|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 22-Jul-21, 17:20 |
 He then goes on to explain this passage in a way which is quite accurate. Unfortunately, it is also quite irrelevant. For those not familiar with the circumstances, it was nothing to do with tax-dodging. "lawful" didn't mean 'according to legislation', it meant 'according to God's Commands'. It was about whether Caesar should rule over Judea or whether Judea should be independent. It was really asking "Do you accept Caesar, who claims to be God, as your ruler; or should we have not ruler except the True God? Are you a collaborator with the Romans, or a Patriot?" Flux's commentary completely ignores this core issue.>> Actually, no it doesn’t. Included in the commentary I quoted are these paragraph: “By pointing out that his opponents possess and display such an object within the Temple grounds (21:23), Jesus seems to raise, not lower, the stakes of the conversation about money and human loyalty. The issue at stake here is nothing less than idolatry. (And this is not a problem that we can solve simply by printing different words on our currency — even words that confess our trust in God.)” “One thing, at least, seems clear: Jesus is not solving the dilemma by carving out separate domains of human loyalty. For every character in the story, and for each of us who still bother to read and ponder it, one absolute commitment subsumes and relativizes all other commitments. Whatever we render unto Caesar, or to the retirement fund, or to the offering basket at church, we can never afford to forget this: we belong entirely to God. We may divide our budget, but we must never divide our allegiance.” I see the rest of your post is an excerpt from one of your books in which you appear to be trying to rewrite the Holy Bible. I can just shake my head at the arrogance and disrespect for God’s Holy Word that led you to do that. Words don’t suffice. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Jul-21, 20:30 |
This is the full text of the Flux post I referred to in my post 16:19. I include it to point out a flat lie. "How Jesus Pays Taxes This is a passage that I think reveals more of what Jesus Christ meant when He said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” This is from the Gospel of Matthew: “And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.” (Matthew 17:24-27) I wonder if Jesus’ answer would have been different if Peter had not already told the publicans that Jesus paid taxes. Notice Jesus’ generosity - He pays for Peter and Himself. Jesus indicates, imo, that He’s only paying taxes so as not to offend the tax collectors. How Jesus essentially creates money out of nothing supports the view, imo, that Jesus’ answer in response to the question posed by the Pharisees (“Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?”) was designed to show the pointlessness of their question. Everything belongs to God and God can do whatever He pleases - with or without money." (End of first Flux post) I then posted my 16:19 post as seen above, in which I say Flux has missed the point. Flux then called me out on this, posting... (start of second Flux post) <Included in the commentary I quoted are these paragraph: “By pointing out that his opponents possess and display such an object within the Temple grounds (21:23), Jesus seems to raise, not lower, the stakes of the conversation about money and human loyalty. The issue at stake here is nothing less than idolatry. (And this is not a problem that we can solve simply by printing different words on our currency — even words that confess our trust in God.)” “One thing, at least, seems clear: Jesus is not solving the dilemma by carving out separate domains of human loyalty. For every character in the story, and for each of us who still bother to read and ponder it, one absolute commitment subsumes and relativizes all other commitments. Whatever we render unto Caesar, or to the retirement fund, or to the offering basket at church, we can never afford to forget this: we belong entirely to God. We may divide our budget, but we must never divide our allegiance.”> (End of second Flux post) Perhaps the commentary he uses says that. I don't know. But what I do know is that these words were not included in his original post. This second post is, in fact, an admission that his first post was deficient. Just as I said it was. It's good to get that agreement, however backhanded. But he has to get in a bite as retaliation... "I see the rest of your post is an excerpt from one of your books in which you appear to be trying to rewrite the Holy Bible. I can just shake my head at the arrogance and disrespect for God’s Holy Word that led you to do that." Yes. Such arrogance! I write fiction which sometimes includes Biblical themes, just like literally millions of books put out every year by Grand Rapids, Zondervan, etc! I even have the arrogance to use my own words, just as J. B. Phillips and the writers of the 'Good News Bible' did even as they called their paraphrases 'The Bible', rather than (as I do) a fiction that refers to the Bible. Nobody who knows anything about the Bible would call these 'translations', but more strength to their arms for bringing the message to a demographic that might not otherwise get that message. But I am labelled 'arrogant' for calling my own paraphrase 'fiction! Yes, how disrespectful, to make the meaning clear to all in the vernacular of our times. Just as the New Testament writers used the colloquial Greek of their own times rather than 'sacred' Hebrew! Flux clearly prefers the Authorised Version, which is archaic in language as well as based on Erasmus' work culminating in the Textus Receptus in the year 1516. Certainly an improvement on the Vulgate, but much less reliable than modern translations based on better source manuscripts unknown in Erasmus' day. It would seem that Professor Flux 'loves the Holy Bible' only so long as he remains the sole arbiter of how the message of that Holy Bible is expressed. No wonder his club has such a huge membership! The Faithful are flocking to him! >> I can’t imagine (nor do I want to) how petty and mean-spirited someone would have to be to spend this much time and energy in an effort to prove someone “wrong.” I offered commentaries on what Jesus meant when he said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” and my own view of that verse in *a different thread* in my club entitled, “The Pharisees Try To Trick Jesus,” which you would have known *had you asked* instead of jumping to your (false) conclusion from a position of ignorance that I had told “a flat lie.” I then posted (hours later) the account of Jesus’ view of taxes in a separate thread entitled “How Jesus Pays Taxes.” Apparently this was the only thread you saw. I’d refer you to the thread entitled, “The Pharisees Try To Trick Jesus” for a more expansive look at what Jesus meant when he said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” That thread preceded the thread you cited. But more importantly, why you’re making such a big deal out of this and being so petty and argumentative is beyond me - unless you’re still trying to impress the atheists on here by attacking Christians. If you’re that interested in sharing your views on the Holy Bible (the real one, not the one you’re writing,) you certainly don’t need to use attacking me as an excuse to post your thoughts. I’m sure the atheists will let you post your thoughts on the Bible without including attacks on me. Or will they? Bottom line: You missed the thread, “The Pharisees Try To Trick Jesus” where I posted about the Caesar quote in much greater depth than the thread you saw, where I only referenced it. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Jul-21, 22:29 |
I just chose one name by pure chance, but one from my country, and the talk he performed explained it all. At the same time, it truly depressed me. I know, it is crazy to be depressed by issues such as this. Flux presents himself as professor, which is obviously just a joke and referring to me. To my understanding he has no scientific training, and I wonder if he has any professional training at all. He thinks this doesn't matter as long as you quote scientists. That is a joke! Cherry-picking and interpreting scientists' opinions by an amateur who is also a fanatic Christian is all it takes.>> You just can’t stop with the name calling; that’s what’s depressing. I had no idea you were a professor when I called myself one so, no, it was not intended as a reference to you. But rather than debate substance, you seem to want to offer insults and misrepresentations. Can we agree that the theory of evolution has never been shown to add new information to the gene pool? Do you plan on providing citations or links to scientific publications to support your view that one species has turned into another species through evolution? What do you think the definition of a species is? Has that definition changed over the years or decades to accommodate the theory of evolution? These are just some of the questions that ought to be addressed if you want to have a meaningful discussion. You accuse me of “cherry picking” while at the same time, you write this: “I just chose one name by pure chance, but one from my country, and the talk he performed explained it all.” So who is doing the cherry picking? You chose one name from a list of more than 1,000 and “the talk he performed explained it all.” That doesn’t sound like a scientific way to reach a conclusion. If you want to discuss substance, that’s fine. But it appears you either don’t, or can’t, so have resorted to name calling and false accusations. Feel free to ignore the evolution threads I started if they upset you so much. It’s clear your mind is made up, so why trouble yourself? If two indispensable claims of the theory of evolution - that it can add new information to the gene pool and that it can turn one species into another species - haven’t been shown to be true, the theory is not credible. Changes within a species (micro evolution) are not the same as one species turning into another species (macro evolution.) And rearranging existing information in the gene pool is not the same as creating new information. I suggest you read the excerpts from Dr. Pitman posted in the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread. Or read the whole article, as I provided a link. And I’m just getting started with posting flaws and problems with the theory. Plenty more to come. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Jul-21, 00:02 |
