RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: An Educated Creationist!, Sorf of< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:26   

Quote
I use the word hypothesis because Evolution, as forwarded by Darwin and modified over the years, doesn't actually rise to the level of Scientific Theory and therefore does not deserve the title. But back to my main point.

The only outcome predicted by Evolution is that all organisms will eventually become other organisms and increase the diversity of the biosphere...that's it. Not exactly useful information without the hows the whens and the whys, conveniently left out of the hypothesis. Luckily, medical science does not need of Evolution in order to proceed in developing new tools.

Quote
Mistake number two is in how Evolutionists argue against valid criticisms...they don't. They usually wait until everything has been forgotten and then make statements like “that old argument again? That was disproved long ago.” This criticism has not gone away and is still used by prominent anti-evolutionists such as Dr. William A. Dembski and Dr. Henry M. Morris, just to name two. Evolutionists must actually answer the criticisms leveled against their theory, or abandon it. Science does not require that another theory immediately take it's place, we can keep studying biology quite well without it.

It is truly sad that scientific illiteracy exists at the level it does. Perhaps when enough people become educated not only to what science actually knows, but also how it is supposed to work, then the religion of Evolution that has been foisted upon Science can finally be put to bed.


http://evolutionistsnightmare.blogspot.com/

There's some stuff too about how proteins are impossible, or some such. I wonder if he'll come over to defend the above! Or maybe it's just a hoax blog.....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:38   

Personally I advocate an invite.

I mean, it looks doubtful he'll be another FtK or AirheadDave.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:49   

I put a comment in one of his threads with a link to this thread. Here's hoping.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:55   

While his conclusions may be wrong, it looks like he has at least some familiarity with science, putting him way above FtK or AFDave. He might make for some interesting conversation.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,18:59   

Quote

The problem here is the second law doesn't say that. It only says entropy must increase in any closed system without energy coming to that system from an external source. Fortunately, our planet is not such a closed system, as we have a very abundant source of energy not too far away (the sun). It's sad to see this old creationist chestnut hasn't gone extinct yet (though I know of no prominent advocates of intelligent design who push this line anymore; they know better).


While he might technically be correct, this line is pushed on William Dembski's website, with no repudiation from the prominent Mr. Dembski.

I would provide links, but Dembski's site is down again. When it comes back up, just search for Granville Sewell. You'll find some Second Law gibberish.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,19:10   

UncommonDescent is back up. Here are the IDists pretending not to use the 2nd Law arguments, but then turning around and using them.

Here's Dembski with a 4th Law of Thermodynamics that evolution violates

And here's Salvador with some unholy word salad, also on Dembski's site, also about the SLoT:

Quote
The ISCID discussion board would be a good place to discuss those issues. Sources of entropy, such as the 2nd law will increase K-complexity in informatic structures that permit entropy to affect the sybolic content in a significant way. But from mathematical considerations alone, that would tend to erode “specified improbability” out of the system, especially structures that might be characterized as obeying rules of formal grammars.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....ely-won

And here's Sewell making some straight up 'evolution violates the SLoT' claims, again on Dembski's website. Sewell kind of claims that he's not exactly talking about the SLoT, but "Sewell's Law", which the SLoT is a special case of, in his fevered imagination.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,20:01   

I see I said things that might have offended our prospective Creationist. Awwww.

Well, maybe if he comes here he can enlighten us further on the wicked Religion of Evolution he so kindly wants to save science from.

Quote
These are the thoughts, writings, and ideas of a Conservative Christian Quasi-Scientist who lives in Birmingham, Alabama.


I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,21:36   

Educated Creo = Oxymoron

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoron

That there Creo having some book-learnen', don't make the dad-gummed idjit educated!

Look at that Dembski fellow... lots of degrees, ain't got a lick o' sense.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,22:25   

Wow, I'm kind of flattered.  My blog site has not been up long.  Thank you for inviting me.  Now, as they say, on with the show!

Proteins, as they are used in living cells, cannot form from simple amino acids (without help from a skilled organic chemist). An amino acid: (1) is at a lower energy state than even a polypeptide (2) has water that must be removed carefully (it just can't be "boiled" off) and (3) when actually joined together in simple polypeptides, do not have the correct shape (tertiary structure) which would allow it to do anything useful. These facts are not in debate in any Organic Chemistry class.

There have been several experimental attempts to create proteins from amino acids. Most add energy in the way of UV or electromagnetic discharge, and then attempt to remove water through a process of drying in between clay "sheets". All fail miserably. Nothing but useless, random, polypeptide chains. And we haven't even spoken about the fact that proteins created by life all use L isomers, never D isomers, even though the amino acids form in both versions on about a 50%/50% ratio.

I will get to this site often and debate you directly, but I also enjoy seeing posts to my site. So consider yourself welcome. A "hoax blog(ger)" I am not.

While this site is called "antievolution.org", you seem to be batting for the other team. And while I don't know ftk or AFDave, I welcome the gauntlet you seem to have thrown down.

Yes, Stevestory, I have a large familiarity with Science. While research or teaching is no longer how I make a living, three colleges did a good job training me.  By the way:

"The problem here is the second law doesn't say that. It only says entropy must increase in any closed system without energy coming to that system from an external source. Fortunately, our planet is not such a closed system, as we have a very abundant source of energy not too far away (the sun). It's sad to see this old creationist chestnut hasn't gone extinct yet (though I know of no prominent advocates of intelligent design who push this line anymore; they know better)."

is not my quote.  I was quoting a letter from the Birmingham News.  My statement against his is this:

"Mr. Hendley joins a long list of evolutionists who have made two mistakes concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics. Creating amino acids in a laboratory from energy-rich precursors shows nothing more than that the scientist is skilled and that the Laws still hold true. Unfortunately, creating proteins, RNA, or DNA is absolutely impossible from amino acids, which are energy-poor compared with those macromolecules. No amount of hand-waving, superficial references to Open-system Thermodynamics will help. You can add as much energy as you like to the system from an outside source, and you will always end up with nothing more than a random polypeptide, if you're lucky (goo, for those who did not go through organic chemistry), never a usable protein. The reason is that the energy must be coupled in some way, which has never been shown to exist. A common analogy is that a house cannot be built using a pile of bricks and some TNT. Then there is the statistics to consider, but I won't bore anyone with the math here."

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,22:59   

Another thought:

While I do advocate keeping religion and science essentially seperate, the worldview (or belief system, if you like) of a scientist will have a dramatic impact on his theories, presumptions, and conclusions.  It is unfortunately impossible to completly divorce science from the effects of a worldview.  Evolution is part of a worldview which has no place for God.

Emperical science cannot comment upon anything except that which can be observed under controlled conditions - repeatedly.  Singular events are out of bounds.  The "soft" sciences of anthropology, paleontology, and such, try to make conclusions based largely upon singular, unrepeatable events - a daunting task, and one which is bound to make massive mistakes.

Evolution, on the other hand, has taken a partially observed event (the change in beak size of the Galapagos Finches) and extrapolated a conclusion, out of thin air, about an unobservable event (animals, through mutations and selection pressures, change into other animals).  This is not only out-of-bounds, it is playing a different game.

From there the unprovable assertion is made that God does not exist.  That right there is where a religion is formed.  It is a statement of belief when I say "God exists".  It is also a statement of belief when evolutionists say "God does not exist".  Either way, a worldview is created to fit events, history, enigmas, and yes, scientific discovery, into something we can comprehend.

Evolutionists and Creationists have two, completely different, incompatible worldviews.  Unfortunately, the creationists have been way to easy on the evolutionists for the last 150 years.  But now, scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, and computer programmers are coming out of the woodwork announcing to the world as loudly as we can that not only is macroevolution not true (actually impossible), but that the entire worldview which uses it as its religion bankrupt.

Not all ID people are creationists, likewise not all creationists are christians, heck, not all christians are creationists.  I became a christian after learning microbiology - it was simply impossible for structures that complicated to spring into being on their own.  So, in reality, I was an ID advocate a decade before there was a theory.  I became a creationist later, while learning the other sciences.  Do I believe the Earth is flat?  Of course not!  Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots, we just cannot swallow another drop of the Evolutionist/Uniformitarian nonsense and circular reasoning.

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,23:05   

Oh my.  This will be entertaining.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,23:18   

Welcome RedDot

You say this
 
Quote
Yes, Stevestory, I have a large familiarity with Science. While research or teaching is no longer how I make a living, three colleges did a good job training me.


But you also made this asinine strawman claim...
 
Quote
The only outcome predicted by Evolution is that all organisms will eventually become other organisms and increase the diversity of the biosphere...that's it. Not exactly useful information without the hows the whens and the whys, conveniently left out of the hypothesis. Luckily, medical science does not need of Evolution in order to proceed in developing new tools.

...along with half a dozen other old, stale PRATT arguments.

If that's your working knowledge of evolution then you'd better ask for your money back.  Medical science does indeed rely on the ToE to predict the behavior of infectious diseases, i.e. how they will respond to the selection pressure applied by vaccines.  I note that this has already been pointed out to you on your blog, where you conveniently blew off the criticism.  I'll also point out that even if ToE was not used at all by the medical community for its predictive power, it would still stand unchallenged as the most comprehensive and strongly supported scientific theory in the last century.  

So make all the strawman claims you want, but be prepared to get the stuffing beaten out of them with hard scientific facts.  You're not dealing with semi literate rednecks here.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,23:31   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,23:18)
I note that this has already been pointed out to you on your blog, where you conveniently blew off the criticism.

Are you reading my blog, or just picking out random items?  Just like Stevestory above, you have completely missed that I am responding to an evolutionists letter printed in our local paper.  His point was not "blown off", it was answered smartly and within the space constraints I was allowed.

Here, let me copy the relevant section for you to read again:

"For example, recent research in microbiology has shown that microbes of many different species do not (under normal circumstances) compete with each other. Instead they form stable communities (a common type is called a Biofilm) where individuals have defined roles and are dependent upon others, not only of their own species, but of the others as well. The result is the knowledge that microbes studied in pure cultures behave differently than those in the real world, the human body for example.

This information has great use in the medical community, and incidentally, flies in the face of Darwin's hypothesis. Biofilms are now known to play a critical role in many human infections, and also lead to much of the antibiotic resistance Mr. Miles mentioned. Often, non-mutated pathogens survive the first antibiotics, and reproduce. If these persistent cells are treated again with the same antibiotic, they are killed. That is not to say that all persistent microorganisms have not-mutated, some do, but the mutation is not necessarily evolutionary.

Microorganisms seem to have large amounts of variability that allows them to survive the defending immune system's response. Two well known examples are alteration in both binding sites, and cell-wall permeability. These are natural defenses for the pathogen, not some great evolutionary leap. Pathogens can also “learn” from each other (through a poorly understood process called gene diffusion) how to make certain enzymes or proteins that lead to resistance, again, something that defies Evolutionary thinking."

Thanks.  I'm going on vacation for a week.  See you all when I return.  The responses should make interesting reading.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,23:33   

Quote
not all creationists are christians,


I assume you're referring to the creationists who are Orthodox Jews, Muslims, or Hindus?

 
Quote
Evolution is part of a worldview which has no place for God.


Um, millions of people who believe in God AND evolution would disagree with you.

 
Quote

From there the unprovable assertion is made that God does not exist.


I invite you to tell us where 'evolution' asserts that God does not exist.

A hint: pointing out prominent atheists who happen to believe in evolution doesn't prove it.

Quote
But now, scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, and computer programmers are coming out of the woodwork announcing to the world as loudly as we can that not only is macroevolution not true


And theologians, and electrical engineers, and piano players, and property managers, and retired military types. Yes, we know.

Funny thing, tho: not biologists, not paleontologists.

Yeah, safer to go with the electrical engineers.

Quote
Unfortunately, the creationists have been way to easy on the evolutionists for the last 150 years.  


OH NO! The jig is up! RUN!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,23:40   

Quote
Evolution, on the other hand, has taken a partially observed event (the change in beak size of the Galapagos Finches) and extrapolated a conclusion, out of thin air, about an unobservable event (animals, through mutations and selection pressures, change into other animals).  This is not only out-of-bounds, it is playing a different game.


And yet I'll bet you have absolutely no trouble in believing in the Flood and Noah's ark.

 
Quote

From there the unprovable assertion is made that God does not exist.


Which leads to dancing.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2007,23:45   

RedDot says:
 
Quote
Emperical science cannot comment upon anything except that which can be observed under controlled conditions - repeatedly.  Singular events are out of bounds.  The "soft" sciences of anthropology, paleontology, and such, try to make conclusions based largely upon singular, unrepeatable events - a daunting task, and one which is bound to make massive mistakes.

Another asinine statement.  Of course science can comment on singular event - look at how much is known about the Chicxulub impact and the resulting K/T boundary for instance.  Science doesn't have to repeat the singular event itself in the lab to do repeatable experiments and draw sound conclusions from the evidence left behind by such events.

     
Quote
Evolution, on the other hand, has taken a partially observed event (the change in beak size of the Galapagos Finches) and extrapolated a conclusion, out of thin air, about an unobservable event (animals, through mutations and selection pressures, change into other animals).  This is not only out-of-bounds, it is playing a different game.

Are you going to be another blustering creationist who makes tons of ridiculous claims about evolution that border on 100% scientific illiteracy, then expect us to argue against your ignorance-based delusions?  Geez I hope not, but you sure have started poorly.  Like claiming that the evolution is based solely on Darwin's observations and that there has been no scientific progress or discoveries in the last 150 years.

     
Quote
Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots, we just cannot swallow another drop of the Evolutionist/Uniformitarian nonsense and circular reasoning.

Then I'm sure you can provide some positive scientific evidence that lets you arrive at that 6-10 thousand year figure.  Merely saying "the Bible says so" is NOT scientific evidence BTW.  And claiming that the accepted scientific date (4.55 +/- .5 billion years) are wrong because of RATE's pulled-out of their ass fudge factors won't cut it either.  Please describe the experiments that were done whose positive results unambiguously describe a 6-10K Earth.

Over to you Red...

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,00:08   

Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,23:31)
   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,23:18)
I note that this has already been pointed out to you on your blog, where you conveniently blew off the criticism.

Are you reading my blog, or just picking out random items?  Just like Stevestory above, you have completely missed that I am responding to an evolutionists letter printed in our local paper.  His point was not "blown off", it was answered smartly and within the space constraints I was allowed.

