearly means a concealed vanishing point in the future.

Isaiah 42:14 also describes a concealed vanishing point. Chapter 42 is about the coming of Jesus the messiah and the judgment thereafter. The Lord is speaking from a time before Issiah (concealed) to a time of judgment after the messiah has come (concealed). A time that is out of mind or concealed to the reader

Jeremiah 5:15 is also a concealed vanishing point. This is understood by the fact that the Jews do not know this nation or its language. Hence concealed

"I am bringing a distant nation against you- an (concealed) ancient and enduring nation,
a people whose language you do not know, whose speech you do not understand"

Owlam literally means something that is "out of mind" or "concealed". And as I stated before. The times from Adam to Solomon are not concealed or out of mind. We have many detailed accounts from the scriptures of these times. So the times from Adam to Solomon are NOT concealed or out of mind

http://owlam.com/

Strong#5769?o^la^m ?o^la^mo-lawm', o-lawm' From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).

The only word that is useful in the above attempt to define Olam is the word Concealed. A Hebrew man or woman in order to conceal themselves would tie or attach a cloth around their head. We commonly call this a veil today. The man or woman would then be joined or yoked with the cloth veil. Olam is the yoking, binding, tieing uniting, fastening, joining and weaving.
Strong#5956 ?a^lam aw-lam' A primitive root; to veil from sight, that is, conceal (literally or figuratively): - X any ways, blind, dissembler, hide (self), secret (thing). If you will notice #5769 is said to be from #5956. Notice the words blind, conceal and veil. If someone’s eyes or eye-lids are bound or tied together then they are blind. If a person is tongue tied then they are dumb or cannot speak. As I stated above veiling is the action of tieing or attaching a cloth around the head which would conceal or be concealing. Note that there is nothing related to time here. Also, #5956 is first used in the Bible in Leviticus 4:13, but #5769 is used 12 times in Genesis and 17 times in Exodus before #5956 is ever used.

Strong#5957 ?a^lam aw-lam' (Chaldee/Aramaic); corresponding to H5769; remote time, that is, the future or past indefinitely; often adverbially forever: - for([n-]) ever (lasting), old. Strong states that #5769 is from #5956 but it appears that #5957 influences his definition more than #5956. Note that #5957 and #5769 according to Strong empasize a time based definition. A time based definition for olam is not ideal.

As far as verse 11, there's substantial support among translations for your preferred reading of the missing word being "things" rather than "generations" as NIV puts it. I don't see how that changes the thrust of the text, though. Solomon's point is still that society is stuck in a rut because it fails to learn the lessons of the past. The text doesn't call out any specific point in the past, so it provides no particular support for your theory of a pre-Adamic race. It could just as easily refer to the antediluvian earth, to the patriarchal period, to the period in Egypt, to the time of the Judges, or to any other period in which the people of God failed to benefit from societal hindsight.

I do not agree with your interpretation of Ecc 1. Solomon is not referring to people not learning from past mistakes or "Societal hindsight" as you put it. Solomon is elaborating on "there is nothing new under the sun". His point in chapter 1 could not be more clear

Ecc 1:9 That which has been, it is that which shall be. And that which has been done, it is that which will be done. And there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing of which one might say, See this, it is new? It has already been for the ages which were before us.
Ecc 1:11 There is no memory of former things; yea, nor is there any memory for them of things which will be afterward, with those who will be at the last.

It appears your interpretation may come from the last line of Ecc 1:11 in which the NIV says

"11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them"

"by those who follow them" can be interpreted as the next generation to follow IF that is what the text actually said. But it does not.

The NIV is not a literal translation and is one of the worst translations there is. The NIV does paraphrasing like the living bible does and can not be used for serious study

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/niv.html

The literal translation of Ecc 1:11 is

Ecc 1:11 There is no memory of former things; yea, nor is there any memory for them of things which will be afterward, with those who will be at the last.

The last sentence used here by Solomon is "with those who will be at the last" not "by those who follow them"

The word "LAST" means just that

'acha?ryo^n 'acha?ro^n
akh-ar-one', akh-ar-one'
From H309; hinder; generally late or last; specifically (as facing the east) western: - after (-ward), to come, following, hind (-er, -ermost, -most), last, latter, rereward, ut(ter)most.

So the literal translation is, we have no memories of this "concealed time" in the past, and the literal LAST generation (presumably after the millennium and before Judgment) will have no memories of us because they are the LAST generation of aw-dawm's (ADAM) before the new heaven and new earth. That last generation (after satan is released) will have to obey God with no benefit of hindsight

It makes more sense of the text to read Solomon's comments in a general sense rather than trying to attach them to some specific circumstance. By your view, Solomon's message in Ecclesiastes 1 is something like, "Life is futile because men fail to remember the pre-Adamic race." That would not be a very helpful observation since the Bible has no clear message about any pre-Adamic race, and Solomon doesn't tell us anything about it. However, "Life is futile because society fails to learn any lessons from the past" makes a lot of sense, and is very in keeping with the rest of the book of Ecclesiastes.