You spent a great deal of time trying to “get” me in your last post about me and falsely claimed I told a “flat lie.” When I showed you how you had missed a thread that contained the information you claimed was lacking, you now respond with more nonsense and seem genuinely concerned (I would say overly concerned) with what people think of you. Why don’t you spend some time reading the Holy Bible and praying instead of attacking me, particularly since you’re not very good at it? I would suggest your insults and false accusations don’t demonstrate a mature faith at all. Are you walking in the Spirit or in the flesh, Bob? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Jul-21, 00:22 |
Totally agree. <<What EVIDENCE convinced all these esteemed scientists that there is a better explanation that has so far been kept from public gaze?>> Did you read the dissentfromdarwin.org mission statement? If you did, you don’t seem to have understood it. Those more than 1,000 scientists are not saying there is a “better explanation that has so far been kept from public gaze,” nor should they have to. Why are evolutionists so afraid to have the theory of evolution scrutinized? Here is the dissentfromdarwin.org mission statement: “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism ‘We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.’ ‘There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.’ ” dissentfromdarwin.org <<Until someone can propose another alternative, the only theories on the table are Evolution or some form of Creationism. Until Flux reveals his 'third way', or alternatively produces convincing evidence in favour of Creationism, Evolution wins by default.>> That’s not very scientific reasoning. So you’ve been reduced to saying the theory of evolution is true, not because of evidence, but because it’s the theory that seems (in your view) to be the most plausible? What happened to looking at evidence? Have evolutionists become so intellectually lazy that they’re incapable of debating? Bob, you told me in a PM that you believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ, you believe He performed the miracles listed in the Gospels and you believe He was Resurrected. If you were telling me the truth about what you believe, how is it such a stretch in your mind that the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, that the God who performed all those miracles is incapable of creating the universe? You seem to be either genuinely confused or at loggerheads with yourself. <<When will you tell us your 'third way', Professor? In the eternal 'soon'?>> I’m focusing on all the flaws with the theory of evolution and have just gotten started. Why are you (and others) so terrified to have that theory scrutinized? I can understand why atheists would be terrified, but a Christian? Strange. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Jul-21, 00:45 |
"I didn't tell a lie! I really DID tell the truth, but in a different place where you didn't hear it." There will be NO prize for the first correct answer.>> You’re revealing more and more of your character, Bob. It’s really becoming embarrassing. From here on out, I’m only going to respond to substantive posts on the theory of evolution - specifically evidence, preferably with citations from scientific publications, that show evolution can add new information to the gene pool and can turn one species into another species (along with a definition of species and whether that definition has changed over the years/decades to accommodate the theory of evolution.) The fact that you and stalhandske are resorting to insults, mockery, misrepresentations of what I’ve posted and false accusations tells you’re incapable of engaging in a substantive debate. How you’re behaving, Bob, is really pretty sad. I expect it from atheists, but you say on your profile page that you are a “rusted-on Christian.” Maybe it’s time to get the rust off. Spend time reading the Holy Bible and praying. Have a heart of gratitude for all God has done for you. Put away your foolish pride and stop being so concerned with what people think of you. Find your security in God, not in the approval of atheists. Take care. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Jul-21, 21:12 |
It is ironic that Flux has accused me of 'arrogance' because I try to explain a Biblical passage on the basis of what the original writer would have known; yet this same Flux approves of someone reading into the Scripture a meaning that the original writer did NOT know; who claims to know BETTER than even the original writer did. I leave it to the Gentle Reader to decide which is the more arrogant approach. In summary, I hold to the 'historical-critical' approach to understanding the Bible. It is an intellectually rigorous discipline, using all available data to determine 'most probable' meanings, without ever asserting absolute confidence. New data could demand a new assessment. Not very satisfying for those who want absolute confidence in every detail, but it is the best we mere humans can manage. Only God knows the whole truth. But Flux seems to claim 'special insight', if not for himself as to the Bible, then 'special insight' for himself as to which modern writer has this 'special insight' into the Bible.>> Bob, do you believe the Holy Bible was written by men *under the guidance, inspiration and control of God’s Holy Spirit* as I clearly stated at the bottom of the post you’re referring to? The reason men were able to write prophecies of future events in the Bible was due to their being directed by God’s Holy Spirit. How do you think prophets were able to say centuries beforehand where the Messiah would be born, when He would be born, that He would be born of a virgin, that He would die for the sins of mankind, what His lineage would be, etc. They had that knowledge from God’s Holy Spirit, just as many prophets in the Old Testament correctly foretold what would happen in non-Messianic matters. You simply cannot discount God’s influence on the men who wrote the Holy Bible (and therefore on the Bible itself.) I’m pretty surprised you don’t seem to know that. We don’t know who wrote the book of Job, but whoever it was clearly wrote it under the guidance, inspiration and control of God’s Holy Spirit due to information in the passages I cited being unknown at that time to man (but not to God.) Your earlier paragraphs are simply you spewing more dishonest hate. I really wonder, Bob, how “mature” your faith is when you regularly attack Christians, bear false witness, seem unable to engage in a debate with a Christian without resorting to insults, and possess an honestly bizarre obsequiousness and submissiveness toward atheists. And FWIW, this is the first time I’ve related science and the Bible and I’ve never talked about the Creation account in Genesis (despite your pleading me to) so anything you attribute to me regarding those issues is from your imagination. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Jul-21, 22:19 |
2) Cite an example, in the fossil record or in real time, of one species evolving into an entirely separate species after first defining the word “species” and stating whether that definition has changed over the last five decades. 3) Darwin said the number of “intermediate varieties” (transitional forms) must be “truly enormous” if his theory is true. State the percentage of fossils that have been found that represent “intermediate varieties.” 4) How do you explain “orphan genes,” which are said to make up 10 percent to 30 percent of all genes in a genome? (See Part 3 in the thread, “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage.”)> What's the use of discussing this when at least the three first paragraphs have been thoroughly discussed before? It is only that 'prof' Flux ignores any and all responses that he dislikes.>> <1) New information seems mostly to be added by recombination of building blocks of old structures spiced with relatively few mutations. The development of the human eye is one example, development of the bacterial flagellae another and evolution of the rotary ATP synthase a third.> I respect and appreciate your taking the time to answer. All due respect, this is a very ambiguous answer. “Mostly,” “spiced with” “relatively few” are the kind of vague generalities that have allowed the theory of evolution to survive long past its expiration date. I asked for an experiment or study that proved evolution could add new information to the gene pool. Your colleague, Frank Reynolds, from whom you solicited an opinion on this question and whose opinion you dubbed “very honest,” wrote to you: “No one has yet seen the emergence of a truly novel structure, or a new morphology, in the lab.” Do you disagree with his statement? If you do, how/why do you determine the three examples you cited were the result of new information and not rearranging existing information? I think you and I both agree that new information is different than rearranging existing information. If evolution cannot add new information to the gene pool, where does it come from? For example, what are your thoughts on this excerpt (i.e. do you agree with it?) “…blue eyes are a mutation. This mutation in eye color is only possible because the genes that code for eye pigmentation are there. But fish – of which many evolutionists argue some mammals, including humans, came from – cannot develop uteruses and other mammal specific traits because the genes that code for a uterus are not there. A mammal’s uterus is capable of mutating in various ways because the genes that code for the uterus are there. But an organism that does not have genes that code for a uterus cannot randomly develop one, because the genes that code for the uterus are not there. Natural selection is real, but it can only work with genes that are already present.” <<2) Species has been defined and need no redefinition.