Here, let me copy the relevant section for you to read again:

"For example, recent research in microbiology has shown that microbes of many different species do not (under normal circumstances) compete with each other. Instead they form stable communities (a common type is called a Biofilm) where individuals have defined roles and are dependent upon others, not only of their own species, but of the others as well. The result is the knowledge that microbes studied in pure cultures behave differently than those in the real world, the human body for example.

This information has great use in the medical community, and incidentally, flies in the face of Darwin's hypothesis. Biofilms are now known to play a critical role in many human infections, and also lead to much of the antibiotic resistance Mr. Miles mentioned. Often, non-mutated pathogens survive the first antibiotics, and reproduce. If these persistent cells are treated again with the same antibiotic, they are killed. That is not to say that all persistent microorganisms have not-mutated, some do, but the mutation is not necessarily evolutionary.

Microorganisms seem to have large amounts of variability that allows them to survive the defending immune system's response. Two well known examples are alteration in both binding sites, and cell-wall permeability. These are natural defenses for the pathogen, not some great evolutionary leap. Pathogens can also “learn” from each other (through a poorly understood process called gene diffusion) how to make certain enzymes or proteins that lead to resistance, again, something that defies Evolutionary thinking."

Like I said, you completely blew off the criticism about "no evolutionary predictions" and made more completely unsupported assertions that the basis of the predictions used are wrong.

That does nothing to counter the rebuttal to your claim that the medical community does not use ToE's predictive power.

BTW there are dozens of papers on PubMed using the theory to predict the evolution of pathogens.  Here are but a few

Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence

Epidemiology, Evolution, and Future of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic

 
Quote
Thanks.  I'm going on vacation for a week.  See you all when I return.  The responses should make interesting reading.


Hopefully you won't be another 'fart and dart' creationist who makes it a "permanent vacation". :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,00:45   

Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:25)
Proteins, as they are used in living cells, cannot form from simple amino acids (without help from a skilled organic chemist).

So this is all a fraud?
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/Brands....is.html

Quote
An amino acid: (1) is at a lower energy state than even a polypeptide (2) has water that must be removed carefully (it just can't be "boiled" off)

I'm sure that Sigma doesn't do that in their syntheses. Boiling is very bad for every protein but ribonuclease.
Quote
and (3) when actually joined together in simple polypeptides, do not have the correct shape (tertiary structure) which would allow it to do anything useful. These facts are not in debate in any Organic Chemistry class.

No, because most of your "facts" are dead wrong.
Quote
There have been several experimental attempts to create proteins from amino acids.

Sigma-Aldrich synthesizes proteins to spec thousands of times, not just "several" times.
Quote
Most add energy in the way of UV or electromagnetic discharge, and then attempt to remove water through a process of drying in between clay "sheets".

Most do neither. Most use solid-phase synthesis in the opposite order from the ones living things use.
Quote
All fail miserably. Nothing but useless, random, polypeptide chains.

If you are correct, why do all these companies synthesize specific sequences and guarantee the results?
http://tinyurl.com/2ydohy

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,02:21   

Damn I hate time zone issues. I have missed some exciting chemistry joy. I shall get to it later today.

Louis

P.S. Added in edit: RedDot: Hello and welcome to AtBC, I hope you find your time here productive, informative and fun. I have a question for you, or rather a couple of related questions for you: 1) What if you are wrong about some of the claims and assertions about science etc you have made above, could this (perhaps would this) change your mind about some of the conclusions you have drawn? And 2) Can you be wrong, even about "big" things?

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,05:13   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 24 2007,23:40)
And yet I'll bet you have absolutely no trouble in believing in the Flood and Noah's ark.

Oh I very much hope so. I've been waiting for someone to tell me how this was possible for years and sadly the closest I ever got was "I answered that somewhere else, let me find it" FtK.

Welcome RedDot, you will find if you are curteous and answer the questions, which I have no doubt you will do, you will get along fine, and show the rubes at Uncommon Pissant and UnReasonable Kansans that we can actually get on with a creationist IF THEY GIVE US A CHANCE TO.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,07:08   

Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:25)
Creating amino acids in a laboratory from energy-rich precursors shows nothing more than that the scientist is skilled and that the Laws still hold true.

How did amino acids get inside the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites like the Murchison?


Did a scientist put them there?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,07:09   

Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:59)
Evolution is part of a worldview which has no place for God.

U,, then why do (1) so many churches accept evolution and have no gripe with it, and (2) so many scientists practice religion of one church or another.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,07:35   

Lordy, and we're off to the races. I can't wait to see how this develops.

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,08:17   

A small plea to the locals- please let him answer one or two questions at once.  Piling in like this makes the thread messy and confusing, and also lessens the fun, whereas if you let him answer one or two questions at once, the fun can carry on for weeks.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:12   

BUNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDLLLLLLLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

{Looks at Guthrie}

<ashamed>

Sorry!

Louis

P.S. Good idea.

--------------
Bye.

  
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:22   

Quote

Emperical science cannot comment upon anything except that which can be observed under controlled conditions - repeatedly. Singular events are out of bounds.


So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents?

But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:
Quote

Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.  


A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this.

Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:28   

I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this
Quote
Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots

is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:29   

Quote (Louis @ July 25 2007,09:12)
BUNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDLLLLLLLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that British for 'dogpile'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:30   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,09:28)
I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this  
Quote
Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots

is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless.

I agree. I think all we have is another AFDave but more pretentious and with longer words.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:44   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,15:29)
Quote (Louis @ July 25 2007,09:12)
BUNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDLLLLLLLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that British for 'dogpile'?

Indeed it is. As a youth at a boys boarding school the cry of "BUNDLE" was regularly heard. The result: one boy stuggling to breath at the bottom of a pile of other boys.

Make of that what you will!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:46   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,09:30)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,09:28)
I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this  
Quote
Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots

is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless.

I agree. I think all we have is another AFDave but more pretentious and with longer words.

Say it aint so!

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:53   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,15:30)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,09:28)
I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this  
Quote
Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots

is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless.

I agree. I think all we have is another AFDave but more pretentious and with longer words.

Oh come on, Arden! Whilst I may well end up agreeing with your initial assessment, give this new guy a chance.

If and when he turns out to be a loon, THEN we can resign ourselves to the fact that our cynicism is yet again justified. However, this guy could be The One, that creationist who's comparative ignorance of science, and thus acceptance of creationist drivel, is temporary.

I'm not overly optimistic, but at least I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, he's started out with some chemistry related excitement, so let me play a little bit before we scare him off.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,09:59   

Quote (Louis @ July 25 2007,09:53)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,15:30)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 25 2007,09:28)
I would submit that arguing with anyone who writes this    
Quote
Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots

is pointless. It might be fun, but it is still pointless.

I agree. I think all we have is another AFDave but more pretentious and with longer words.

Oh come on, Arden! Whilst I may well end up agreeing with your initial assessment, give this new guy a chance.

If and when he turns out to be a loon, THEN we can resign ourselves to the fact that our cynicism is yet again justified. However, this guy could be The One, that creationist who's comparative ignorance of science, and thus acceptance of creationist drivel, is temporary.

I'm not overly optimistic, but at least I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, he's started out with some chemistry related excitement, so let me play a little bit before we scare him off.

Louis

Louis, I wouldn't dream of interfering. Go for it.

And I agree, we already have too many questions for him to start with, especially if he is going on a vacation for a few days.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,10:15   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)
But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:
Quote

Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.  


A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this.

Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids.

Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what the *** is it doing up there in the ozone layer?

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,11:11   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)
 
Quote

Emperical science cannot comment upon anything except that which can be observed under controlled conditions - repeatedly. Singular events are out of bounds.


So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents?

But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:
 
Quote

Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.  


A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this.

Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids.

and global warming denier.  It is obvious he will swallow any any psuedoscientific garbage uncritically.

For example, anybody remotely interested in ozone depletion could
consult the ozone-depletion FAQ, and find:

"Subject: 4.1) CFC's are 4-8 times heavier than air, so how can they
        reach the stratosphere?

This is answered in Part I of this FAQ, section 1.3. Briefly,
atmospheric gases do not segragate by weight in the troposphere
and the stratosphere, because the mixing mechanisms (convection,
"eddy diffusion") do not distinguish molecular masses. "

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,11:20   

He's not going on a vacation... he's going on a "retreat", so that he may gird his loins and deal with the idolators. (That' us BTW! :) )

My $.02 is that ANYONE that holds with a 6,000 YEC credo after going through college is hopeless.  If they are still singing "Rock Of Ages', they are only giving us a glimpse of what they use for brains.

Sorry Louis.  I just don't want you to get your hopes up, only to have them dashed heartlessly and most cruelly to the ground once more

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,11:33   

Quote (lkeithlu @ July 25 2007,10:15)
 
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)
But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:
   
Quote

Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.  


A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this.

Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids.

Ozone is Airplanes are heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what the *** is it are they doing up there in the ozone layer sky?

I fixed that for you.

Edit: typo

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,12:35   

Quote (J-Dog @ July 25 2007,17:20)
He's not going on a vacation... he's going on a "retreat", so that he may gird his loins and deal with the idolators. (That' us BTW! :) )

My $.02 is that ANYONE that holds with a 6,000 YEC credo after going through college is hopeless.  If they are still singing "Rock Of Ages', they are only giving us a glimpse of what they use for brains.

Sorry Louis.  I just don't want you to get your hopes up, only to have them dashed heartlessly and most cruelly to the ground once more

J-Dog,

Oh you aren't going to dash my hopes. I agree with your and Arden's assessments entirely. However I am more than happy to suspend judgement in order to allow this new friend to post unhindered by our cynicism.

I can see what I think is very likely to be the case, however I HOPE (fervently and deeply) that I am going to be proven wrong. I actually WANT to be wrong about this, I want our new chum to be an open minded person who is merely misinformed and for whom accurate information will be something of a mind opening experience. The universe is infinitely more beautiful, complex, awesome and wonderful than the creationist falsehoods can begin to encompass. I genuinely pity any poor sod locked into that set of falsehoods for they are missing so many REAL things. Not fictional, personal, individually dependant things that require suspense of reason and delieberate ignorance of evidence, but REAL, external, demonstrable aspects of the universe that we can uncontroversially and honestly experience and understand.

So whilst I am realistic about this new chappie's prospects, based on his exciting drivel so far, I will remain optimistic because I WANT to be wrong about him.

And also, whilst I am a harsh and generally unsympathetic fucker when provoked, I do firmly believe in the "3 strikes and your out" policy. Give the guy a chance and he may surprise you. If he doesn't then it's open season on the sorry bastard! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,12:42   

Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:59)
Do I believe the Earth is flat?  Of course not!  Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots, we just cannot swallow another drop of the Evolutionist/Uniformitarian nonsense and circular reasoning.

The evidence for a flat earth and the evidence for a 6000 year old earth are exactly the same - completely non-existent except for your little book which has been translated several times and written from verbal stories created by herders, farmers, and nomads.


The only reason you can possibly give for believing the earth to be that young is considering the bible to be inerrant - but you cannot believe that and believe the earth is round. Either the bible is correct, or it is not - and if its wrong about the Earth being flat - why do you take its age of the earth over all the evidence otherwise?


Yes, you are a crackpot.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Patrick Caldon



Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,14:28   

Quote (Louis @ July 25 2007,12:35)
I can see what I think is very likely to be the case, however I HOPE (fervently and deeply) that I am going to be proven wrong. I actually WANT to be wrong about this, I want our new chum to be an open minded person who is merely misinformed and for whom accurate information will be something of a mind opening experience.

I dunno.  The first thing we all have to learn is that our knowledge is limited, it's hard work, and unless we apply ourselves for a good few months studying something hard pushing past our "common sense" and simple intuitions we won't get anywhere.

The problem is that there's hard work involved, and the first step is saying "sod it, I don't know it all, but these guys who everyone else thinks are smart might be onto something".  And then you have to fight through the technical difficulty of the concepts themselves, and (generally) discover yourself making mistake after mistake before you get it right.

The one common trait I've noticed in creationists (from ID to YEC) is hubris, a fundamental inability to acknowledge even the most trivial of mistakes. Hubris is antithetical to learning.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,14:47   

OPEN MINDS ARE FOR HOMOS.

HOMO.


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,16:30   

There's some semi-articulate ones here:

http://www.amazon.com/tag....sDetail

and here:

http://www.amazon.com/tag....sDetail

and a wacko who blames "Social Darwinism" on Darwin here:

http://www.amazon.com/tag....sDetail

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,16:49   

Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:25)
Proteins, as they are used in living cells, cannot form from simple amino acids (without help from a skilled organic chemist). An amino acid: (1) is at a lower energy state than even a polypeptide (2) has water that must be removed carefully (it just can't be "boiled" off)

Incorrect. Firstly, glycine will spontaneously form dimers in solution (there's an equilibrium between 2*Glycine  and piperazinedione + 2*H2O), which you'll note is a dehydration reaction. This may be what you thought you meant by "water must be removed carefully". Secondly, aluminosilicate mineral surfaces can catalyse the opening (hydration) of the cyclic dimer to form a linear dipeptide.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,17:25   

stephen, ask questions. It's more fun that way.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2007,21:31   

Re "stephen, ask questions. It's more fun that way."

Phrase the answer in the form of a question? Sounds like Jeopardy!...

Re "Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what [...] is it doing up there in the ozone layer?"

Maybe its going on vacation?

Re "How did amino acids get inside the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites like the Murchison? Did a scientist put them there? "

Maybe the meteorites were intelligently designed that way?

Re "[...] Which leads to dancing. "

Say it ain't so!

Re "The result is the knowledge that microbes studied in pure cultures behave differently than those in the real world, the human body for example. This information has great use in the medical community, and incidentally, flies in the face of Darwin's hypothesis."

Er, when exactly did Darwin claim that a species would never show different behaviors in different environments?

Henry

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,20:15   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)
So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents?

Not without significant amounts of guesswork which is often wrong.

For example, in the 1930's two American geologists Charles Schuchert and Bailey Willis developed a theory of an isthmian link (land bridge), which had become submerged beneath the South Atlantic.  It was an east-to-west ridge running between Africa and South America (others were developed later).  This was needed to reject the continental drift theory.

Science historian Naomi Oreskes states, "This explanation was patently ad hoc - there was no evidence of isthmian links other than the paleontological data they were designed to explain (away).  Nevertheless, the idea was widely accepted, and it undercut a major line of evidence of continental drift".

No one today believes there were land bridges between continents.  But they were as sure then as Evolutionists are today about their theory.

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,20:31   

Quote (Henry J @ July 25 2007,21:31)
Re "Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what [...] is it doing up there in the ozone layer?"

Maybe its going on vacation?