The "general sense" is there is nothing new under the sun. And we can follow Solomon's reasoning. He gives us an example that someone may say "Hey look over there, that's something brand new that has never happened before"

And Solomon then responds with "there is NOTHING that is new" because what ever you can say "this is new". it is in fact NOT new but was done during a "concealed time out of mind" that was before us, And this is why it appears as if new because its was done in a time that we have no memories of

The term "Societal hindsight" does not fit the definition of o^la^m. hindsight is the exact opposite of out of mind

1) The emperor of Babylon is called "morning star" as an honorific title, same as Jesus. Stars were held to be glorious and impressive, and possibly sentient. Thus Deborah's song in Judges 5:20 says that, "From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera." The Canaanites worshiped the sun, moon, and stars as deities. Job 38:7 speaks of stars and angels in one breath. And so on. Calling someone a star was calling them a mighty being.

Another hatchet Job done by the NIV. The terms used in Job 38:7 are morning stars and SONS OF GOD (ben elohim). NOT morning stars and Angels (mal-awk')

This is done for one of two reasons. either to dismiss Angels from being the father of the nephilim in Gen 6 and or to dismiss SONS OF GOD from existing before the earth did. If the SONS OF GOD are Angels, then Angels can be the father of the nephilim in Gen 6. If the SONS OF GOD are NOT Angels, then human-like beings (not Angels) existed before this earth did. The doctrinal implications are obvious and why the NIV picks and chooses how to translate them.

NIV Gen 6:1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful and they married any of them they chose

NIV Job 38:7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

LITV Gen 6:2 The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were good, and they took wives for themselves from all those whom they chose.

The NIV properly translates Gen 6 as SON OF GOD but improperly translates Job 38:7 as ANGELS. How can you trust a translation that does this?. And this is not the only example. the NIV is filled with purposeful errors of this nature

2) Referring the emperor as "fallen from heaven" is a continuation of the "morning star" language. It means that he's fallen from his position of power, as the rest of the chapter goes on to describe.

To say this king of Babylon was given the same name as Jesus as a title of honor is a bit ridiculous to say the least. The meaning of names are serious in the Bible. ALL descendants of Adam & Eve have a evil nature by birth and do not deserve the same title as Jesus. And ALL descendants of Adam & Eve are fallen at birth and need no explanation for their fall as I said.

Also find me a original scripture that uses MORNING STAR in Isaiah 14. I can not find one. This is another purposeful error by the NIV, NASB and NKJV. The original scriptures uses shining star or Lucifer not morning star

Isa 14:12 Oh shining star, son of the morning, how you have fallen from the heavens! You weakening the nations, you are cut down to the ground.

I reiterate why would Isaiah say "how have you fallen from heaven"? Sons of Adam need no explanation because they are born pre-fallen. Also the word for HEAVEN is shâmayim. EVERY example I can find of HEAVEN is translated as shâmayim. and every example can find of shâmayim is translated as SKY or HEAVEN.

Can you give me just one example in which shâmayim is translated as a seat of power located on earth? I seriously doubt it. This is how false doctrines are invented. One uses a private interpretation of a scripture in which no other examples of that interpretation can be given.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

If you can find no other references to support your interpretation of a word (if there are more than one) , then your interpretation is most likely wrong. The KJV has 327 uses of the word HEAVEN (shâmayim) in the OT. I have yet to find one that supports your interpretation that it can refer to a seat of power and NOT a physical position in the universe.

Therefore the evidence that the word HEAVEN in Isaiah 14 is referring to a physical position in the universe rather than a seat of power is substantial. IN fact all that is needed to disprove Lucifer was a sinful son of Adam would be to prove the word heaven means exactly what all other 326 accounts mean. If it can be established (which it clearly can) my definition of heaven is correct, then we KNOW Lucifer was no sinful son of Adam.

Of course the fact that Lucifer is called "eesh" (MALE) and not "aw-dawm" (HOMOSAPIEN) lends credence to the argument

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3) You suggest a double fulfillment of Isaiah 14 as referring to both Satan and to the emperor of Babylon. But I don't see anything in the text that references Satan. It's not like in Genesis 3, where the snake actually was Satan. It's not like in Matthew 16, where Peter was saying the sort of thing that Satan would say. The most you can say about Isaiah 14 is that the fall of the emperor reminds you of the fall of Satan. That's different than the text being about the fall of Satan, though.

In all the references I gave you, you can see the physical entities as well as the spiritual power behind them were being addressed. The snake and Satan are not one on the same because the snake was referred to as CATTLE or LIVESTOCK. You will not find one reference to Satan being referred to in this manner. Peter and Satan are not one in the same and the king and prince of Tyrus are not one in the same. These were men being influenced by spiritual powers. so BOTH entities were being addressed

That said this is another argument which IM not sure of myself. It is possible Lucifer and Satan are not one in the same being. although this was not my point. My point was to prove there was a perfect being on earth who was being addressed by Isaiah, and was once in heaven and who made statements about returning to heaven to be like God almighty. And what time period this would put him in

If Lucifer was Satan's name before the fall then my interpretation puts him in a time before Adam & Eve for that reason. Satan had already fallen when the garden of Eden was created, therefore Lucifer had to exist before the garden of Eden because his name Lucifer would have been changed to Satan after the fall.