>> What is the scientific definition of species? <<There are numerous examples in the fossil record (as combined with information from genetics). One is the evolution of whales and hippopotamus from a common ancestor>> Could you cite the studies or scientific publications in which this is discussed? <<3) There is an enormous number of 'intermediate variety' in the fossils recorded so far. Examples from the evlution of whales, and why not from the evolution of H. sapiens.>> I’d like to go into more depth on this. Can you provide sources? One of the problems with determining how many, if any, intermediate varieties exist in the fossil record is that no one seems to have a concrete answer. Instead, we’re left with “many,” “some,” “a few” or “none.” That’s why I’m asking for your definition of species and your sources. I’d like to see if there is a universally agreed-upon definition of species and be able to read on my own the material you are relying on that says an “enormous number” of intermediate varieties exist in the fossil record. I haven’t heard the number described as “enormous” anywhere. <<4) There are several possible explanations of orphan genes, all of which may be true simultaneously.>> What are they? <<This query hardly has a single unique answer.>> What are some of the answers? <>It is notable that the structural genes that code for the vast majority of metabolism and other primary biological functions do not belong to this group>> That is interesting. But the percentage of orphan genes relative to total genes in a genome (as cited in the article) seems high. Do you think 10 percent to 30 percent is high? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Jul-21, 00:31 |
I think my reply to your first response was entirely reasonable. <<I have very bad experience of this from the past, but I have retained my hope.>> I have had bad experiences in the past also, having been subject to name calling, insults and misrepresentations of what I have said and what I believe. But I have retained a small measure of hope. <<<1) New information seems mostly to be added by recombination of building blocks of old structures spiced with relatively few mutations. The development of the human eye is one example, development of the bacterial flagellae another and evolution of the rotary ATP synthase a third.>>> <<I respect and appreciate your taking the time to answer. All due respect, this is a very ambiguous answer. “Mostly,” “spiced with” “relatively few” are the kind of vague generalities that have allowed the theory of evolution to survive long past its expiration date. I asked for an experiment or study that proved evolution could add new information to the gene pool. Your colleague, Frank Reynolds, from whom you solicited an opinion on this question and whose opinion you dubbed “very honest,” wrote to you: “No one has yet seen the emergence of a truly novel structure, or a new morphology, in the lab.” Do you disagree with his statement? If you do, how/why do you determine the three examples you cited were the result of new information and not rearranging existing information? I think you and I both agree that new information is different than rearranging existing information. If evolution cannot add new information to the gene pool, where does it come from?>> <Well, first of all, let's credit the man with his real name, Dr. Frank Harold (92).> Yes, that’s appropriate. I wasn’t aware if he was “Dr.” or “Mr.” and so chose the safest option in just using his first and last name. <My answer wasn't ambiguous and 'mostly' and 'spiced with' (if understood constructively) were accurate descriptions at the present level of discussion.> Ok, I just prefer more specificity. <As to Harold's opinion '“No one has yet seen the emergence of a truly novel structure, or a new morphology, in the lab.”, and your further comment after that, I am not quite sure whether you understand what you are talking about.> Ok, let’s explore this. <<"how/why do you determine the three examples you cited were the result of new information and not rearranging existing information?">> <This is where you don't seem to get the point (I don't know if this is intentional, or just lack of understanding). Rearrangement of existing structures (and their genes) for an entirely different function IS gaining entirely new information!> I totally disagree and think a good explanation for why I disagree can be found in the paragraph I cited a little later which I will re-post now: “…blue eyes are a mutation. This mutation in eye color is only possible because the genes that code for eye pigmentation are there. But fish – of which many evolutionists argue some mammals, including humans, came from – cannot develop uteruses and other mammal specific traits because the genes that code for a uterus are not there. A mammal’s uterus is capable of mutating in various ways because the genes that code for the uterus are there. But an organism that does not have genes that code for a uterus cannot randomly develop one, because the genes that code for the uterus are not there. Natural selection is real, but it can only work with genes that are already present.” <It is tinkering with smaller pieces of a mechano designed for entirely different purposes, but putting them together for something entirely new. About 'spiced with mutations', I was just pointing out that such tinkering has been accompanied by point mutations in the different parts in order to make them optimal for the entirely new function!> Please see re-quoted paragraph above. If genes that code for a specific function are not already present, I fail to see how simply rearranging existing genes that do not have the ability to produce a certain function can produce that function. <<For example, what are your thoughts on this excerpt (i.e. do you agree with it?) “…blue eyes are a mutation. This mutation in eye color is only possible because the genes that code for eye pigmentation are there. But fish – of which many evolutionists argue some mammals, including humans, came from – cannot develop uteruses and other mammal specific traits because the genes that code for a uterus are not there. A mammal’s uterus is capable of mutating in various ways because the genes that code for the uterus are there. But an organism that does not have genes that code for a uterus cannot randomly develop one, because the genes that code for the uterus are not there. Natural selection is real, but it can only work with genes that are already present.”>> <I just gave an example of this!> I think you addressed how a new function or characteristic can develop if genes that code for that function or characteristic already are present. But what if the genes for a new function (like a uterus) are not already there? Can evolution add new information (genes) to the gene pool so a new function (such as a uterus) can be created? <<<2) Species has been defined and need no redefinition.>>> <<What is the scientific definition of species?>> <from Wikipedia: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.> Thank you. So species are defined based on ability to breed with each other. <<<There are numerous examples in the fossil record (as combined with information from genetics). One is the evolution of whales and hippopotamus from a common ancestor>>> <<Could you cite the studies or scientific publications in which this is discussed?>> <I won't go through that trouble.The issue has been nicely covered on the web WITH proper references, so helpyourself!> Ok. <<<3) There is an enormous number of 'intermediate variety' in the fossils recorded so far. Examples from the evlution of whales, and why not from the evolution of H. sapiens.>>> <<I’d like to go into more depth on this. Can you provide sources? One of the problems with determining how many, if any, intermediate varieties exist in the fossil record is that no one seems to have a concrete answer. Instead, we’re left with “many,” “some,” “a few” or “none.”>> <I am not sure whether these numbers have been properly counted and compared. The point is that there definitely are MANY! And that should be enough to quiet claims to make the entire theory garbage!> It’s not enough to quiet claims about the theory not being credible until the quantity and identity of the intermediate varieties are stated. Lack of scrutiny, lack of specificity and vague generalities are why the theory of evolution still survives today (imo.) <<<4) There are several possible explanations of orphan genes, all of which may be true simultaneously.>>> <<What are they?>> <This is not a biology lesson: Look it up. It is all over the Internet (and of course the specialised literature)> I will attempt to find an explanation for orphan genes on the Internet. <<<It is notable that the structural genes that code for the vast majority of metabolism and other primary biological functions do not belong to this group>>> <<That is interesting. But the percentage of orphan genes relative to total genes in a genome (as cited in the article) seems high. Do you think 10 percent to 30 percent is high? >> <This percentage varies drastically with species and organ. 10-30 % of all indeed sounds 'high', so whatt?> Not knowing what the explanations are for orphan genes, I’ll wait to determine if your “So what?” answer is appropriate. Thanks for your replies! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Jul-21, 11:40 |