Re "How did amino acids get inside the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites like the Murchison? Did a scientist put them there? "

Maybe the meteorites were intelligently designed that way?

Re "[...] Which leads to dancing. "

Say it ain't so!

Re "The result is the knowledge that microbes studied in pure cultures behave differently than those in the real world, the human body for example. This information has great use in the medical community, and incidentally, flies in the face of Darwin's hypothesis."

Er, when exactly did Darwin claim that a species would never show different behaviors in different environments?

Henry

I'm glad you guys are having some fun.  You need to get a little better though.

Ozone is created (and destroyed) in the upper parts of the atmosphere (15 to 35km), it is not naturally created at ground level and rise.  There is mixing of lightweight molecules such as N2, O2, O3, Ar, CO2, and water vapor which occurs through multiple processes.  Besides temporarily being blown around in exceptionally large air currents (like launched from a volcano), I believe no one has shown that very heavy molecules can reach much higher than cloud level, say 10km.

You guys also need to learn to read better, in your excitement to prove me a wacko you keep neglecting my actual words.  I never said amino acids could not form by themselves.  But an amino acid is a long way from a protein.

And Darwin never made that claim directly, but instead inferred that a particular species would always compete for resources with other species - or each other.  He is the progenitor of the Theory of Evolution, not its guardian and the current ToE does have this as a precept.

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,20:58   

Quote (stephenWells @ July 25 2007,16:49)
Incorrect. Firstly, glycine will spontaneously form dimers in solution (there's an equilibrium between 2*Glycine  and piperazinedione + 2*H2O), which you'll note is a dehydration reaction. This may be what you thought you meant by "water must be removed carefully". Secondly, aluminosilicate mineral surfaces can catalyse the opening (hydration) of the cyclic dimer to form a linear dipeptide.

Are you suggesting that piperazinedione is a protein (as would be formed inside a living cell)?  [It is a manmade, crystalline antibiotic]  Or that perhaps reverse transcriptase enzymes can account for all protein complexity?

And what I thought I meant was that the dehydration reactions that occur when during cellular protein manufacture are very specific, often taking out water molecules in one place only to inserting others in another specific area.  In fact, there is hardly a molecule life makes which is done the same way a biochemist would do it.  ATP manufacture comes to mind.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:14   

Maybe RedDot would care to select one specific claim to argue?

It's probably impossible to avoid a dozen or so different people arguing against RedDot, but at least the dogpile (or bundle) could be confined to one topic.

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:35   

Quote (Nerull @ July 25 2007,12:42)
The evidence for a flat earth and the evidence for a 6000 year old earth are exactly the same - completely non-existent except for your little book which has been translated several times and written from verbal stories created by herders, farmers, and nomads.


The only reason you can possibly give for believing the earth to be that young is considering the bible to be inerrant - but you cannot believe that and believe the earth is round. Either the bible is correct, or it is not - and if its wrong about the Earth being flat - why do you take its age of the earth over all the evidence otherwise?


Yes, you are a crackpot.

Of the 129 places I can find the mention of the earth in Scripture, none actually mention the shape of the Earth.  Please quote the source of your claim that Scripture states the Earth is flat.

My evidence is beyond Scripture.  It comes from the Earth's magnetic field (decreasing in strength), the orbit of the Moon (increasing in radius), population rates, hydrogen diffusion rates in zircon crystals, and plenty of evidence for a global flood.

Only part of the Bible was written from verbal stories, and in your list you forgot fishermen, kings, a doctor, and Jewish priests.  All these different people - one common theme, hmmmm.

I am no more a crackpot than you.  We both are trying to convince others that our beliefs are true.  Science is one way to do that.  We just have different beliefs.

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:37   

Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,14:28)
The one common trait I've noticed in creationists (from ID to YEC) is hubris, a fundamental inability to acknowledge even the most trivial of mistakes. Hubris is antithetical to learning.

Please point out my hubris, if it arises.  I will do the same for you.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:46   

Quote

He is the progenitor of the Theory of Evolution, not its guardian and the current ToE does have this as a precept.


Current TOE. Good.

Please give the full bibliographic reference to the peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports your claim.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,21:50   

Care to give any of the abundant evidence you have?

Keep in mind all the things you just listed do not support YEC.

Evidence for a global flood is hogwash, as we've all been over before.

Moon recession rates a very well understood and modeled. They do not support the YEC position - but the opposite. I can't imagine your magnetic field argument will come from anything but similar ignorance. Same with zircon.


I have to agree with the others. All we've got is another JoeG who can speak english. Still ignorant of all the actual science.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:03   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 25 2007,00:08)
Like I said, you completely blew off the criticism about "no evolutionary predictions" and made more completely unsupported assertions that the basis of the predictions used are wrong.

That does nothing to counter the rebuttal to your claim that the medical community does not use ToE's predictive power.

BTW there are dozens of papers on PubMed using the theory to predict the evolution of pathogens.  Here are but a few

Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence

Epidemiology, Evolution, and Future of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic

   
Quote
Thanks.  I'm going on vacation for a week.  See you all when I return.  The responses should make interesting reading.


Hopefully you won't be another 'fart and dart' creationist who makes it a "permanent vacation". :D

If pathogen virulence increasing in the presence of antibiotics is the best you have, then you're a long way from your stated goal.  Both papers make lip service only to evolution.  Neither have an actual prediction of what will happen when a particular pathogen is introduced to a particular antibody.

That being said, you are now screaming at the computer screen for proof.  Ok, I'll appease you.  While there might be one or two that slip through this net, almost all pathogens lose information as they become resistant to an antibiotic.  Evolutionary theory specifically states that enviromental pressure will cause an organism to gain information in the way of new genes or more specific proteins.  However it is just not the case.  Here are some examples for you:

In the presence of:
Actinonin, the phenotype (PT) displays a loss of enzyme activity

Actinonin, the PT has an SOS response halting cell division

Actinonin, the PT loses a regulatory protein.

Erythromycin, the PT has reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein.

Nalidixic Acid, the PT experiences loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein

and so on, and so on, and so on...

There are examples of resistance through gene transfer, but that does not explain the origin of those genes.  Where mutations are oberved, these mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protien binding.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot be held up as valid examples of evolutionary change.

You guys keep giving me underhand softballs, I'll keep swinging.

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:10   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,23:45)
Are you going to be another blustering creationist who makes tons of ridiculous claims about evolution that border on 100% scientific illiteracy, then expect us to argue against your ignorance-based delusions?  Geez I hope not, but you sure have started poorly.  Like claiming that the evolution is based solely on Darwin's observations and that there has been no scientific progress or discoveries in the last 150 years.

That's at least twice you people have referred to new and exciting progress in the land of evolutionary fantasy, and have yet to provide squat.  Enlighten me, if that's what you believe you're doing.  Insults just piss me off.

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:36   

Quote (JAM @ July 25 2007,00:45)
Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:25)
Proteins, as they are used in living cells, cannot form from simple amino acids (without help from a skilled organic chemist).

So this is all a fraud?
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/Brands....is.html

 
Quote
An amino acid: (1) is at a lower energy state than even a polypeptide (2) has water that must be removed carefully (it just can't be "boiled" off)

I'm sure that Sigma doesn't do that in their syntheses. Boiling is very bad for every protein but ribonuclease.
 
Quote
and (3) when actually joined together in simple polypeptides, do not have the correct shape (tertiary structure) which would allow it to do anything useful. These facts are not in debate in any Organic Chemistry class.

No, because most of your "facts" are dead wrong.
 
Quote
There have been several experimental attempts to create proteins from amino acids.

Sigma-Aldrich synthesizes proteins to spec thousands of times, not just "several" times.
 
Quote
Most add energy in the way of UV or electromagnetic discharge, and then attempt to remove water through a process of drying in between clay "sheets".

Most do neither. Most use solid-phase synthesis in the opposite order from the ones living things use.
 
Quote
All fail miserably. Nothing but useless, random, polypeptide chains.

If you are correct, why do all these companies synthesize specific sequences and guarantee the results?
http://tinyurl.com/2ydohy

Do I have to spell out that I am talking about undirected natural reactions?  Perhaps I do.  The ToE demands that proteins can form naturally and spontaneously.  Your post does nothing but prove my point.  It takes very skilled biochemists, energy, and equipment to build these molecules, they will not just spring out of a petri dish.

Start searching for experiments in undirected protein formation.

BTW, how many of Sigm-Aldrich's products are actual functional proteins (not merely peptides or enzymes)?  How many of their products use only L-isomers of amino acids?

That's why I put "boiled" in quotation marks.  I'm aiming for the cheap seats so do not make the mistake of assuming I am uninformed when I use rough analogies.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:51   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:03)
If pathogen virulence increasing in the presence of antibiotics is the best you have, then you're a long way from your stated goal.  Both papers make lip service only to evolution.  Neither have an actual prediction of what will happen when a particular pathogen is introduced to a particular antibody.

So, since they lack that particular prediction, that shows they make no evolutionary predictions at all?
 
Quote
Evolutionary theory specifically states that enviromental pressure will cause an organism to gain information in the way of new genes or more specific proteins.

Actually, no, it doesn't.
 
Quote
 However it is just not the case.  Here are some examples for you:

Citing a few examples of loss-of-function mutations doesn't prove that gain-of-function doesn't happen. Besides, half your examples are wrong. An SOS response is not a loss of function. Neither is reducing the affinity of 23S RNA for erythromycin.
 
Quote
Where mutations are oberved, these mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protien binding.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot be held up as valid examples of evolutionary change.

Really? Shall we take your example of actinonin? Try Googling "actinonin +resistance". Very first hit:

"Reducing the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance by amplification of initiator tRNA genes."

You keep swinging, you're just not making any contact.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,22:52   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:03)
In the presence of:
Actinonin, the phenotype (PT) displays a loss of enzyme activity

Actinonin, the PT has an SOS response halting cell division

Actinonin, the PT loses a regulatory protein.

Erythromycin, the PT has reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein.

Nalidixic Acid, the PT experiences loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein

and so on, and so on, and so on...

There are examples of resistance through gene transfer, but that does not explain the origin of those genes.  Where mutations are oberved, these mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protien binding.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot be held up as valid examples of evolutionary change.

You guys keep giving me underhand softballs, I'll keep swinging.

How about the AMES test, the phenotype gains the ability to process nutrients previously unaccessable.  While not necessarily an increase in information, it is certainly an increase in traits and an increase in activity.  Are you going to actually mistakenly catalogue this as a decrease in former activity?

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,23:07   

By the way - this:
Quote
The ToE demands that proteins can form naturally and spontaneously.

is quite wrong.

The ToE really has nothing to say about where the first proteins, nucleic acids, or living cells came from. It's only concerned with the diversification of life after it arose.

Even if we knew for a fact that the first life was purposefully created, the ToE would still be the only legitimate scientific theory for how that first life led to what we see today.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,00:55   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:03)
   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 25 2007,00:08)
Like I said, you completely blew off the criticism about "no evolutionary predictions" and made more completely unsupported assertions that the basis of the predictions used are wrong.

That does nothing to counter the rebuttal to your claim that the medical community does not use ToE's predictive power.

BTW there are dozens of papers on PubMed using the theory to predict the evolution of pathogens.  Here are but a few

Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence

Epidemiology, Evolution, and Future of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic

       
Quote
Thanks.  I'm going on vacation for a week.  See you all when I return.  The responses should make interesting reading.


Hopefully you won't be another 'fart and dart' creationist who makes it a "permanent vacation". :D

If pathogen virulence increasing in the presence of antibiotics is the best you have, then you're a long way from your stated goal.  Both papers make lip service only to evolution.  Neither have an actual prediction of what will happen when a particular pathogen is introduced to a particular antibody.

That being said, you are now screaming at the computer screen for proof.  Ok, I'll appease you.  While there might be one or two that slip through this net, almost all pathogens lose information as they become resistant to an antibiotic.  Evolutionary theory specifically states that enviromental pressure will cause an organism to gain information in the way of new genes or more specific proteins.  However it is just not the case.  Here are some examples for you:

In the presence of:
Actinonin, the phenotype (PT) displays a loss of enzyme activity

Actinonin, the PT has an SOS response halting cell division

Actinonin, the PT loses a regulatory protein.

Erythromycin, the PT has reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein.

Nalidixic Acid, the PT experiences loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein

and so on, and so on, and so on...

There are examples of resistance through gene transfer, but that does not explain the origin of those genes.  Where mutations are oberved, these mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protien binding.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot be held up as valid examples of evolutionary change.

You guys keep giving me underhand softballs, I'll keep swinging.

Oh jeez, the crackpot's back, and he's in full Gish Gallop mode.  Do we really have to deal with the same asinine PRATT creto arguments again?

OK RedDot, please start by defining biological information, and giving me a precise way to quantify it.

You can't claim an organism gains information or loses information if you can't even define information or measure it, now can you?

While you're at it, tell me what you know about nylonase.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,01:00   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:36)
The ToE demands that proteins can form naturally and spontaneously.

No it doesn't. Modern evolutionary theories have nothing to do with your "tornado in a junkyard" BS, and the current best hypothesis for abiogenesis doesn't either.
 
Quote
Your post does nothing but prove my point.  It takes very skilled biochemists, energy, and equipment to build these molecules, they will not just spring out of a petri dish.

You don't know what you're talking about. It only takes equipment. I suspect that my requested sequence goes right from the Web form into the synthesizer without human interaction. The person running the synthesizer doesn't need to be a "very skilled biochemist" at all.
 
Quote
BTW, how many of Sigm-Aldrich's products are actual functional proteins (not merely peptides or enzymes)?

I'll presume that you just mean the peptide synthesis group, as S-A makes thousands of chemicals.

That being said, your question makes no sense at all, as virtually all enzymes are actual functional proteins. Would you mind rephrasing it in understandable language?
 
Quote
How many of their products use only L-isomers of amino acids?
Virtually all of their peptides do. I suspect that including D-isomers would cost extra. Are you aware that some peptides made by living things contain D isomers?
 
Quote
That's why I put "boiled" in quotation marks.  I'm aiming for the cheap seats so do not make the mistake of assuming I am uninformed when I use rough analogies.

Don't bother aiming for the cheap seats. Arguments by analogy are nearly always vapid, while in the real world, we scientists use analogies merely as explanatory devices.

And I don't have to assume that you are uninformed, because you proved that you were when you claimed that evolutionary theory requires proteins first.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,01:42   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:10)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,23:45)
Are you going to be another blustering creationist who makes tons of ridiculous claims about evolution that border on 100% scientific illiteracy, then expect us to argue against your ignorance-based delusions?  Geez I hope not, but you sure have started poorly.  Like claiming that the evolution is based solely on Darwin's observations and that there has been no scientific progress or discoveries in the last 150 years.