4) [u]'Iysh[/i] often appears in Scripture to refer to men. It's even used for Adam in Gen 2:23, and for men (adult male humans) in general in Gen 2:24. Is it sometimes used to refer to males of other species? Yes, such as in Gen 7:2. That doesn't mean it's not referring to a human in Isaiah 14, though.

Yes as I stated eesh or Iysh refers to a MALE of a species and not the species its self as Adam does with humans. Gen 5:2

[RBerman]

Yap,

1) I heartily agree that Gap Theory is not a salvation issue either way. I'll go a step farther and say that since Gap folks are in my experience usually quite conservative and have a strong view of inerrancy, I have more in common with them than with many others who name the name of Christ.

2) I'm not so sure that "most Christians believe in a mid-trib rapture." I'm not even sure that most Christians are dispensationalists, let alone mid-trib dispensationalists. But I might agree that most dispensationalists are mid-tribbers.

3) Your exegesis of owlam contradicts itself. You appear to admit that Jeremiah 5:15 is not talking about a pre-Adamic people, just a people unfamiliar to the Jews. That's the sort of thing that Ecclesiastes 1:11a means as well: the events of the past become obscure, hidden, forgotten, unfamiliar. That's why they fall under the heading of "vanity" or "uselessness." It's a generation characteristic of the past, not something limited to a particular point in history. You said that, "The term "Societal hindsight" does not fit the definition of o^la^m. hindsight is the exact opposite of out of mind." That's my point exactly; Solomon is using owlam to show that societies lack hindsight -- not about a pre-Adamic race that he never actually mentions, but about everything! Hence the "vanity."

4) Your preferred translation (apparently YLT) for the end of verse 11 is, "with those who will be at the last." Though NIV is not really "a paraphrase like the Living Bible," I understand your point about the NIV not being the most literal translation. So I'm going to go with the preponderance of Bible translation scholars on this one:

NASB

There is no remembrance of earlier things;
And also of the later things which will occur,
There will be for them no remembrance
Among those who will come later still.

ESV

There is noremembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.

HCSB

There is no memory of those who came before;
and of those who will come after
there will also be no memory
among those who follow [them].

NET

No one remembers the former events,
nor will anyone remember the events that are yet to happen;
they will not be remembered by the future generations.

(with a comment that the Hebrew says, "“There will not be any remembrance of them among those who come after.")

NKJV

There is no remembrance of former things,
Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
By those who will come after.

Even your glossary gives multiple meanings of acharon along the lines of "latter" and "following" which need not imply that Solomon is talking about something unique to the actual final generation of humans. After all, his target audience is not the last generation of men, but all generations of men.

If you'd like to see some examples in the Bible where acharon clearly means "next in line" rather than "final", look at Genesis 33:2. Leah and her children are "next/following" and then Rachel and her children are "next/following" as well. Or in Exodus 4:8, where it refers to the second of three signs (leprous hand, healed hand, water turned to blood) and thus means "subsequent" rather than "final." Or Deuteronomy 29:22, when it describes the generation living during the Babylonian exile which is "following after" the generation of Moses but not the final generation of Jews. Or in 1 Kings 17:13, where it refers to the "next" thing that the widow does, not the final thing she ever did. And so on.

5) You are correct that Job 38:7, where NIV has "angels," the Hebrew is literally "sons of God." Is it your contention that this is a reference to the pre-Adamic race?

6) Regarding your following comment:

Also find me a original scripture that uses MORNING STAR in Isaiah 14. I can not find one. This is another purposeful error by the NIV, NASB and NKJV. The original scriptures uses shining star or Lucifer not morning star

Isaiah 14:12

Oh shining star, son of the morning, how you have fallen from the heavens! You weakening the nations, you are cut down to the ground.

I see no problem with the translation you offer here, giving "shining star" for heylel and "son of the morning" for ben shachar. But why do you capitalize "lucifer"? It's just a Latin word meaning "bringer of light," and it was a Roman astrological term for the planet Venus, the "morning star" since it was often most visible just before sunrise. If you're going to use the Latin word which is not present in the Hebrew text, why are you reluctant to give it the meaning of that Latin word?

7) You asked why the text says that the star has fallen from heaven. I should have thought that would be obvious; if the king is compared to a star, and stars are described throughout the Bible as being in "the heavens" (meaning the sky as opposed to on the ground) then of course the defeat of the king would be compared to the falling of a star from the sky. And indeed, verse 14 makes it clear that the king is not really in heaven; he just wants to be.

8) As far as eesh vs adam, I already showed you places in the OT where eesh is used to refer to humans, so its use in Isaiah 14 doesn't provide any evidence that it's about a nonhuman.

I thank you again for the concern for Biblical fidelity which you show.