Yes, and it’s appreciated! Thank you! <<<Well, first of all, let's credit the man with his real name, Dr. Frank Harold (92).>>> <<Yes, that’s appropriate. I wasn’t aware if he was “Dr.” or “Mr.” and so chose the safest option in just using his first and last name.>> <Except that you got his last name wrong calling him Reynolds instead of Harold. I'd call that sloppy.> I agree and my apologies. I obviously must have known a Frank Reynolds in the past and that last name was in my mind after I typed Frank. I will be more careful in the future. <<My answer wasn't ambiguous and 'mostly' and 'spiced with' (if understood constructively) were accurate descriptions at the present level of discussion.>> <Ok, I just prefer more specificity.> OK, I will try again (below) <<As to Harold's opinion '“No one has yet seen the emergence of a truly novel structure, or a new morphology, in the lab.”, and your further comment after that, I am not quite sure whether you understand what you are talking about.>> <Ok, let’s explore this.> <<<"how/why do you determine the three examples you cited were the result of new information and not rearranging existing information?">>> <<This is where you don't seem to get the point (I don't know if this is intentional, or just lack of understanding). Rearrangement of existing structures (and their genes) for an entirely different function IS gaining entirely new information!>> <I totally disagree and think a good explanation for why I disagree can be found in the paragraph I cited a little later which I will re-post now:> <Before going into your 'blue eyes example', let me make the point clearer, or at least try: Let's take structural genes A, B, C.....Z which code for proteins a, b, c ....z with very specific mostly catalytic (but also other) functions, a', b', c' ....z'. Those functions are all chemical-physical reactions that would not occur (or would occur extremely slowly) in the absence of the respective catalyst. It is important to understand that the genes specify the sequence and the specificity of how the 20 different amino acids are inserted into basically a linear array. However, the sequence and the different chemical properties of the 20 amino acids available will also determine the folding, the 3D structure, of the resulting catayst protein, which is essential for its final catalytic function. So, these genes (A....Z) contain information sufficient to establish functions (a....z). So, how does an entirely new physicochemical function (alpha) evolve? Well, it turns out (from concrete examples) that Nature does that by tinkering with the available 'information'. So, by suitable combination of proteins a, b, c....z, for example to complexes ab, cd, etc catalysis of entirely new physicochemical reactions evolves. Often enough, such 'recombination' is subsequently - in time - refined by point mutations in the A, B, C and D genes in order to optimise the new system for the new function. One may even follow such 'refinements' over evolutionary time! This is how - for example - the principle of the rotary ATP synthase machinery is re-utilised in another molecular machine that functions as a 'typing correction device' that physically runs along nucleic acid sequences checking for and correcting errors. Or, in yet another 'machine' that functions as a propeller in order to move bacteria (flagellar motor), or to move sperm cells like outboard engines.> Very much appreciate this explanation! Thank you! Are you saying, then, that all the genetic information from which all living beings would appear had to be present at the very beginning and that evolution simply reorganized all of that genetic information? The reason I ask is due to this man’s opinion, which was quoted in the “Debunking Evolution” article by John Michael Fischer: He wrote, "Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one." "During chemical evolution in prebiotic times and at the beginning of biological evolution, all those molecules of which every living being is built had to appear. But once life had started in the form of some primitive self-reproducing organism, further evolution had to proceed mainly through alterations of already existing compounds. New functions developed as new proteins appeared. But these were merely variations on previous themes. A sequence of a thousand nucleotides codes for a medium-sized protein. The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero. In organisms as complex and integrated as those that were already living a long time ago, creation of entirely new nucleotide sequences could not be of any importance in the production of new information." Perhaps this man’s statement is outdated? The man who made these statements is Francois Jacob. According to Mr. Fischer’s article, Mr. Jacob “won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965, along with two others, for discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis. He had joined the Institut Pasteur in 1950. He was appointed Laboratory Director there in 1956, then Head of the Department of Cell Genetics in 1960. In 1964 he was appointed Professor at the College de France, where a chair of Cell Genetics was created for him. He was Chairman of the Board of the Institut Pasteur from 1982 to 1988. The work of Francois Jacob dealt mainly with the genetic mechanisms existing in bacteria and bacteriophages, and with the biochemical effects of mutations.” Now if Mr. Jacob’s statement has since proven to be incorrect, I am curious how that was determined. Was it determined to be incorrect by experimentation or hypothesis? And if by the former, can you please cite the experiment that disproved what Mr. Jacob said? As you know, Mr. Fischer’s article is extremely long and I’ve only quoted the parts of it I have read so far, and I’m reading it from top to bottom. But just having scanned further down, Mr. Fischer goes into enormous detail on genetic reasons why the theory of evolution is incorrect and cites numerous scientists in his criticisms. Eventually, I’ll get to that, but I’m curious, at this point, if you agree with Mr. Jacob’s statement or whether you think that statement is outdated. Specifically, did all genetic information from which all living organisms were created have to be present in the very beginning and the intellectually-unguided process of evolution therefore was simply rearranging (tinkering with) that information? If all that information had to be present in the very beginning, where did it come from? Then there is this statement, which is more current than Mr. Jacob’s: “3) There is no evidence of evolution at the molecular level. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination (N.A. Takahata, Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans - Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics; vol 26, 1995, p34).” www.irishtimes.com And this one from “DNA Dictates Design,” which was written by a medical doctor specializing in Hematopathology, Clinical Pathology & Anatomic Pathology: “DNA may become corrupted, but the basic information package, built into the original genome of every plant and animal, guarantees descendant generations will replicate the unique living organisms of ancestor parents. Mutations degrade DNA, never adding new genetic information.” genesisfile.com The article from which the above excerpt appears is also extremely long and I have yet to read all of it. While I thank you for your explanation, I am curious if you believe Mr. Jacob’s assessment is correct, that all genetic information had to be present at the very beginning. Skipping ahead in the “DNA Dictates Design” article, from which the last excerpt was taken, I came across this curious passage: “Now factor in the length mandate. ‘Scientists have observed DNA strands forming naturally in the laboratory, but only in strands of up to 20 letters in length…After 20 letters of DNA come together, the DNA begins to break apart. ‘Simply put, long strands of DNA (hundreds of tens of thousands of letters long) do not form naturally because chemical properties of DNA prevent this.’ Then there’s the required sequence pattern. ‘The 18,000 DNA letters have to be lined up in a particular order to call for particular amino acids in a particular set of proteins for life to begin…The odds of winning the national Powerball Lottery every day for 365 days are 1/4,244 followed by 2,881 zeros… ‘The chances of DNA forming spontaneously with the proper letter sequence’ requires 10,837 zeros.21 Calculating the odds requires recognition of the number of genes to be reckoned with. Mycoplasma genitalium, with its 482 genes and 580,000 bases, may be the ‘simplest known self-reproducing life form.’ The genome of a mammal contains a string of ‘from two to four million’ symbols ‘…that would fill two thousand volumes—enough to take up a library shelf the length of a football field. All this is in the tiny chromosomes of each cell.’ Based on mathematical probability factors alone, ‘…any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050… ‘Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence… ‘Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000…This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations…’ However contrived the calculation, impossible still spells impossible! The mathematical odds against the process occurring accidentally, push computations over the edge. The already impossible eventually confronts the ultimate challenge of merging millions of cells into a cohesive living unit composed of a functioning conglomerate of tissues, organs, and systems.” genesisfile.com I am curious how likely you think it is that an intellectually unguided force (evolution) defied those kinds of odds to create the complexity of life we see today? And I’m aware of the “millions and millions of years” rejoinder evolutionists often use when questioned about probabilities, but these seem like unfathomably long odds. As this post is getting long, I will continue in a separate post… |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Jul-21, 11:54 |