That's at least twice you people have referred to new and exciting progress in the land of evolutionary fantasy, and have yet to provide squat.  Enlighten me, if that's what you believe you're doing.  Insults just piss me off.

And ya don't wanna piss off Creationists. I hear they can smite people and everything.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:17   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,20:15)
 
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)
So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents?

Not without significant amounts of guesswork which is often wrong.

For example, in the 1930's two American geologists Charles Schuchert and Bailey Willis developed a theory of an isthmian link (land bridge), which had become submerged beneath the South Atlantic.  It was an east-to-west ridge running between Africa and South America (others were developed later).  This was needed to reject the continental drift theory.


Science historian Naomi Oreskes states, "This explanation was patently ad hoc - there was no evidence of isthmian links other than the paleontological data they were designed to explain (away).  Nevertheless, the idea was widely accepted, and it undercut a major line of evidence of continental drift".

No one today believes there were land bridges between continents.  But they were as sure then as Evolutionists are today about their theory.

Would you care to expand upon this subject? Namely:-

1) What convinced those guys that there had been land bridges (what where they trying to explain etc.)?
2) Who debunked the idea and how?

I think that I know where you are getting your arguments from (or at least the source of your ideas). If I am correct, you have very unreliable allies.

Do you really believe that the Universe is only 6K years old, or is it just the Earth that is so young? Either way, for that to be correct an awfull lot of scientific disciplines have to be way wrong. What would be the basis for believing in a young world?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:31   

Hi Reddot,

On page one I asked these two questions:

Quote
RedDot: Hello and welcome to AtBC, I hope you find your time here productive, informative and fun. I have a question for you, or rather a couple of related questions for you: 1) What if you are wrong about some of the claims and assertions about science etc you have made above, could this (perhaps would this) change your mind about some of the conclusions you have drawn? And 2) Can you be wrong, even about "big" things?


There's a reason I ask these questions. I have discussed things with creationists before and found the conversations to be by and large unsatisfactory due to a gross inability on their part to admit to error and change their minds in the face of evidence. This is by no means always the case, but sadly it has happened. I know it's cheating, but I want to discover which sort of creationist you are before I potentially waste my time actually discussing science with you.

However, that said, as I mentioned up thread, I hope my initial pessimism is unfounded.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:51   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,21:35)
My evidence is beyond Scripture.  It comes from the Earth's magnetic field (decreasing in strength), the orbit of the Moon (increasing in radius), population rates, hydrogen diffusion rates in zircon crystals, and plenty of evidence for a global flood.

Population Rates. As this is a simple metric, please could you tell me what the population was at the following points, or your best guess

1) At the time of the global flood
2) When the pyramids (Giza) were constructed.
3) When Jesus was born

Plenty of evidence for a global flood. What evidence?

Could you point to the worldwide layer in the geological column that are the global flood deposits? Or did this worldwide flood leave no traces?

In addition, was the floodwater salty or fresh?

Simple questions which I predict you won't answer because you know they illustrate the logical holes in your position.

Don't forget you SAID
 
Quote
My evidence is beyond Scripture.


Prove it.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,05:00   

Quote

population rates


Oh, boy.

Have a look at this page, which takes up a YEC argument that human population sizes and doubling times argue for a young earth. Here are some of the conclusions:

 
Quote

Now that we have verified that making inferences as to intermediate population values is an activity engaged in by even those people who forward these arguments, we can proceed to showing what the population argument implies about the human population size at various points in history.  The following follows from Williams set of population parameters: 5,177 years prior to 1925 for an initial population of 2, and a doubling time of 168.3 years.

World Population    Date     Event

             17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
          2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
          5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
         32,971   776 BC  First Olympic games
         87,507   490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
        133,744   387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
        586,678    28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
        655,683     1 AD  Nice date


While I worked from Williams' example, any similar argument will produce a similar set of counter-factual intermediate values.  What the real values tell us is that human population does not always increase exponentially, and thus current population cannot tell us an initial population time.

Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.  Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

Fourth, final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time.  This is really a reiteration of the last point.  There is no general means of inferring a history of population sizes from a current population size.  Attempting to do so coupled with the claim that such attempts disprove evolution shows both ignorance and hubris.

I will add a fifth point, really a corollary to the first point. The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information.  Human history does not record a global flood.  Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood.  Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood.  Fossil evidence indicates that mankind is far more ancient than SciCre'ists would admit.  None of this evidence goes away or is addressed by the population argument.

In short, the SciCre population argument fails on many different criteria.  Honest creationists should eschew its use.


Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 02 2007,05:15

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,05:35   

And what the heck has the magnetic field got to do with a 6000 yr old Earth?  As I understand it, the strength is currently decreasing and will soon switch polarity.  Something which has happened many times.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,07:06   

A question for RedDot, regarding "increase in genetic information through mutation":

*ahem*

According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the  creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that "most mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

But wait ---------- today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

That raises a few questions ----- (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

But wait -- there's more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, "theory", all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* -- the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ------- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it).

But wait --- we're not done YET . . . . . .

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them "cancer victims". The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

But wait, we're STILL not finished . . . . . .

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If you can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits --- such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist "arguments" would certainly have killed all of Noah's children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.

Explain, please . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,07:09   

Hey RedDot, if biomolecules can't form by themselves through ordinary chemical means, then would you mind explaining to me why we find amino acids inside carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, where no life exists?
Did the Devil put them there to fool us?  Did God put them there to test our faith?

Oh, and regarding "Scripture", I have a few questions for you:  Do you believe that supernatural witches exist?  If so, do you think they should be killed?

And do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?


I want to see just how nutty you really are . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,12:27   

Let's engage in a little hyper-literalism.    
Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:25)
Unfortunately, creating proteins, RNA, or DNA is absolutely impossible from amino acids

As far as I know, and I am not a chemist so please correct me if I am wrong here, RNA and DNA are not made out of amino acids.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,12:30   

Quote (lkeithlu @ July 25 2007,10:15)
Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what the *** is it doing up there in the ozone layer?

Isn't it made up there by the action of UV light?  This is what I think I remember but I may be remembering incorrectly.

edit: Ok, RedDot answered that.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,12:34   

Hi Red,

I too would like a workable definition of genetic information and a quick explanation for how it is measured.

Thanks

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,13:36   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,21:35)
Of the 129 places I can find the mention of the earth in Scripture, none actually mention the shape of the Earth.  Please quote the source of your claim that Scripture states the Earth is flat.

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

The last time I checked, a circle was a two dimensional object, not a three dimensional one.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth."

A compass is used to draw circles, not spheres.  That was the King James verse.  Let's read the Revised Standard Version instead.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

Now that is pretty plain, isn't it?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,14:36   

Hey Reddot, ignore Lenny at your own peril.  I bet you will.  The Flud never happened.

I, on the other hand, would be supremely satisfied if you would just answer the question posed by O.A. and slpage:

What is 'biological information' and how do you quantify it?

toodles!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,14:39   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 02 2007,13:36)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,21:35)
Of the 129 places I can find the mention of the earth in Scripture, none actually mention the shape of the Earth.  Please quote the source of your claim that Scripture states the Earth is flat.

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

The last time I checked, a circle was a two dimensional object, not a three dimensional one.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth."

A compass is used to draw circles, not spheres.  That was the King James verse.  Let's read the Revised Standard Version instead.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

Now that is pretty plain, isn't it?

(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

Unless the tree was burning in the earth's core, this suggests a flat Earth, don't you think? Indeed, if it WERE in the core, how did it come up through the ground and reach heaven?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,14:50   

(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

(Job 11:9 NRSV) Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Also.

(Gen 1:6-7 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

A dome over an oblate spheroid (oh yes)?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,15:36   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,07:06)
A question for RedDot, regarding "increase in genetic information through mutation":

*ahem*

According...Lenny's standard speil...Explain, please . . . . . ?

Not to disparage you in the least Lenny, but what has always been my favorite challenge of yours is also one of the shortest.

"Which one of the Noah's Ark survivors had the clap?"

or something to that effect.

sincerely,
Paul

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,15:58   

Paul, is that Before or After they got on the boat?

(Cause, uh, I'm guessing that a year on a boat would cause folks to do... stuff)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,16:44   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 02 2007,13:36)
Proverbs 8:27
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

There is even a really cool painting about the event.  I am sure you have seen it. It is by William Blake.




edit: something that has always struck me about that painting; does it look like god has a tail?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,17:32   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 02 2007,15:36)
Not to disparage you in the least Lenny, but what has always been my favorite challenge of yours is also one of the shortest.

"Which one of the Noah's Ark survivors had the clap?"

or something to that effect.

Well, I was gonna work my way over to that one.

;)


It generally comes right before the "Why do we find oak tree fossils higher in the geological column than velociraptors?  Did the oak trees outrun them towards the high ground?"


Alas, this guy RedDot is boring.  This is the same old crap that ICR was putting out forty goddamn years ago.  Next we'll be hearing all about the woodpecker's tongue, and Bomby the Bombardier Beetle.  (yawn)


YEC died in 1987.  ID is all the rage now.

Um, well . . . . . . . .

RedDot should at least TRY to keep up.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,20:00   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,17:32)
Well, I was gonna work my way over to that one.

;)


It generally comes right before the "Why do we find oak tree fossils higher in the geological column than velociraptors?  Did the oak trees outrun them towards the high ground?"


Alas, this guy RedDot is boring.  This is the same old crap that ICR was putting out forty goddamn years ago.  Next we'll be hearing all about the woodpecker's tongue, and Bomby the Bombardier Beetle.  (yawn)


YEC died in 1987.  ID is all the rage now.

Um, well . . . . . . . .

RedDot should at least TRY to keep up.

From experience:

Not everyone that buys into ID is a fundie creationist. Some of us got conned by ignorance. People we trusted lied to us and we believed it. It was quite a shock when I realised people I trusted had lied to me.

I used the plural to refer to me here because I doubt that I was the only one

BTW. I do believe that longtime ID proponennts are fundies.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,20:13   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 02 2007,20:00)
Not everyone that buys into ID is a fundie creationist.

This guy is straight out of Henry Morris and Duane Gish, circa 1982.

He's no IDer (though, like Paul Nelson, he might like to use ID verbiage).  He's a dyed-in-the-wool young-earth creationist.  And a fundie.

No doubt whatsoever about it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,07:25   

Hey, while we're all here together and awaiting Redot's replies, I have a serious question.  This came up in my reading this past week, what is the chemical mechanism behind dominant and recessive genes.  I know we're talking about preferential expression but what designates that?  I was guessing methylation plays a big role but I don't have the references to back that up.  Can anyone point me in the right direction?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,07:36   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,07:25)
...I have a serious question.  This came up in my reading this past week, what is the chemical mechanism behind dominant and recessive genes.  I know we're talking about preferential expression but what designates that?  I was guessing methylation plays a big role but I don't have the references to back that up.  Can anyone point me in the right direction?

At the risk of derailing this interesting thread, I will briefly respond.

There are MANY mechanisms behind dominance and recessiveness. I am not aware of any involving methylation, however. See here for a paper on the genetic basis for recessive mutations causing white color in flowers, which goes back to some of Mendel's original experiments.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,07:44   

Unfortunately, I couldn't access the full text but I'm not sure that this gets to the heart of my question, hard to tell though without getting into it further than the abstract.  Thanks anyway, I'll get a print copy on Monday and take a look at it in depth.

BTW, I was pretty sure I couldn't do much harm if indeed I did derail the current discussion as it's not really going anywhere but I apologize to any who disagree and I'll try to keep the sidebars to a minimum.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:34   

http://evolutionistsnightmare.blogspot.com/

Quote
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Another thought on Evolution as a Religion

Another thought:

While I do advocate keeping religion and science essentially seperate, the worldview (or belief system, if you like) of a scientist will have a dramatic impact on his theories, presumptions, and conclusions. It is unfortunately impossible to completly divorce science from the effects of a worldview. Evolution is part of a worldview which has no place for God.


Kinda weird that thousands of scientists who are christians and who understand and accept evolution failed to notice this.


Quote
the worldview (or belief system, if you like) of a scientist will have a dramatic impact on his theories, presumptions, and conclusions. It is unfortunately impossible to completly divorce science from the effects of a worldview.


Do you suppose the red state, christian, republicans who say things like this know they're repeating the words of French postmodernist philosophers, and feminist philosophers like Sandra Harding? I know their leader Philip Johnson knows, but do you suppose the rank and file do?

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:33   

http://evolutionistsnightmare.blogspot.com/2007....-4.html

Quote
Monday, June 18, 2007
I Just Don't Get It...Vol. 4


Separation of ALCU and State

"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

This would be music to Christian's ears, wouldn't it? This statement would put God's Word back where it belongs - in classrooms. The Bible was meant to be taught, handed down from generation to generation. It contains information on history, business ethics, health tips, marriage advice, child rearing advice, battle strategy, and of course, God's plan for mankind's much needed salvation.

There are those, however, who consider Scripture to be, literally, hate speech. When pressed, it is doubtful that they could come up with an actual reason - except God's Commandment against homosexuality. Listen to them long enough though and you'll probably hear them quote scripture, since it is so ingrained into our speech lexicons. Just the other day, a show put out by Jim Henson Productions roughly quoted from Proverbs: "A fool takes his last potato and eats it, a wise man plants it." This is hate speech?

Christians, we must get God's Word back into our daily lives, and into society's daily life as well. We have a country which was founded by Christians, nurtured by Christians, and is being lost by Christians. No other country in the world was ever founded this heavily on Christian principles - and no other country has had the freedom we have had. But that freedom is slipping away faster than most will admit. We need to be like King Josiah, reading the Scrolls which were once lost, right in the middle of the town square. No longer should we stand meekly aside and let groups like the ACLU remove God from our country - especially since they have no legal reason to do so!

Those who cannot tolerate religious freedom just need to be quiet and let us have our God given, and Constitutionally given, right to worship. If they are not content with that, I suggest they find a new home, perhaps one as intolerant as they are...such as China or India.

Christ told us that the world would hate us because it hated Him first - so we are to expect attacks and slander. As the saying goes, "it comes with the territory". However we are giving a country founded ON the Bible away without barely a whisper...ironically in the name of tolerance.

How should you proceed? First, pray and dig into His Word, I would also suggest a fast to go along with this. Second, I suggest reading up on your history, so you can have an answer for the "separation of church and state" crowd. There is a massive amount of information quickly available on-line, such as President Adams' quote regarding our recently won freedom, "the highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." Get really good at this. Perhaps print some off and post them around your work area or school locker. I'd love to see the ACLU attempt to tell us we can't have quotes from our Founding Fathers at work (or school). Thirdly, read our great Constitution...over and over again. Perhaps memorize just the first line of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Don't just memorize it though, learn what the language meant in that time - it makes a huge difference.

By the way, the initial quote with which I began this blog is currently a mere footnote in history. It has already happened. Congress voted that resolution into effect in 1782.

Ken Pritchett
June 18, 2007


An educated creationist? This post could have come straight from some wacko site like WingNutDaily.

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:43   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,07:44)
Unfortunately, I couldn't access the full text but I'm not sure that this gets to the heart of my question, hard to tell though without getting into it further than the abstract.  Thanks anyway, I'll get a print copy on Monday and take a look at it in depth.

BTW, I was pretty sure I couldn't do much harm if indeed I did derail the current discussion as it's not really going anywhere but I apologize to any who disagree and I'll try to keep the sidebars to a minimum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive_gene

mentions many cases are where the dominant is a functioning enzyme, recessive is not.  Both are expressed, however.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:44   

not sure that I see anything particularly wacko about this.  Its a point of view, one that resonates heavily in many parts of this country.  I would actually expect to see a statement like this on many church websites and across many denominations.  Just because we're not in agreement with something doesn't make it wacko.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,14:42   

Skeptic,

Are you smoking those plants I warned you about? ;-)

It's wacko because it's so totally at odds with observed reality that it takes a singular effort of deliberate ignorance and delusion to maintain. Agreement with me, us, them, whoever is utterly irrelevant. People who disagree with me/us/them/whoever are not wacko because they disagree, nor are they not wacko because lots of other people agree with them. Their wacko status is independant of how many people agree with them or not, or who those people are.

Creationists disagree with the universe, mere human opinion doesn't enter the equation. In fact, according to certain religious ideas, creationists disagree with the revealed creation as set down by god. Not a view I share obviously) but one to note for future reference!

Trying to frame this as a disagreement of pure opinion is (if one is ignorant of the facts) merely a bit uninformed or daft. Trying to do so when not ignorant of the facts is dishonest.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,17:28   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,12:33)
Christians, we must get God's Word back into our daily lives, and into society's daily life as well. We have a country which was founded by Christians, nurtured by Christians, and is being lost by Christians. No other country in the world was ever founded this heavily on Christian principles - and no other country has had the freedom we have had. But that freedom is slipping away faster than most will admit. We need to be like King Josiah, reading the Scrolls which were once lost, right in the middle of the town square. No longer should we stand meekly aside and let groups like the ACLU remove God from our country - especially since they have no legal reason to do so!

Nice to see the Reconstructionists are no longer shy about piping up.

Can someone remind me, again, why Howard Ahmanson funds the Discovery Institute . . . . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,17:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,12:44)
not sure that I see anything particularly wacko about this.  

Of COURSE you don't.

Birds of a feather, and all that.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,17:43   

If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.  The idea that Christians should attempt to center themselves on their religious text is also far from wacko.  Again, I was just looking at the clip that Steve was responding to not the YEC/ID debate.  I guess I could quote the famous line "It all depends on what wacko is."

BTW, I don't smoke anything for a variety of health reasons.  Louis, you should know how bad that stuff is for you.   :D

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,17:46   

Louis Tokes


Huh?

Has anyone got any pizza?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,18:18   

Quote

If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.


Nope, it is undeniably false as long as any Christian doesn't see it that way. So it is undeniably false.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,18:22   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,17:43)
If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.

Although you don't mention if you think the ACLU are or not, I wonder, which do you think it is, and how do you define "public square"?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,18:22   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,17:43)
If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.

And undeniably wacko.

Just as wacko as declaring that the US is a "Christian nation".

Perhaps, Skeptic, you are unaware that, in every ACLU church/state case, at least one (and usually far more) of the plaintiffs supporters was a representative of "mainstream churches".  (Or, like the fundies, perhaps you ARE aware, and are just too dishonest and deceptive to say it out loud since it doesn't support your pet project.)

I'm, uh, pretty sure that those "mainstream churches" would disagree rather vehemently with your idiotic assertion (which, oddly, seems to resonate only with the fundie fringe) that the ACLU is "attempting to remove God from the public square".

Like I said, birds of a feather.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,18:26   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 03 2007,18:22)
Although you don't mention if you think the ACLU are or not, I wonder, which do you think it is

Wow, has it been THAT short a time that you've been here?

Seems longer than that . . . .


Once you hear a little more from Skeptic, you'll understand that he is that, uh, rare animal ----- a fundie who denies that he's a fundie.  Kind of like a quacking duck who denies that he's quacking.

Skeptic, weren't you going to tell us, a little while ago, how atheists were destroying society, or something . . . . ?


(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,18:50   

The 'public square' phrasing is vague and I think deliberately so--not necessarily by skeptic but by the more sophisticated culture warriors. What I was calling wacko were statements like the ACLU was trying to "remove God from our country".

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,18:54   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,17:43)
If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.  

Not that I care to get into an in-depth discussion, as that never went anywhere with AFDave, but it has been my experience that this type of statement is generally only advanced by:

a) Demagogues attempting to rile up the rabble by deliberately obfuscating the ACLUs position on Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause

b) the uninformed masses that buy the demagoguery lock, stock, and barrel.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,19:26   

I've been a member of the ACLU since 2002. Funny story--I used to believe the ACLU was biased against christians because it's a glib line peddled by the talk radio morons I listened to when I was a teen. One day it occurred to me that I had little direct evidence for that position, only secondhand testimony and so I went online and spent several hours looking at several dozen cases the ACLU was currently involved in. I was shocked to discover that they were clearly on the right side about 90% of the time as far as I could tell. Within weeks I sent my first check to them. In the intervening five years, I've followed their involvement in hundreds of cases. I've lost count of the number of times the ACLU has intervened on behalf of students who were unconstitutionally stopped from some religious activity. If you are a private citizen trying to obey or promote your religion in the public square, you have no better friend. If you are a government agent trying to impose your religion on the public square, you have no worse enemy.

I don't expect people to have my understanding of the ACLU's correctness. And they're not always correct; nobody's perfect. I expect most people on the right to mistakenly think they're anti-christian because dumb demagogues like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage-Weiner tell lies about them to a public that doesn't have the firsthand knowledge to know better.

To an audience of laypeople, you can bash the ACLU and look great. Do that to someone who knows about the law, and he'll take you apart limb from limb.

edited to fix mr. linky.

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 03 2007,20:31

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,19:41   

A good example of the anti-ACLU crowd being not simply wrong, but mental-patient-who-thinks-he's-Napoleon crazy.

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,21:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,19:26)
If you are a government agent trying to impose your religion on the public square, you have no worse enemy.

Or, additionally:  If you are a private citizen trying to get the government to impose your religion on the public square, you have no worse enemy.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,07:02   

Ah, Ian, the longer you stick around you'll see that as far as Lenny is concerned if you have any religious belief or profess a personal relationship with God then you are a fundie, whether you know it or not.  Of course, you are not the worst of the worst, which is reserved for the capitalists who are raping the cultures and economies of the world and must be pulled down by the poor and oppressed workers, Viva Le Revolution!

Oh yeah, and he shrugs a lot. too.

But back to the point, as an objective measure, I could visit church websites and attempting to collect statements just like these to see how "mainstream" they actually are.  I have my guess but I don't have the time.  A quicker analysis would be to look at rhe ACLU's cases involving religion and there I have no guess but I know what perception is.  Maybe the anti-ACLU marketing campaign has just been that effective.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,07:54   

http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/charlotte.html
Quote
Alleged quote from John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States: “The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

This quote is taken from the first edition of David Barton's videotape, “Americas's Godly Heritage.” The original source for this quote is the book, “The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860” by John Wingate Thornton. This particular quote attributed to John Quincy Adams is not documented with footnotes, nor is it even enclosed in quotation marks as all other quotes in the introduction to his book. Instead, it reads like Thornton's own conclusion about what John Quincy Adams believed. These words are not documented nor attached to a date, and have not been traced back to an original source. Elsewhere in this book, Adam's father, John Adams, is quoted properly with footnotes and quotation marks. In the absence of proper documentation, this quote should be considered questionable at best.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:23   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
Ah, Ian, the longer you stick around you'll see that as far as Lenny is concerned if you have any religious belief or profess a personal relationship with God then you are a fundie, whether you know it or not.

That's pretty funny, Skeptic.

Wes, have I ever referred to you as a "fundie"?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:25   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
 A quicker analysis would be to look at rhe ACLU's cases involving religion and there I have no guess but I know what perception is.  

A much easier way would be to look at all the ACLU's church/state cases (you can begin with Edwards v Aguillard and Maclean v Arkansas and Dover v Kitzmiller) and count how many churches and representatives of churches were among the plaintiffs.

No need to "guess".


Skeptic, of course, won't do that.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:25   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
 Maybe the anti-ACLU marketing campaign has just been that effective.

It certainly fooled you.  But then, it's easy for propaganda to fool people when it tells them what they already want to hear anyway.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:30   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
 Of course, you are not the worst of the worst, which is reserved for the capitalists who are raping the cultures and economies of the world and must be pulled down by the poor and oppressed workers, Viva Le Revolution!

Well, Skeptic, I'm pretty sure Ian already knows that I'm a commie.  After all, I make no secret of it.

But hey, go ahead and spout if you think it will help.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:31   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
Oh yeah, and he shrugs a lot. too.

If I were on UD, I'd be farting a lot.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:44   

shrug  :D

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:46   

BTW, I did check out the ACLU website.  Interesting reading.  Sorry to disappoint you again Lenny.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,08:46   

Skeptic is living proof that religious idiocy is an inherited disease. I'll bet when he looks in a mirror he can't see his own reflection, has urges to floss in the daytime and contributes to right wing cultural groups but doesn't know why. Doesn't dance, doesn't drink, doesn't do diddly on Saturday night and gives pleasure a toothless hag in Calcutta would reject. Generally an all round bore which makes him a perfect Christian fundamentalist representative but for one fault, he's not a fallen sinner.

Remember skeptic  you can't get into heaven unless you have at least one vice.

Still not convinced? Watch the movie "The Devil in Miss Jones", it's all there.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,09:09   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,08:30)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
Of course, you are not the worst of the worst, which is reserved for the capitalists who are raping the cultures and economies of the world and must be pulled down by the poor and oppressed workers, Viva Le Revolution!

Well, Skeptic, I'm pretty sure Ian already knows that I'm a commie.  After all, I make no secret of it.

But hey, go ahead and spout if you think it will help.  (shrug)

Yep, I know Lenny is a damn red commie liberal who should be shot and have the bible read over his grave while he burns in hell with his heroes Marx and Hitler and............./fundy

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,12:30   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,08:46)
 Sorry to disappoint you again Lenny.

Impossible, Skeptic.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,12:31   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,08:46)
BTW, I did check out the ACLU website.  

Wow.

All at once?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,15:09   

Well. k.e., I really don't know how to respond to any of that drivel.  I considered asking for proof of any single statement you made but what's the point, you already know the Truth.  I'll just let those comments speak for themselves.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,15:28   

Hey Skeptic, how many of the people that the ACLU took legal action for in church/state cases, were themselves religious groups and churches?

That's a pretty simple question to answer.  You could even do it by reading ACLU's webpage again.


I'm guessing that the answer to that simple question will demonstrate that your claim -- ACLU is anti-Christian and wants to remove God from public life -- is just a big ignorant steaming pile of horse shit.

Is my guess correct?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,20:40   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,08:23)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
Ah, Ian, the longer you stick around you'll see that as far as Lenny is concerned if you have any religious belief or profess a personal relationship with God then you are a fundie, whether you know it or not.

That's pretty funny, Skeptic.

Wes, have I ever referred to you as a "fundie"?

Not that I recall.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,21:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 04 2007,20:40)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,08:23)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,07:02)
Ah, Ian, the longer you stick around you'll see that as far as Lenny is concerned if you have any religious belief or profess a personal relationship with God then you are a fundie, whether you know it or not.

That's pretty funny, Skeptic.

Wes, have I ever referred to you as a "fundie"?

Not that I recall.

Skeptic, is there something you wanna say to me now . . . . ?


(sound of crickets chirping)


It won't kill you, Skeptic.  Honest, it won't.



(the crickets continue)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,22:51   

Yeah, Lenny, you can't read.  If you go back and try again you'll see that I'm talking about perception.  Also, I observe here that Wes never discusses his religious beliefs.  Were he to do so you might find yourself in a different position, especially if you didn't know who he was.  Funny that you mention honesty, you might try examining that concept sometime.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2007,23:00   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,23:09)
Well. k.e., I really don't know how to respond to any of that drivel.  I considered asking for proof of any single statement you made but what's the point, you already know the Truth.  I'll just let those comments speak for themselves.

Drivel eh? Does having your own thread make you feel important? Proof? Why don't you drivel on about a proof for a god, any god will do. Just provide drivel-less proof.

Pick any one you like; there are countless numbers of them.

Heck you can use 'The' Industrial Designer if you want.

There's no ACLU here.

Face it skeptic the only reason you are here apart from gratifying your martyr complex is the ID idiots bore the shit out of you and you wouldn't be seen dead associating with the brain dead zombies that pass for their intellectual leadership.

But you can't help yourself, despite all the evidence that religion and it's star struck parent, ancient mythology is just a human social construct and its success is the result of the propaganda of a few deranged zealots you have to come here and try to ride shotgun to defend the indefensible, namely lying liars lasciviously licking their larcenous lips, looking for fresh ways to bend language to steal from the thinking poor.

(You won't get that on UD)

You are on the wrong wagon skeptic, yours is the one sinking in the unparted river (presumably because they didn't raise their arms high enough before genuflecting) with the broken wheels and the drunkard wagon masters fighting over the last drops of crazy juice while their hungry, skinny old nags wander home.

Hurry over there and tell them their science, politics and religion are wrong and you can save them all by wasting time telling them their science, politics and religion are wrong....oh, don't worry you already do that...as you were.

Now about that proof?

In your own time, don't send me the test tube, just set up a website with your proof for a god(s) and I'll let you know if it’s good.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,04:07   

Could we remember that this thread is for RedDot to explain to us how the earth is only 6000 years old or has everyone already assumed that he ran away with his tail tucked between his legs, never to return?