The existing genes (or rather the proteins they encode) do not -as such - have such ability, but recombining them into larger units gives such new functions not available before, and are further refined later by point mutations. Just for completeness, there may also be tinkering with existing proteins (i.e. their genes) to make them smaller (cut them) and just use certain parts. This is helped by the genetic organisation of the structural genes encoding most proteins in more developed organisms: they aren't organised as single genes, but as pieces of those genes, which are then 'glued together' upon gene expression (protein synthesis).>> <<<I think you addressed how a new function or characteristic can develop if genes that code for that function or characteristic already are present. But what if the genes for a new function (like a uterus) are not already there? Can evolution add new information (genes) to the gene pool so a new function (such as a uterus) can be created?>>> <<What I just described above was simplified to concern the cellular level. Evoluton of a uterus brings us to the next level of organ development, but the principle of tinkering with available 'stuff' remains, as shown by the way the human eye is likely to have developed >> I think I’m still grappling with where all this genetic information originated from if the theory of evolution is simply rearranging it and the unfathomable odds that an intellectually-unguided force (evolution) could rearrange this information to create the complexity of life we see today, even given the lengths of time available. There is a very interesting exploration on the evolution of the eye which I don’t have time to post now but will try to tonight. Thank you again for your responses. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Jul-21, 11:59 |
I’m not sure this is a good analogy (at least on a practical level) because it assumes an intelligent force behind the re-assembling of letters (Shakespeare,) which evolution does not have, and it doesn’t account for how the 26 letters of the alphabet came into existence in the first place. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Jul-21, 14:18 |
I agree and from here on out, I’ll just quote your comment in double brackets, and, if need be, my comment that directly preceded it in triple brackets. <<<Very much appreciate this explanation! Thank you! Are you saying, then, that all the genetic information from which all living beings would appear had to be present at the very beginning and that evolution simply reorganized all of that genetic information? >>> <<I understand what you are worrying about. In pure terms of information theory (of which I am no expert), I'd answer in the affirmative.>> This obviously raises the question of where all this genetic information came from because we’re talking about a quantity sufficient to account for all living organisms. <<The potential is there as soon as the 'system' is capable of randomly using the chemical variability of the side chains of 20 different amino acids, most of which have quite different chemical properties. We could assess those separately at some point. If we look further into this, we will inevitably come to crucial questions of 'how it all started', i.e. what is called abiogenesis (or the origin of life). At this point I wish to stress that this part is NOT part of the theory of evolution. Just an analogy to the fact that the pre-requisites and prior states of the Big Bang are not part of the so-called Big Bang theory. All I am trying to say here is that those need to be discussed separately!>> Ok, understood. <<<The reason I ask is due to this man’s opinion, which was quoted in the “Debunking Evolution” article by John Michael Fischer:>>> <<<He wrote, "Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one.">>> <<Precisely! So let's analyse what Fisher says further:>> Just for clarity, the above quote was from Francois Jacob, not Mr. Fischer. Mr Fischer simply used Mr. Jacob’s quote in his (Fischer’s) article. <<<"During chemical evolution in prebiotic times and at the beginning of biological evolution, all those molecules of which every living being is built had to appear. But once life had started in the form of some primitive self-reproducing organism, further evolution had to proceed mainly through alterations of already existing compounds. New functions developed as new proteins appeared. But these were merely variations on previous themes.>>> <<OK>> <<< A sequence of a thousand nucleotides codes for a medium-sized protein. The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero. In organisms as complex and integrated as those that were already living a long time ago, creation of entirely new nucleotide sequences could not be of any importance in the production of new information.">>> <<<Perhaps this man’s statement is outdated?>>> <<This is still true in my opinion (probabiity of a de novo functional protein). I refer to what I said earlier about how entirelynew functions of catalytic proteins have been shown to evolve. This is not only true on the cell level but also on the organ and organism levels!>> Not sure if you are agreeing with that statement or disagreeing with it. But it sounds like you are agreeing with the sentence that begins, “The probability that a functional protein…” but disagreeing with the sentence that begins, “In organisms as complex and integrated…” Is that correct? <<< Specifically, did all genetic information from which all living organisms were created have to be present in the very beginning and the intellectually-unguided process of evolution therefore was simply rearranging (tinkering with) that information? If all that information had to be present in the very beginning, where did it come from?>>> <<Now we (by necessity) approach the beginning, i.e. 'abiogenesis'. As I've stated, we are now in a different realm altogether. And one that is no longer part of Darwin's evolution theory. I am willing to discuss this, too, but only if it is realised that we are changing subject.>> Ok, but I think your position requires that all genetic information (from which all life evolved) was not created by an evolutionary process, that the the enormous variety and complexity of life forms that exist today were created through evolution *rearranging existing material,* the source of which is unknown. Is that a fair statement of your position? <<<3) There is no evidence of evolution at the molecular level. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination (N.A. Takahata, Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans - Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics; vol 26, 1995, p34).”>>> <<I must say that this is simply untrue. There is an immense record of evolution at the molecular level. Certainly, some creative imagination is required to 'join the dots', but that is typical in science.>> I think we need to clarify definitions here. When you say, “There is an immense record of evolution at the molecular level” are you saying there is an immense record of evolution rearranging previously existing genetic information to create new functions? If so, was this record achieved through experimentation or hypothesis? <<<While I thank you for your explanation, I am curious if you believe Mr. Jacob’s assessment is correct, that all genetic information had to be present at the very beginning.>>> <<In some sense, yes (answered above)>> Ok. So my understanding is we can’t address where all that genetic information came from because that has to do with abiogenesis. So what we are left with, regarding this aspect of the theory of evolution, are the unfathomable odds of an intellectually-unguided process rearranging already existing genetic material to create the complexity of life we see today. Is that a fair statement of your position? <<<I am curious how likely you think it is that an intellectually unguided force (evolution) defied those kinds of odds to create the complexity of life we see today? >>> <<A very interesting question, but it is strictly speaking a question of abiogenesis, not evolution.>> I don’t think it’s a question of abiogenesis because the unfathomable odds pertain to evolution rearranging already existing genetic information by blind chance to create the complexity of life we see today. And let me repeat those odds from my prior post: “The 18,000 DNA letters have to be lined up in a particular order to call for particular amino acids in a particular set of proteins for life to begin…The odds of winning the national Powerball Lottery every day for 365 days are 1/4,244 followed by 2,881 zeros… ‘The chances of DNA forming spontaneously with the proper letter sequence’ requires 10,837 zeros.21 Calculating the odds requires recognition of the number of genes to be reckoned with. Mycoplasma genitalium, with its 482 genes and 580,000 bases, may be the ‘simplest known self-reproducing life form.’ The genome of a mammal contains a string of ‘from two to four million’ symbols ‘…that would fill two thousand volumes—enough to take up a library shelf the length of a football field. All this is in the tiny chromosomes of each cell.’ Based on mathematical probability factors alone, ‘…any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050… ‘Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence… ‘Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000…This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations…’ However contrived the calculation, impossible still spells impossible! The mathematical odds against the process occurring accidentally, push computations over the edge. The already impossible eventually confronts the ultimate challenge of merging millions of cells into a cohesive living unit composed of a functioning conglomerate of tissues, organs, and systems.” <<My spontaneous answer is: very unlikely! This is one of the reasons that I think we are pretty much among very few in the universe with this level of development (or higher). I know that here I am probably in a small minority among scientists.>> Then I take it that you disagree with this statement, which is based on the aforementioned odds: “Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000…This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations…’ “ Anyway, thank you for your replies. This is probably all I’m going to reply to today as I have non-Internet stuff to do and want to get to posting about the Holy Bible later today. Have a great day/evening, whatever time it is in Finland. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 25-Jul-21, 06:31 |