BTW, just so skeptic can believe that all we atheists are wild eyed, foaming at the mouth, god killer wanna-bes who only want to see stereotypes so we can attack them:

Wesley-
You're a fundy,
You're a fundy,
You're a fundy,
You're a fundy,
You're a fundy,
You're a fundy.

There, feel better skeptic.

Sincerely,
Paul

PS I know you are not an atheist Lenny, I was not conflating you, just answering skeptic's drivel.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,09:03   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 05 2007,04:07)
Could we remember that this thread is for RedDot to explain to us how the earth is only 6000 years old or has everyone already assumed that he ran away with his tail tucked between his legs, never to return?

I assumed he did that a few days ago . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,09:05   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 05 2007,04:07)
BTW, just so skeptic can believe that all we atheists are wild eyed, foaming at the mouth, god killer wanna-bes who only want to see stereotypes so we can attack them:

Skeptic is, of course, a typical fundie --- he'd rather die than ever choke the words "I was wrong" past his lips.

Oh, and Skeptic, just for you ------->  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,13:00   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 02 2007,02:17)
Would you care to expand upon this subject? Namely:-

1) What convinced those guys that there had been land bridges (what where they trying to explain etc.)?
2) Who debunked the idea and how?

I think that I know where you are getting your arguments from (or at least the source of your ideas). If I am correct, you have very unreliable allies.

Do you really believe that the Universe is only 6K years old, or is it just the Earth that is so young? Either way, for that to be correct an awfull lot of scientific disciplines have to be way wrong. What would be the basis for believing in a young world?

1) According to Naomi Oreskes, many geologists associated uniformitarianism with rejecting and excluding religious arguments from the study of geology.  The theory was formed to try to explain how similar creatures' fossils could be on two continents, without allowing for a "God chose to" explanation, or continental drift.  They viewed continental drift as an impossibility since no one had witnessed the continents moving.

2) I don't have the whos or whens, but I would guess that advancements in undersea mapping and exploration that grew up in the '60's did the theory in for good.

Scripture does not mention the Universe specifically.  Only the Earth's creation is mentioned, along with the Sun and Moon (other stars are mentioned, but the language is vague as to when they were created), so I'm open to an old age for the Universe.

Yes, I realize that the basic assumptions which make up alot of scientific knowledge - if switched to a creation model, would negate a good portion of that knowledge.  Most of physics, chemistry, and biology would be left intact, much of our understanding of Astronomy would change (although not everything), and an awful lot of geology and the other softer sciences would need to rethink many theories.

Many people I have debated have had an assumption that if a creation model is followed, science would die.  Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.  Creationists believe strongly that God created the Earth (and Universe) for us to study, because ultimately, it would lead back to knowledge of the Creator.

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,13:32   

Quote (JAM @ Aug. 02 2007,01:00)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:36)
The ToE demands that proteins can form naturally and spontaneously.

No it doesn't. Modern evolutionary theories have nothing to do with your "tornado in a junkyard" BS, and the current best hypothesis for abiogenesis doesn't either.
   
Quote
Your post does nothing but prove my point.  It takes very skilled biochemists, energy, and equipment to build these molecules, they will not just spring out of a petri dish.

You don't know what you're talking about. It only takes equipment. I suspect that my requested sequence goes right from the Web form into the synthesizer without human interaction. The person running the synthesizer doesn't need to be a "very skilled biochemist" at all.
   
Quote
BTW, how many of Sigm-Aldrich's products are actual functional proteins (not merely peptides or enzymes)?

I'll presume that you just mean the peptide synthesis group, as S-A makes thousands of chemicals.

That being said, your question makes no sense at all, as virtually all enzymes are actual functional proteins. Would you mind rephrasing it in understandable language?
   
Quote
How many of their products use only L-isomers of amino acids?
Virtually all of their peptides do. I suspect that including D-isomers would cost extra. Are you aware that some peptides made by living things contain D isomers?
   
Quote
That's why I put "boiled" in quotation marks.  I'm aiming for the cheap seats so do not make the mistake of assuming I am uninformed when I use rough analogies.

Don't bother aiming for the cheap seats. Arguments by analogy are nearly always vapid, while in the real world, we scientists use analogies merely as explanatory devices.

And I don't have to assume that you are uninformed, because you proved that you were when you claimed that evolutionary theory requires proteins first.

I feel like I'm in the middle of the Monty Python skit with the "Argument Office" that turns out to be only contradictions!

1) Original evolutionary theory does not mention how life originally began.  So from Darwin's point of view, you are correct.  Current ToE scientists and advocates (most notably the late Stephen Gould) have included abiogenesis into the overall theory.  If that were not the case, no one would have much problem with ID theory or Creationists teaching school kids that God created life.

2) As for SA's products, I plan to call them and ask how they build their polypeptides, what is involved, and what their limitations are.  I would also like to know what products they begin with.  I suspect that they use some form of solid phase synthesis, which can be a very long, drawn out, and cumbersome process involving multiple steps, washing, cleaving, protecting chains, adding new chains, more washing, more cleaving, heating, cooling, spinning, and so forth.  If they have built some kind of unmanned, automated system, I'd like to know how.

3) You are correct, I should not have typed "enzymes".  Although enzymes are functional proteins, most have a simpler structure than "machine" proteins (say, transport proteins, motor proteins, hemoglobin, etc).  Because they are simpler, they should be easier to build in the lab.  Same with polypeptides, which often are unfolded versions of identically coded proteins.  I turn your attention to Wikipedia:

Protein folding is the physical process by which a polypeptide folds into its characteristic three-dimensional structure. Each protein begins as a polypeptide, translated from a sequence of mRNA as a linear chain of amino acids. This polypeptide lacks any developed three-dimensional structure (the left hand side of the neighboring figure). However each amino acid in the chain can be thought of having certain 'gross' chemical features. These may be hydrophobic, hydrophilic, or electrically charged, for example. These interact with each other and their surroundings in the cell to produce a well-defined, three dimensional shape, the folded protein (the right hand side of the figure), known as the native state. The resulting three-dimensional structure is determined by the sequence of the amino acids. The mechanism of protein folding is not completely understood.

Experimentally determining the three dimensional structure of a protein is often very difficult and expensive. However the sequence of that protein is often known. Therefore scientists have tried to use different biophysical techniques to manually fold a protein. That is, to predict the structure of the complete protein from the sequence of the protein.

For many proteins the correct three dimensional structure is essential to function. Failure to fold into the intended shape usually produces inactive proteins with different properties (details found under prion). Several neurodegenerative and other diseases are believed to result from the accumulation of misfolded (incorrectly folded) proteins


Since we don't know a whole lot about protein folding, and cannot duplicate what cells do easily with peptide chains, I just wanted to know how many of SA's products were actually folded proteins.

3) Now it is you who do not know what you are talking about (or, to be nicer, you simply mixed up L and D isomers):

Optical Properties of the Amino Acids

A tetrahedral carbon atom with 4 distinct constituents is said to be chiral. The one amino acid not exhibiting chirality is glycine since its '"R-group" is a hydrogen atom. Chirality describes the handedness of a molecule that is observable by the ability of a molecule to rotate the plane of polarized light either to the right (dextrorotatory) or to the left (levorotatory). All of the amino acids in proteins exhibit the same absolute steric configuration as L-glyceraldehyde. Therefore, they are all L-a-amino acids. D-amino acids are never found in proteins, although they exist in nature. D-amino acids are often found in polypetide antibiotics.

From this link

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,13:34   

A question for RedDot, regarding "increase in genetic information through mutation":

*ahem*

According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the  creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that "most mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

But wait ---------- today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

That raises a few questions ----- (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

But wait -- there's more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, "theory", all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* -- the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ------- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it).

But wait --- we're not done YET . . . . . .

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them "cancer victims". The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

But wait, we're STILL not finished . . . . . .

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If you can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits --- such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist "arguments" would certainly have killed all of Noah's children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.

Explain, please . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,13:35   

Hey RedDot, if biomolecules can't form by themselves through ordinary chemical means, then would you mind explaining to me why we find amino acids inside carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, where no life exists?
Did the Devil put them there to fool us?  Did God put them there to test our faith?

Oh, and regarding "Scripture", I have a few questions for you:  Do you believe that supernatural witches exist?  If so, do you think they should be killed?

And do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?


I want to see just how nutty you really are . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,13:38   

Hey RedDot, since you yammer a lot about "Jesus" "God" and "The Bible", I want you to clear something up for me:

When all those creationists testified in court, under oath, in Arkansas and Louisiana, that creationism was SCIENCE and did NOT depend on any religious belief or text, were they just lying to us about that?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,13:42   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 02 2007,05:35)
And what the heck has the magnetic field got to do with a 6000 yr old Earth?  As I understand it, the strength is currently decreasing and will soon switch polarity.  Something which has happened many times.

Why yes, the field strength is decreasing (the jury is still out on actual polarity shifts.  I have seen the data and I can find nothing that would indicate a compass needle would all of a sudden point south.  The data seems to indicate a sinusoidal fluctuation pattern, but the field is always "positive"), it is the overall energy output we are looking at.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,13:54   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,13:42)
Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 02 2007,05:35)
And what the heck has the magnetic field got to do with a 6000 yr old Earth?  As I understand it, the strength is currently decreasing and will soon switch polarity.  Something which has happened many times.

Why yes, the field strength is decreasing (the jury is still out on actual polarity shifts.  I have seen the data and I can find nothing that would indicate a compass needle would all of a sudden point south.  The data seems to indicate a sinusoidal fluctuation pattern, but the field is always "positive"), it is the overall energy output we are looking at.

Hi,
What was the population on the earth, do you think, at

The year of the flood
The year the pyramid of Giza was built
0 AD?

Also, was the global flood water salty or fresh?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:00   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,13:42)
 I have seen the data and I can find nothing that would indicate a compass needle would all of a sudden point south.

And who the hell are you, again . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:06   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,07:06)
A question for RedDot, regarding "increase in genetic information through mutation":

*ahem*

According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the  creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that "most mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

But wait ---------- today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

That raises a few questions ----- (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

But wait -- there's more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, "theory", all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* -- the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ------- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it).

But wait --- we're not done YET . . . . . .

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them "cancer victims". The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

But wait, we're STILL not finished . . . . . .

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If you can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits --- such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist "arguments" would certainly have killed all of Noah's children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.

Explain, please . . . . . ?

You make a very valid point.  So far the best I've seen.  And I'll admit, for the moment, you have me over a barrel.  It would seem from the Lee equation that only 136 different possible genotypes of humans for a specific gene from 16 alleles.  Taking incomplete dominance and co-dominance into effect, adding in time of 4,500 years and the normal, human mutation rate seems we are a bit shy of the observed number.  I will get back to you.

That being said, if no naturalistic answer is possible, we may have stumbled upon a previously undisclosed miracle.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:17   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:06)
 I will get back to you.

You do that.  

And try not to take five or six years, like AiG has so far.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:21   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:06)
That being said, if no naturalistic answer is possible, we may have stumbled upon a previously undisclosed miracle.

I know about that unknown miracle because, you see, I am a messenger from God.

And God has asked me to tell you to stop driving people away from Christianity by being such an arrogant self-righteous full-of-himself holier-than-thou prick.

And to stop driving educated people away from Christianity by making "Christianity" look so silly, stupid, medieval, backwards, and pig-ignorant.

God also asked me to tell you to learn the goddamn difference between "God" and "A Book About God".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:21   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,07:09)
Hey RedDot, if biomolecules can't form by themselves through ordinary chemical means, then would you mind explaining to me why we find amino acids inside carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, where no life exists?
Did the Devil put them there to fool us?  Did God put them there to test our faith?

Oh, and regarding "Scripture", I have a few questions for you:  Do you believe that supernatural witches exist?  If so, do you think they should be killed?

And do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?


I want to see just how nutty you really are . . . . . .

This one I answered already, but your sarcasm and giddyness led me to post a anxiolytic reply.

Amino acids are very simple structures.  They can be easily synthesised (naturally) from high energy compounds like methane and ammonia.  Proteins, on the other hand, are actually in a higher energy state than the amino acids they are formed from, which means that, thermodynamically, their formation is highly unlikely to occur unless some directed energy source is fed through the system (sunlight or lighting won't do it).  The mere presence of amino acids does not provide proof of life, only thermodynamically favored organic  chemistry.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supernatual witches".  I do know that witches exist, I do know that mediums exist, however I doubt they posess any supernatural powers anymore.  And of course I don't believe they should be killed - what kind of adolescent question is that?

Scripture does not prevent women from specifically speaking in church.  The verses you are paraphrasing do state that a woman should refrain from asking questions of the pastor while in a service.  They also state that a woman should not be in a position of religious authority over a man (no female pastors/priests/ministers, or deacons/elders).

Does that help you calm down?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:22   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,13:35)
Hey RedDot, if biomolecules can't form by themselves through ordinary chemical means, then would you mind explaining to me why we find amino acids inside carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, where no life exists?
Did the Devil put them there to fool us?  Did God put them there to test our faith?

Oh, and regarding "Scripture", I have a few questions for you:  Do you believe that supernatural witches exist?  If so, do you think they should be killed?

And do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?


I want to see just how nutty you really are . . . . . .

Hey RedDot, are you, uh, gonna get back to me about these, too . . . ?


[edit -- this was in transit when RedDot wrote the message above]

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:24   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
I'm not sure what you mean by "supernatual witches".  I do know that witches exist, I do know that mediums exist, however I doubt they posess any supernatural powers anymore.  And of course I don't believe they should be killed - what kind of adolescent question is that?

Exodus 22:18  -- "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".



How DARE you defy the plainly written instructions in the Bible. . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:27   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
Scripture does not prevent women from specifically speaking in church.  The verses you are paraphrasing do state that a woman should refrain from asking questions of the pastor while in a service.

Ahh, well THAT makes all the difference, huh . . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:32   

Well, RedDot, since you seem to be so gungho about telling all of us mere mortals "what the Bible really means", that brings up another question for you:

*ahem*

What is the source of your religious authority?  What makes your religious opinions any more authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible?  Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible.  Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are?  

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.  

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise?  Other than  your say-so?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:34   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
Amino acids are very simple structures.  They can be easily synthesised (naturally) from high energy compounds like methane and ammonia.  Proteins, on the other hand, are actually in a higher energy state than the amino acids they are formed from, which means that, thermodynamically, their formation is highly unlikely to occur unless some directed energy source is fed through the system (sunlight or lighting won't do it).  The mere presence of amino acids does not provide proof of life, only thermodynamically favored organic  chemistry.

So let me get this straight, junior --------

According to you, amino acids are easy to form naturally.

But proteins and enzymes (which are, uh, polymers of amino acids) are IMPOSSIBLE to form naturally?

Is THAT what you are saying?

Really?


Really and truly?


(snicker)  No WONDER nobody takes you seriously.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:37   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
Scripture does not prevent women from specifically speaking in church.  The verses you are paraphrasing do state that a woman should refrain from asking questions of the pastor while in a service.

Underline that part, please:


I Corinthians 14

34. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
35. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:43   

Oh, and hey, RedDot, why do all the old-earth anti-evolution creationists think that all the young-earth arguments are a big steaming pile of bullshit?

Are they all just god-hating atheists?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:48   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:06)
 It would seem from the Lee equation that only 136 different possible genotypes of humans for a specific gene from 16 alleles.  Taking incomplete dominance and co-dominance into effect, adding in time of 4,500 years and the normal, human mutation rate seems we are a bit shy of the observed number.

Hang on there, young Jedi ---- I thought creationists keep telling me that MUTATIONS CANNOT ADD GENETIC INFORMATION, that ALL MUTATIONS ARE DELETERIOUS, and that NO BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE POSSIBLE.

Make up your friggin mind, junior.  Can mutations produce new genetic information, or can't they.

Which is it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:51   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
 I do know that witches exist, I do know that mediums exist, however I doubt they posess any supernatural powers anymore.

Um, when did they STOP having supernatural powers . . .

And how can you tell.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:53   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 02 2007,14:39)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 02 2007,13:36)
 
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,21:35)
Of the 129 places I can find the mention of the earth in Scripture, none actually mention the shape of the Earth.  Please quote the source of your claim that Scripture states the Earth is flat.

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

The last time I checked, a circle was a two dimensional object, not a three dimensional one.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth."

A compass is used to draw circles, not spheres.  That was the King James verse.  Let's read the Revised Standard Version instead.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

Now that is pretty plain, isn't it?

(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

Unless the tree was burning in the earth's core, this suggests a flat Earth, don't you think? Indeed, if it WERE in the core, how did it come up through the ground and reach heaven?

Isaiah 40:22
The entire chapter of Isaiah 40 is essentially the words of a song.  It's poetry, not instruction or direction per se.  The entire verse is He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.  The hebrew word may be interchangable with some other idea or visual, I don't know.  Obviously we are not grasshoppers, so it is safe to say this is not to be taken literally.

Proverbs 8:27
You have an incorrect translation.  The NIV Hebrew/Greek Study Bible translates that verse this way:
I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.  Again, mostly imagery, a more poetic version of the Creation story.

Daniel 4:10-11
Again, an error in translation, but perhaps it would be better if I included verse 9 as well:
I said, Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and no mystery is too difficult for you.  Here is my dream; interpret it for me.  These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed; I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land.  Its height was enormous.  The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

The Hebrew word here for land is ra` which can also be translated as earth, world, land, ground.  Obviously only two make sense.  The same Hebrew word is used at the end for "earth".  I believe "ground" and "land" would have been better choices, but you get the idea.  Daniel is being told by Nebuchadnezzar about a dream he had.  All imagery.

Good try though, but the Bible is not a salad bar.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,14:59   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:53)
You have an incorrect translation.

Says who?

Until you've established your authority to interpret the Bible, and established that your interpretations are any better than my next door neighbor's or the kid who served me a Big Mac and fries for lunch this afternoon, there's simply no point in listening to any of your opinions about what the Bible says or doesn't say. (shrug)

So go ahead and establish your authority, please. Who the hell are you? What makes you any holier than anyone else? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your particular religious opinions than they should to anyone else's?

Other than your say-so?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:01   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:06)
 And I'll admit, for the moment, you have me over a barrel.  

Then maybe you shouldn't be quite such an arrogant pride-filled holier-than-thou prick anymore, huh.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:03   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:24)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
I'm not sure what you mean by "supernatual witches".  I do know that witches exist, I do know that mediums exist, however I doubt they posess any supernatural powers anymore.  And of course I don't believe they should be killed - what kind of adolescent question is that?

Exodus 22:18  -- "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".



How DARE you defy the plainly written instructions in the Bible. . . . .

Finish the rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament.  In it you will read that Christ came to fulfill and complete the law.  The old jewish Book of the Law is no longer needed.  We don't still sacrifice cattle, goats, or doves at church.  The law was necessary when it was given.  It shows us that we can never approach the Holiness of God.  We needed a permanent sacrifice that was untainted by human sin to be that.  God sent Jesus to be that sacrifice.  That did away with the needs of the Law, as long as we follow the most important laws: Love God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself.  Everything else is immaterial.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:13   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,15:03)
Finish the rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament.  In it you will read that Christ came to fulfill and complete the law.  

Thanks for your opinion.

Jesus's opinion, apparently, was different:


Matthew 5:17-18  " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



Wait, wait, let me guess --------->  that's a mis-translation, right?


(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:14   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,17:43)
If we look just at the text here, the idea that Christians believe the ACLU is attempting to remove God from the public  square is not only mainstream but probably undeniably true.  The idea that Christians should attempt to center themselves on their religious text is also far from wacko.

Thank you, some common sense for a change, although you probably disagree with everything else.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:18   

Hey RedDot, I'm still waiting to hear why anyone should pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to my pizza delivery boy's . . . .  .


Is there soemthing about that simple question that you don't like answering . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:25   

RedDot wrote:
Quote
That being said, if no naturalistic answer is possible, we may have stumbled upon a previously undisclosed miracle.

Well. that certainly is a satisfying explanation.

Carry on.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,15:30   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
I do know that mediums exist

Oh, I missed this one before . . .


Uh, RedDot, do you believe in . . . ghosts . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,16:17   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 04 2007,22:51)
Yeah, Lenny, you can't read.  If you go back and try again you'll see that I'm talking about perception.  Also, I observe here that Wes never discusses his religious beliefs.  Were he to do so you might find yourself in a different position, especially if you didn't know who he was.  Funny that you mention honesty, you might try examining that concept sometime.

Wow. I've never met anyone before who has claimed to have read everything I've ever written. That takes dedication.

Unfortunately, Skeptic was not paying attention when he did so.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,16:20   

Lenny, take a breath, you're starting to foam.  

k.e., you probably represent the worst of what comes from these debates.  If you could get past your hate and cookie-cutter mentality long enough to even pay attention who you were talking to that would be a start.  I've stated over and over again that you can not prove nor disprove the existence of God.  This is a question that is beyond science, period!  In fact, this is the only subject that really tweeks me because individuals continually attempt to use a scientific theory to make broad and sweeping statements about God.  Not only are they wrong but they cast dispersion upon a topic that I love: science.  Maybe if you kept your mouth shut for awhile and listened you might learn something or at least it would minimize the damage that you do.

Louis, referencing our earlier discussion, this is the damage that radical atheists can do.  There is no reason for a rift between science and religion and to perpetuate the lie is damaging.  This in no means exonerates the religious who attempt to do the same thing but I hold science to a higher standard and you can not have an argument by yourself.

Finally Paul, sorry to have derailed the discussion but we do have to be honest with ourselves.  We all know how much of a chance Reddot has of suppling acceptable evidence that the Earth is 6k yrs old so we can drop that pretense right now.

Oh yeah, Lenny, again, you really make yourself look like a fool when you try to bring the Bible into the discussion.  You'd to better to stick to anti-ID case law and communist fantasies.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,16:34   

Wes, thanks for the correction and I should amend my comments to say that I've never been involved in a discussion with in which you discussed your religious beliefs in the short time that I've been here.  That being said, in these links you take a stand as a Christian without really saying what that means to you.  I especially liked your coverage of the overlapping ideas but I would have enjoyed a deeper examination of the evolutionary creationist.  Don't get me wrong, you faith is not an issue here my contention is the less tolerant members here would find any discussion of the specifics of faith unreasonable no matter who's making the statement.  Then again, officially, that's not what we're here to discuss, it's just funny that we always end up back in the same conversation.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,18:40   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 05 2007,16:20)
Oh yeah, Lenny, again, you really make yourself look like a fool when you try to bring the Bible into the discussion.  You'd to better to stick to anti-ID case law and communist fantasies.

Skeptic, I care what you say.

No, really I do.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,18:42   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 05 2007,16:34)
my contention is the less tolerant members here would find any discussion of the specifics of faith unreasonable no matter who's making the statement.

And your contention is bullshit.

Just ask Wes.


Wes, has anyone here ever attacked you because of your religious beliefs . . . . ?


My goodness, that martyr complex that all fundies have is MASSIVE.  How one earth do you carry it around with you, Skeptic?  Do you use a wheelbarrow?



I'd ask RedDot, but alas, he seems to have run away again.

Perhaps he's asking his creationist pals how new alleles appeared.  (snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,19:09   

Quote
------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
(RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,15:03)
Finish the rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament.  In it you will read that Christ came to fulfill and complete the law.  

------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your opinion.

Jesus's opinion, apparently, was different:


Matthew 5:17-18  " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



Wait, wait, let me guess --------->  that's a mis-translation, right?


(snicker)  (giggle)


Besides, when did "fulfill" acquire the same meaning as "repeal"?

------------

Quote
I do know that mediums exist


In any department store, between the section for small sizes and the section for large sizes.

(If a short psychic is on the run from police, is that a small medium at large?)

Henry

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,20:46   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,13:38)
Hey RedDot, since you yammer a lot about "Jesus" "God" and "The Bible", I want you to clear something up for me:

When all those creationists testified in court, under oath, in Arkansas and Louisiana, that creationism was SCIENCE and did NOT depend on any religious belief or text, were they just lying to us about that?

Your confusion again stems from your worldview.  While I know you all will have a field day with this, please try to understand what I'm trying to say here.  To a Christian, there can be no separation of who we are and what we believe, these concepts are intrinsically intertwined.  We see the world through the lens of Scripture.  The way we look at human interactions, the way we look at politics, the way we look at economics, and yes, the way we look at science is all filtered through Scripture.  Let me give you an example.

I was at Mammoth Cave National Park last week.  My wife and I were taking a tour through one of the large chambers that had been dissolved from the surrounding limestone.  Both of us marveled at how much water it would have taken to cut such a chamber.  The literature in our hands told us millions of years through a slow trickle of water flowing through what were at one time tiny cracks.  However to our eyes we could only see the jagged effects from millions of cubic meters of water violently tearing away the rock.  Both can be valid observations.  One can be true, or both could be false.  Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.  Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see.  But that does give one side the right to state that the other's observations are not "science".

This, of course, is only one tiny illustration, however I hope it shows you that to a creationist, science is discovering the world God made.  We believe He made it possible for us to discover, wonder, perform experiments, and use our rational minds as a way to find Him.

Uniformitarians, on the other hand, see the world through the extremely laborious effects of time and tiny changes.  Your viewpoint is just as valid as ours.  You believe your viewpoint is the correct one, and I applaud your efforts to spread your beliefs.  However, we also believe our viewpoint is the correct one.  Which one is true, only time will tell.

We believe that time will happen when Christ returns to Earth.  Most of you probably assume that Christianity will die off, as many old religions have, from the effects of time, and mankind's ever advancing achievements.  Christians hope that all mankind comes to and follows Christ before he comes back.

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,20:56   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:32)
Well, RedDot, since you seem to be so gungho about telling all of us mere mortals "what the Bible really means", that brings up another question for you:

*ahem*

What is the source of your religious authority?  What makes your religious opinions any more authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible?  Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible.  Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are?  

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.  

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise?  Other than  your say-so?

When speaking of Scripture, I do not wish to ever use my own words.  Scripture should stand for itself, it is God's Word.  I am, however, human, and I apologize for giving anyone the impression that I speak with my own authority, which is non-existant by comparison.

It is my belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, useful for teaching and rebuking.  As far as my interprentations go, they are not my own, but those of both the ones who have instructed me, and those of the various professors of theology who wrote most of the available study Bibles.

If you have an issue with one of my statements, we can discuss it.  I did not broach the subject however, there was someone else here who felt it necessary to bring my beliefs as a Christian to this forum.  I merely answered questions to the best of my ability.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,20:59   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46)
I was at Mammoth Cave National Park last week.  My wife and I were taking a tour through one of the large chambers that had been dissolved from the surrounding limestone.  Both of us marveled at how much water it would have taken to cut such a chamber.  The literature in our hands told us millions of years through a slow trickle of water flowing through what were at one time tiny cracks.  However to our eyes we could only see the jagged effects from millions of cubic meters of water violently tearing away the rock.  Both can be valid observations.  One can be true, or both could be false.  Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.  Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see.  But that does give one side the right to state that the other's observations are not "science".

And this is why you are not a geologist. You are not trained to identify any signs of what happened. Your opinion on the matter is about as valid as someone who looks at a computer and says "I can't see how it works, must be magic! Hur hur hur!"

People who do know what they are doing have studied it, and reached a conclusion, that IS science.


I don't think its even possible for you to have picked a worse example.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:04   

"Everything is like equally valid, man"


   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:07   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46)
Your confusion again stems from your worldview.

No, my confusion stems from creationists blathering all the time about Jeebus, and then testifying under oath that creationism has nothing to do with religion or the Bible.

So, which is it.  Spare me your sermons and just answer my question.  Are they lying under oath when they testify to that, or aren't they.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:10   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:56)
When speaking of Scripture, I do not wish to ever use my own words.  Scripture should stand for itself, it is God's Word.  

Um, if the Bible stands for itself, then, uh, what the hell does anyone need YOU for?

Or are you so self-righteous and pride-filled that you think everyone needs YOU to tell them "what the Bible really means" . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:11   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:56)
 As far as my interprentations go, they are not my own, but those of both the ones who have instructed me, and those of the various professors of theology who wrote most of the available study Bibles.

That's nice.

And their interpretations became infallible when, exactly . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:13   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46)
I was at Mammoth Cave National Park last week.  My wife and I were taking a tour through one of the large chambers that had been dissolved from the surrounding limestone.  Both of us marveled at how much water it would have taken to cut such a chamber.  The literature in our hands told us millions of years through a slow trickle of water flowing through what were at one time tiny cracks.  However to our eyes we could only see the jagged effects from millions of cubic meters of water violently tearing away the rock.  Both can be valid observations.  One can be true, or both could be false.  Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.  Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see.  But that does give one side the right to state that the other's observations are not "science".

This is always my favorite: the "different interpretations of the evidence" argument.

Here's the problem, RedDot. Initially, perhaps, one could argue the chamber might have been carved slowly, by small amouns of water acting of millions of years, or rapidly, by large amounts of water acting all at once.