Me too, but Bob, one of your club members, seems to be perpetually angry. Perhaps he needs more fiber in his diet? BTW, I put in a request to change my screen name and was informed by GK it would take three days. Before that three-day waiting period had elapsed, you called me a fanatic and said something untrue about my postings so I cancelled the request. But I’ll be reinstituting the request before today ends. <<The only thing that disturbs me is your assessment of evolution theory as garbage, which it is clearly not.>> I think it has value and don’t dispute it as a way to explain changes within a species. But I don’t think it is credible as a way to explain the complexity of life we see today. <<I hope that - if anything at all - I have been able to convince you of that.>> My use of the word “garbage” in the title of this thread and another thread was harsh and if I had the opportunity to re-title this thread and the other one, I would not use that term because it is unnecessarily provocative and offensive. <<But if not, after these exchanges, then I will have to conclude that my input has been in vain and a waste of time,>> I wouldn’t say that. I am sure plenty of GK members appreciated your posts (as I did) and found them to be valuable and enlightening (as I did.) We just disagree, and I honestly don’t think we ever will agree on this subject. <<and I will stop. Note, that I am not demanding or even asking you to accept evolution theory - only to admit that your labelling of it as garbage was wrong.>> As I said, I would not have used that term if I had to do it over again because the term is offensive to those who believe the theory and unnecessarily provocative. If the theory is true (and I don’t think it is,) then obviously it’s not garbage. If the theory *as a way to explain the complexity of life* is false, I suppose it’s still not garbage because it has use (as far as I know) in explaining changes within a species. BTW, I received a challenge from you to play a chess game with you. You are obviously much higher rated than me and my inclination under other conditions would be to decline the request until I had fewer active games. But the title of the game leads me to accept the challenge, though I will not be moving quickly once we’re out of the opening. I haven’t opened the challenge to see if I’m black or white, but if I’m white, I (likely) won’t be playing the King’s Gambit if you respond with …e5 to my 1) e4. There’s a reason the King’s Gambit isn’t played by grandmasters today (at least not too grandmasters.) It’s not a very sound opening, but it’s a very enjoyable one to play. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 25-Jul-21, 06:55 |
Anyway, I accepted the challenge and will play the Sicilian Defense. Curious to see if we’ll be in an Open Sicilian or Closed Sicilian. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 25-Jul-21, 22:00 |
I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn numerous qualified sources disagree. I’ll post one of them tomorrow. <<and makes the all-important point I have tried to make now several times: 'It' almost certainly wasn't a 'jump' from nothing to complete organism,>> Nobody has made that claim. <<but a long sequence of partial events, each one 'probing it's way of being 'successful' or not.>> Yes, nobody thinks a single-celled bacterium sprang into a hippo overnight. <<This is almost certainly true for the events during abiogenesis, but it is also what almost certainly happened in the process where one species evolved into another very different one.>> There is no evidence for this, nor has this interesting passage from “Debunking Evolution,” a very long, scientifically-sourced article I’ve been posting excerpts from, been addressed: “What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in.” www.newgeology.us <<Creationists call the latter 'macroevolution' and deem it impossible. Flux seems to have a similar opinion>> Right. <<(although he does not seem to count himself to be a Creationist)>> Where did you get the idea that I’m not a Creationist? Because I don’t want to mix the theory of evolution and Creationism? The theory of evolution should stand or fall on its own. I’ve said that numerous times. <<<If the theory *as a way to explain the complexity of life* is false, I suppose it’s still not garbage because it has use (as far as I know) in explaining changes within a species.>>> <<Creationists have called this 'microevolution', and has accepted it (as Flux seems to do), which is good because it can be shown experimentally on a reasonable time scale.>> Right. <<Creationists seem to demand experimental support for 'macroevolution', but this is unreasonable as it almost certainly does not exist!>> Actually, I’d be happy to see any evidence for macroevolution. There’s more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for one species turning into a completely separate and distinct species through evolution. <<Instead, 'macroevolution' is the result of a very long series of partial changes, as discussed above.>> This statement has absolutely no evidentiary support. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Jul-21, 07:53 |
This is a lie. I told this individual, whom I regret having any communications with, that I am not a *young earth creationist.* I haven’t discussed creationism because I’m interested in discussing all the flaws with the theory of evolution and don’t want to mix the two together. It’s very interesting and sad that proponents of the theory of evolution never want to scrutinize it and when an attempt is made, they start with name calling, trolling and diversionary tactics. This lack of scrutiny has enabled this bogus theory to survive well past its expiration date. And while there is evidence that the universe was intelligently designed (by GOD,) there are obviously limitations to using natural means to explain a supernatural event. I’d ask that proponents of the theory of evolution stop stating my positions since you rarely get them right, and I believe you intentionally get them wrong to troll and provoke me. That says quite a bit about you, especially the individual who claims to be a “rusted-on Christian” and yet spends much of his time attacking and insulting Christians (but never atheists,) bearing false witness and disrespecting the Holy Bible by rewriting it as science fiction entertainment. Jesus Christ said you would know people by their fruit. What kind of fruit are you bearing, Bob? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Jul-21, 08:32 |
<<Flux is now writing proponents 'never want to scrutinize.....' just as if my entire efforts boild down to nothing. He also (still) calls evolution theory 'bogus'.>> I was speaking generally. But I will note that on one of the most interesting criticisms of the theory of evolution, we had this exchange: <<<4) There are several possible explanations of orphan genes, all of which may be true simultaneously.>>> <<What are they?>> <This is not a biology lesson: Look it up. It is all over the Internet (and of course the specialised literature)> Ditto when I requested specific examples (preferably with citations) of intermediate varieties in the fossil record. As to my calling the theory “bogus,” it is bogus as a means of explaining the complexity of life. I never said otherwise. I allowed that it may have some value as a means of explaining changes *within a species* but was not credible as a means of explaining the complexity of life. <<…I am through with this now.>> A pity. I will continue posting all the flaws with the theory of evolution. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Jul-21, 08:53 |
<<<There are numerous examples in the fossil record (as combined with information from genetics). One is the evolution of whales and hippopotamus from a common ancestor>>> <<Could you cite the studies or scientific publications in which this is discussed?>> <I won't go through that trouble.The issue has been nicely covered on the web WITH proper references, so helpyourself!> And isn’t it interesting that evolutionists can’t state how many intermediate varieties have been found in the fossil record? Instead, some say “a few,” some say “many” and some say the number is enormous. If there were concrete examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, one would think that number would have been quantified. This is why the theory of evolution has survived as long as it has. Its proponents don’t want to scrutinize it (which is their right) or have anyone else scrutinize it (which is not their right.) The theory of evolution is their religion and they kneel at the grave of Charles Darwin. Sick. And I’m not the only one who thinks evolutionists don’t want the theory to be scrutinized. An entire organization was established to push back against this purposeful lack of curiousity among scientists and mass media. Here is their mission statement and home page: “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism ‘We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.’ ‘There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.’ ” dissentfromdarwin.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Jul-21, 09:01 |
It's well known that Bible's lovers, on the contrary, scrutinize and criticize the holly book at every opportunity, always ready to question the subject>> And here, as if on cue, an evolutionist proves my point! The theory of evolution is the religion of atheists. But as I said previously, there is more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for the theory of evolution. Check the thread in my club entitled, “15 Logical Reasons To Believe The Resurrection” and, in the post below that article, statements by experts in evaluating evidence who investigated the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and determined it was true 👍👍 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Jul-21, 09:08 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 03:16 |
Apparently you ignored the very first article I posted in the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread, which addressed your explanation. “When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape. The first is to state that ‘it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution’ (they actually intend to say isolated, not closed, but we know what they mean). The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words ‘except for...’ are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study. If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the ‘walls’ of the system. There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system. Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them. However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature. For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems. Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed. For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it. You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows. Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed. If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form. In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless. The mechanism must be very specific. Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system. And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted. The ‘closed system’ ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter. Evolutionists also believe that chemical evolution could have started when a high-energy spark, like lightening, split molecules into radicals and ions that randomly combined with each other to produce the new, highly complex molecules their theory needs. They ignore the fact that, following the Second Law, it would also produce all other possible combinations of molecules, and many of these chemicals would work against chemical evolution. Without a sufficient concentration of the pure chemicals needed, with the proper chirality and ratios to each other, the main result would be a useless tar like what the famous Miller/Urey experiment produced in 1953. The second trick they use is to say that ‘when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?’ At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water. When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level. There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated. But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory. It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides needed to form a DNA molecule, or the hundreds of amino acids needed to form a protein molecule were able to combine from the mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. This is the problem of ‘chirality’, and evolutionists have never been able to solve it. Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open ‘system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.’ Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life. They thought he was their hero. Over thirty-five years later, nothing has come of it. There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and macroevolution.“ www.newgeology.us |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 03:48 |
Maybe he is reacting against being told to clean up his room when he was a child.>> What a pity you can’t disagree without being disagreeable. I guess your insults and mockery are evidence of your “mature faith.” <<I wonder how he ever starts a game of chess. Surely arranging the pieces on the board in the right configuration is a contravention of entropy, having only one chance in approx. 10 to the power 22 of happening by random.>> Surely you understand the difference between a human being setting up chess pieces to start a game and the chess pieces landing on their correct squares by chance. Your analogy proves the opposite of what you intended. I guess when you can’t debate substance, you fall back on cheap insults. Pretty sad, Bob. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 09:31 |
Again with the name calling? I guess David Gelernter, a highly respected Yale University professor, had it right when he wrote this: (I.D. is an abbreviation for Intelligent Design.) “Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.” “Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life.” claremontreviewofbooks.com <<Just so you know, this happens to be one of my scientific specialities. But evidently that doesn't concern you at all.>> I’m concerned with facts and evidence. There are many misguided scientists who cling to the theory of evolution like a security blanket because it’s such an important part of their worldview. To quote Gelernter again: “But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion.” And what of this? “An interview with Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said, ‘We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA.’ ‘The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.’ ” www.newgeology.us Is Dr. Benner a fool as well? You label me a “fool” for not blindly accepting something you say as indisputable truth. You label me a “fool” for asking questions and seeking the truth. Isn’t that what scientists are supposed to do? Your reaction to my asking for specific examples of intermediate varieties (transitional forms) in the fossil record is telling of your hubris and lack of curiousity on problems with the theory. You: “I am not sure whether these numbers have been properly counted and compared. The point is that there definitely are MANY! And that should be enough to quiet claims to make the entire theory garbage!” <<You see, no knowledgeable 'evolutionist' would state that the 2nd Law would apply only to 'closed systems'. It indeed applies 'to all systems and to all actions from molecules to galaxies'!>> Glad to hear you agree. The author of that article was citing what many (not all) evolutionists say in response to criticism that the theory of evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. <<You know, the only reason I took up discussion with you on 'evolution' was that your objections included some quite interesting phenomena that aren't easily explained at all. I initially thought (and really hoped) that we could approach those one by one, and see where the problems are.>> Yes, I attempted this with orphan genes, which has not been previously discussed on here, and we had this exchange: You: “There are several possible explanations of orphan genes, all of which may be true simultaneously.” Me: “What are they?” You: “This is not a biology lesson: Look it up. It is all over the Internet (and of course the specialised literature)” Ditto when I requested specific examples (preferably with citations) of intermediate varieties in the fossil record: You: “There are numerous examples in the fossil record (as combined with information from genetics). One is the evolution of whales and hippopotamus from a common ancestor” Me: “Could you cite the studies or scientific publications in which this is discussed?” You: “I won't go through that trouble.The issue has been nicely covered on the web WITH proper references, so helpyourself!” And also this exchange: You: “There is an enormous number of 'intermediate variety' in the fossils recorded so far. Examples from the evlution of whales, and why not from the evolution of H. sapiens.” Me: “I’d like to go into more depth on this. Can you provide sources? One of the problems with determining how many, if any, intermediate varieties exist in the fossil record is that no one seems to have a concrete answer. Instead, we’re left with “many,” “some,” “a few” or ‘none.’ ” You: “I am not sure whether these numbers have been properly counted and compared. The point is that there definitely are MANY! And that should be enough to quiet claims to make the entire theory garbage!” Me: “It’s not enough to quiet claims about the theory not being credible until the quantity and identity of the intermediate varieties are stated. Lack of scrutiny, lack of specificity and vague generalities are why the theory of evolution still survives today (imo.)” <<I had even challenged you to a chess game called 'A Handshake of Reconciliation' But very unfortunately, I was once again lured into a trap, so I resigned the game after 3 moves.>> I don’t know what trap you’re speaking of. I’m posting problems with the theory of evolution and citing the articles and sources. As to the chess game, what does a chess game have to do with a debate about the theory of evolution? I can disagree without being disagreeable - without name calling, insults and mockery - and I can play a chess game with someone I disagree with. It may not be a pleasant experience, but I’m still able to do it. <<I had really hoped that you would not be the one you had shown to be in earlier reincarnations, but I was wrong.>> Your assessment is incorrect but you’re entitled to your own opinion. Shouldn’t I be as well? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 09:38 |
Bob, are you serious with this statement or are you trolling? I sincerely hope you’re trolling because not to understand the difference between a human being setting up a chessboard and the 32 pieces landing on their correct squares by pure chance is staggering. The rest of your post is more of your cheap insults and not worth responding to. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 09:44 |
“The rest of your post is more of your *bearing false witness* and cheap insults and not worth responding to.” At this point, Bob, I just skim your posts when they concern me or anything I’ve said because so much of them are misrepresentations (purposeful, in my view,) flat-out lies and cheap insults. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 09:57 |
I think I have had enough now. Sad.>> I did respond to it with a fairly long post that included a statement from Dr. Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution. Either you didn’t read his statement or are misrepresenting my response to your post. I note that a grand total of seven minutes elapsed between my post at 9:31 and your response at 9:38. How carefully did you read that 9:31 post? Did you read it at all? You also barely addressed (and I suspect didn’t read) the post on the Second Law of Thermodynamics at 3:16. Sad indeed. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 11:38 |
Either you didn’t read his statement or are misrepresenting my response to your post. I note that a grand total of seven minutes elapsed between my post at 9:31 and your response at 9:38. How carefully did you read that 9:31 post? Did you read it at all? You also barely addressed (and I suspect didn’t read) the post on the Second Law of Thermodynamics at 3:16. Sad indeed. >>> <<Your response went beside the point. You have obviously completely misunderstood the 2nd Law, as shown by the very long statement starting with <“When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape....> The long statement by Benner included <If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy.> which is - again - something entirely different from what you had initially implied by the 2nd Law being incompatible with spontaneous decrease in entropy.>> I’m really not interested in debating what I said or didn’t say, what I understand or don’t understand, what I believe or don’t believe, etc. Why you (and other advocates of Darwin’s theory) have to personalize criticisms of the theory is, in my mind, evidence of how weak the theory really is (as more and more scientists are beginning to realize due to advances in science.) <<Andrew, I am not using name calling,>> Saying I’m a fool isn’t name calling? <<but it is quite evident that you don't understand these issues.>> That’s your opinion, but I’m citing articles and sources that do understand these issues and which explain them in understandable terms. And these sources believe the theory of evolution is no longer credible, which is really not surprising considering its central claim - that one species can turn into an entirely separate and distinct species through random mutation and natural selection - was proposed more than 150 years ago when science was nowhere near as advanced as it is today. And advances in science are not confirming Darwin’s theory, but refuting it. <<You mix them and booster yourself with fancy citations....which are not related to one another. THIS is what is sad. THIS is why you should at least honour the opinion of somebody whose speciality this is.>> Is there no one in your specialty who disagrees with you? Why do you (and others in your club continually say I said this and I said that when it’s actually eminently-qualified scientists who are making the statements and I’m simply citing them? I suggest an attempt to deceive is one explanation. <<No NOT my opinion about evolution, but the facts of basic thermodynamics!>> Have you responded to any of the arguments about why the theory of evolution is in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or are you spending most of your time attacking me? <<Please, be reasonable. And BTW, I only focussed on whether you replied to the actual question on the 2nd Law; everything else I just skimmed through, which is why the process did not take much time.>> So you’re responding to posts you don’t read. <<P.S. I think chess games should be fun. I optimistically named our game 'reconciliation handshake'.>> Yes, and in the game chat, you quickly pointed me to the Wikipedia link in your profile which stated the danger of accepting a handshake from your namesake. That certainly gave a different flavor to the title you placed on the chess game. <<Very quickly I then saw that I was grossly mistaken, which is why I cancelled the game.>> You didn’t cancel the game. You resigned, and I wish you hadn’t as I had no experience in the Wing Gambit of the Sicilian Defense and was looking forward to it. <<It was no longer fun, and the whole idea with it was gone.>> The idea of it, which you made clear in the game chat, was not reconciliation at all as you pointed me to the link in your profile that stated the dangers of accepting a handshake from your namesake. <<Sorry!>> I accept your apology. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 12:05 |
You stated your opinion and I stated the opinions of eminently-qualified scientists who think there is. But if you want to continue avoiding substance and instead focusing on me, that’s fine. But don’t expect me in the future to waste my time replying. Have a good day. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Jul-21, 14:06 |
Not when you call them a fool and intentionally misrepresent what they have said. That’s not good manners at all. <<I KNOW that you are only quoting others. Your problem is (and it is YOUR problem) that you have totally misunderstood those eminent scientists that you cited.>> Really? I misunderstood their conclusions? All of the scientists I’ve quoted think the theory of evolution is credible? <<The citations themselves are correct, often in verbatim, but the conclusion drawn by you about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is unfortunately totally mistaken.>> The conclusions are drawn by scientists! Do you think the scientists I’ve quoted just state information and do not give conclusions? <<This is not just an opinion of mine; it is absolute fact!>> Wrong. It is not fact. <<Also, I have certainly not avoided substance,>> You refuse to discuss (or even present) an explanation for orphan genes; you refuse to give specific examples of intermediate varieties (transitional forms) in the fossil record and admit you don’t know how many there are, but insist the number is enormous; your own colleague, whom you quoted, stated evolution has not been shown to produce new genetic information, which led you to the absurd position that all genetic information had to be present at the very beginning and evolution simply rearranged it; you fail to appreciate (or perhaps understand) the unfathomably long (read: impossible) odds that random mutations (most of which are not beneficial) and natural selection could account for the complexity of life we see today, and on and on and on. And I haven’t even scratched the surface of flaws with Darwin’s theory. <<but defined quite precisely what the 2nd Law means, and under what circumstances it readily allows local decreases in entropy. This is precisely the point you are denying, but only because you fail to understand thermodynamics.>> You did not respond at all to the scientists who concluded that evolution was in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You want to personalize this point because (I suspect) you can’t respond to those scientists’ conclusions. <<You seem to be of the same 'opinion' as declared in the conservapedia that dmaestro kindly provided, viz. <The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the atheistic Theory of Evolution and Theory of Relativity, both of which deny a fundamental uncertainty to the physical world that leads to increasing disorder.> This is - to put it very bluntly - mere bull's excrements.>> I have never cited, nor have I read, the conservapedia article that dmaestro cited, but that was kind of him to provide a straw man for you. <<And you are very welcome not to reply, I really don't care any longer.>> Nor do I. You’re pulling the same debate tactic you have pulled in the past (and not just with me.) Whenever a debate isn’t going the way you’d like, you feign outrage and storm away in a manufactured huff. I could have predicted this weeks ago. <<I did for a while, because I thought it was a pity that you threw away good intentions on bad premises and wanted to help. As I said before, some of the questions in evolution theory are problematic and worth further discussion and study.>> Such as? Sadly you never identified them. <<But such work should be done by others.>> Yes, others who are more deferential and willing to blindly accept your opinion. That ain’t me, pardner. |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