Thing is, we don't have to be content with that ambiguity. We can use science to figure out which option is correct. We simply ask, "If it took millions of years, what should we expect to see now? Or, if it happened all at once, say ~ 4000 years ago, then what should we expect to see now?"

Then we go out and actually look for the answers. And guess what? We see things that are consistent with the "slowly over millions of years" option, and inconsistent with the "all at once 4000 years ago" option. And we see that over, and over, and over again.

What do you think we should conclude from that:

A) It happened slowly over millions of years.

B) It happened all at once 4000 years ago, but God made it look like it took millions of years.

[edited to fix italics tags]

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:16   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:48)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:06)
It would seem from the Lee equation that only 136 different possible genotypes of humans for a specific gene from 16 alleles.  Taking incomplete dominance and co-dominance into effect, adding in time of 4,500 years and the normal, human mutation rate seems we are a bit shy of the observed number.

Hang on there, young Jedi ---- I thought creationists keep telling me that MUTATIONS CANNOT ADD GENETIC INFORMATION, that ALL MUTATIONS ARE DELETERIOUS, and that NO BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE POSSIBLE.

Make up your friggin mind, junior.  Can mutations produce new genetic information, or can't they.

Which is it.

I know of no mutation that can occur in multi-cellular organisms, which is capable of adding novel information which can be passed down to future generations.  Certainly no single-point mutation can do this.  To be sure, they can provide genomic changes in a population, most either deleterious or neutral, but no new structures.  The single-point mutations which have conferred some measure of improvement when faced with a particular environmental pressure always seem to turn out to be deleterious when the environmental pressure is removed (blind cave fish for example).

Gene duplication does not add novel information, and is also usually bad for the organism (Huntington's desease is a good example).  Insertion mutations (from say a virus), phase shifts, or gene migration are the only way a chunk of new (to the organism) information can enter a genome, but so far as I know, that happens in single celled organisms or some parasites.  I believe that some insects have had experiments done on them which forced phase shifts, but I can't put my hand on that paper right now for the details.  I'm also fairly sure that when insertion mutations, or gene migrations happen in a single-celled organism, other information is discarded, resulting in at least a zero-sum gain to the overall base pair count.  However, these experiments are ongoing, so I could be wrong there.

To answer your question in a nutshell, I do not believe that Darwinian mechanisms can produce novel genetic information in a macroscopic organism which can be passed down to the next generation.  The human mutation rate I mentioned is to remove information from the gene pool.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:17   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:56)
If you have an issue with one of my statements, we can discuss it.

You miss the entire point, Junior.  I'm not interested in disputing any of "your" statements because (pay attention here, Junior) your statements don't matter a rat's ass to me.

You're no more holy than anyone else, you don't know any more about God than anyone else, your religious opinions are no better than anyone else's, and your interpretations of the Bible (wherever you got them) aren't any better than anyone else's.  So there is simply no need to pay the slightest attention to any of your religious opinions.  They don't mean any more than those of the kid who delivers my pizzas.

You are not God's Spokesman™©.  You're just another pride-filled arrogant self-righteous fundie prick who is full-of-himself enough to believe that he is, quite literally, holier than everyone else.

And you're not.  (shrug)



As I noted, all I'm interested in now is seeing just how nutty you really are.

So . . . .

When did the witches lose their supernatural powers.

Answer that question for me, Mr High And Holy.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:18   

Quote
Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.  

CA221: Were you there?

Quote
Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see.


CA310: Scientists see what they want to see


   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:20   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,21:16)
To answer your question in a nutshell, I do not believe that Darwinian mechanisms can produce novel genetic information in a macroscopic organism which can be passed down to the next generation.  The human mutation rate I mentioned is to remove information from the gene pool.

That's nice.

Then how the hell did humans go from 16 alleles to over 700 in just 4500 years?


Did space aliens use DNA engineering to put them there?

Did God ZAP them all there?

Do tell, junior.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:22   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,22:16)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:48)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:06)
It would seem from the Lee equation that only 136 different possible genotypes of humans for a specific gene from 16 alleles.  Taking incomplete dominance and co-dominance into effect, adding in time of 4,500 years and the normal, human mutation rate seems we are a bit shy of the observed number.

Hang on there, young Jedi ---- I thought creationists keep telling me that MUTATIONS CANNOT ADD GENETIC INFORMATION, that ALL MUTATIONS ARE DELETERIOUS, and that NO BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE POSSIBLE.

Make up your friggin mind, junior.  Can mutations produce new genetic information, or can't they.

Which is it.

I know of no mutation that can occur in multi-cellular organisms, which is capable of adding novel information which can be passed down to future generations.  Certainly no single-point mutation can do this.  To be sure, they can provide genomic changes in a population, most either deleterious or neutral, but no new structures.  The single-point mutations which have conferred some measure of improvement when faced with a particular environmental pressure always seem to turn out to be deleterious when the environmental pressure is removed (blind cave fish for example).

Gene duplication does not add novel information, and is also usually bad for the organism (Huntington's desease is a good example).  Insertion mutations (from say a virus), phase shifts, or gene migration are the only way a chunk of new (to the organism) information can enter a genome, but so far as I know, that happens in single celled organisms or some parasites.  I believe that some insects have had experiments done on them which forced phase shifts, but I can't put my hand on that paper right now for the details.  I'm also fairly sure that when insertion mutations, or gene migrations happen in a single-celled organism, other information is discarded, resulting in at least a zero-sum gain to the overall base pair count.  However, these experiments are ongoing, so I could be wrong there.

To answer your question in a nutshell, I do not believe that Darwinian mechanisms can produce novel genetic information in a macroscopic organism which can be passed down to the next generation.  The human mutation rate I mentioned is to remove information from the gene pool.

Quote
Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
Response:

  1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim,


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

If this guy's just going to repeat the four or five hundred old creationist claims, I'm outta here.

   
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:24   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:51)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
I do know that witches exist, I do know that mediums exist, however I doubt they posess any supernatural powers anymore.

Um, when did they STOP having supernatural powers . . .

And how can you tell.

I didn't say they did stop, I said I doubt they exist anymore.  Just a personal belief, not backed up by anything.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:25   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46)
.  To a Christian, there can be no separation of who we are and what we believe, these concepts are intrinsically intertwined.  We see the world through the lens of Scripture.  The way we look at human interactions, the way we look at politics, the way we look at economics, and yes, the way we look at science is all filtered through Scripture.  

Let me just make sure of something here, Junior ------


You **DO** understand the difference between "God" and "A Book About God", right?

Right?


You **DO** understand that they are , uh, not the same thing, right?


Right?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:29   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,21:24)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:51)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:21)
I do know that witches exist, I do know that mediums exist, however I doubt they posess any supernatural powers anymore.

Um, when did they STOP having supernatural powers . . .

And how can you tell.

I didn't say they did stop, I said I doubt they exist anymore.  Just a personal belief, not backed up by anything.

(sigh)

Dude, this is a simple question.

*I* asked you if supernatural witches exist, and if they should be killed.


*YOU* answered that witches exist, but you doubt they possess supernatural powers anymore.


*I* asked when they *stopped* having them.

NOW you are saying their supernatural powers DIDN'T stop, right before you say you doubt they exist anymore.



Sit down, take a deep breath, and answer my simple questions, junior.

One more time:

Do supernatural witches exist.  Yes or no.

Did supernatural witches EVER exist.  Yes or no.

If they did, do they still?  Yes or no.

If they don't still, when did they stop?


Take your time, junior.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:32   

We could save time by replacing this guy with a perl script which prints an Index of Creationist Claims entry every few hours.

Oh well. The search for a challenging creationist continues.

   
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:35   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:59)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,14:53)
You have an incorrect translation.

Says who?

Until you've established your authority to interpret the Bible, and established that your interpretations are any better than my next door neighbor's or the kid who served me a Big Mac and fries for lunch this afternoon, there's simply no point in listening to any of your opinions about what the Bible says or doesn't say. (shrug)

So go ahead and establish your authority, please. Who the hell are you? What makes you any holier than anyone else? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your particular religious opinions than they should to anyone else's?

Other than your say-so?

I didn't say I had any authority to interpret the Bible (or translate it for that matter).  I stated that the translations presented to me was incorrect according to the New International Version Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible which is available through AMG Publishers (ISBN 0-89957-701-6).  While there are numerous translations available, I also gave the orignial Hebrew word, and what all of it's potential meanings are.  Out of four possible uses for ra` in the contexts discussed, only two make any sense at all, which is why the NIV Study Bible translated it the way it did.

The question posed was an attempt to trip me up with a trivial piece of minutae.  Are you suggesting I did not have the right to answer it?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:35   

Lenny, if you truly do not care what Reddot has to say concerning God, The Bible, et. al., then why do you keep asking him questions?  Please, a little honesty.  You really do look the fool here.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:41   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2007,21:22)
If this guy's just going to repeat the four or five hundred old creationist claims, I'm outta here.

Well, after all, that's all he HAS.  It's not like Junior here has ever taken a science course, or anything.

He *wants*  to blieve that he is here to preach to the heathens.  What he's REALLY here for, deep down inside where he doesn't want to look, is simply to proudly show off to everyone how godly and holy he is, and how excellently special he is in the eyes of the Lord, and how terribly and spectacularly martyred and mocked he is by the big bad evil world for his most excellent piety and faith.

He won't last long.  Just enough to feed his martyr complex.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:42   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 05 2007,21:35)
Lenny, if you truly do not care what Reddot has to say concerning God, The Bible, et. al., then why do you keep asking him questions?  

Because I enjoy yanking the chain of the junkyard dog once in a while, just so I can listen to him howl madly at the moon.

RedDot is nutty.  I just want to see HOW nutty.


-edit-    And anyway, he came here to be oppressed.  I don't want him to go away disappointed.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:44   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2007,21:32)
We could save time by replacing this guy with a perl script which prints an Index of Creationist Claims entry every few hours.

Oh well. The search for a challenging creationist continues.

Awwww, come on --- this guy is DIRECT FROM GOD, ya know . . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:44   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,21:16)
I know of no mutation that can occur in multi-cellular organisms, which is capable of adding novel information which can be passed down to future generations.  Certainly no single-point mutation can do this.  To be sure, they can provide genomic changes in a population, most either deleterious or neutral, but no new structures.  The single-point mutations which have conferred some measure of improvement when faced with a particular environmental pressure always seem to turn out to be deleterious when the environmental pressure is removed (blind cave fish for example).

Gene duplication does not add novel information, and is also usually bad for the organism (Huntington's desease is a good example).  Insertion mutations (from say a virus), phase shifts, or gene migration are the only way a chunk of new (to the organism) information can enter a genome, but so far as I know, that happens in single celled organisms or some parasites.  I believe that some insects have had experiments done on them which forced phase shifts, but I can't put my hand on that paper right now for the details.  I'm also fairly sure that when insertion mutations, or gene migrations happen in a single-celled organism, other information is discarded, resulting in at least a zero-sum gain to the overall base pair count.  However, these experiments are ongoing, so I could be wrong there.

To answer your question in a nutshell, I do not believe that Darwinian mechanisms can produce novel genetic information in a macroscopic organism which can be passed down to the next generation.  The human mutation rate I mentioned is to remove information from the gene pool.

Hey RedDot,

You've only been asked a dozen times to please define biological information, and give a way to quantify biological information so you can tell if it actually increased or decreased.

Are you going to answer any time this decade?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:51   

Reddot, I am fairly confident that you could not have picked a worse example for your little exercise in post-modern relativism vis-a-vis the fundie flavor that defaults to revelation.

In particular, Flud Geollergists like to speculate wildly that fossils, sedimentary formations and fossil fuel deposits are all from the fludd.  Lenny's question 'How did the oak trees outrun the trilobites' aside, you are having your cake and eating it too.  But it is not cake my friend but a thin veneer on a turd sandwich.

Mammoth cave is part of the cumberland plateau, a sandstone and limestone formation that extends (ONLY on the western side of the blue ridge/ appalachian front) from north-eastern and central alabama all the way into canada.  Some folks call the northern section the allegheny plateau but there is no reasonable demarcation outside of political boundaries.  The entire formation is 1)  rich in fossil deposits  2)  rich in petroleum/coal/gas deposits 3)  rich in karst topography (translation:  caves) and 4)  lying on top of the fault lines where the the appalachian mountain formations subducted under the ancient marine sediments that comprise the plateau(s).  the whole damn way.

we have magnificent evidence for all sorts of macro processes here that flatly contradict your Krayation and Flud models.  the point i particularly want to call into question is the bit about the caves being formed by the Flud.  Iffffffff the fossils in the deposits that the caves are a part of were formed by the Flud, then you are stuck with a problem.  How did this massive (1000 + miles long, sometimes 100 miles wide) monolith form by the catastrophic actions of jebus, entombing all sorts of plants and animals, yet these raging waters were (while conglomerating sediments and panda fossils and giant dragonfly wings (yeah, they wouldn't tear apart in a catastrophic opening of the deep.  f****** insect wings, man) and horsetails blah blah blah) gently sculpting subterranean passages and forming a myriad of delicate rock formations at the same time?  if you think the flud is responsible for all fossils on earth (or, alternatively, play a slippery slope game, so whatever fraction you wish to ascribe to it), then turn around and also say that this magical event also formed the most fragile configurations of thin rocks (mineral solutes), then you are a prime of example of why we can't take you seriously.  

Because that is the dumbest thing that anyone has ever heard, and I say that with the utmost respect that it commands.

But not to paint you in a corner, why aren't there fossils on top of the smokies?  why not on top of any of the metamorphic chains in the southern appalachians?  why only in the cumberland plateau and to the west of the uplift from alabama and mississippi to nova scotia?  

toodles.  look forward to hearing you ignore this, whistling 'Amazing Grace' past Ye Olde Boneyard of the Deep.

Erasmus, FCD

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:52   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,14:34)
So let me get this straight, junior --------

According to you, amino acids are easy to form naturally.

But proteins and enzymes (which are, uh, polymers of amino acids) are IMPOSSIBLE to form naturally?

Is THAT what you are saying?

Really?


Really and truly?


(snicker)  No WONDER nobody takes you seriously.

Proteins and enzymes are not simply polymers of amino acids - that is only half the story.  They are highly specialized, massively built, and precisely folded polymers of amino acids.  Also made from only a subset of all the available amino acids.  Mix amino acids in a test tube, add some heat, or light, or electricity, spin it, dry it, and pretty much the only thing that you will have in your test tube at the end of the day is useless goo.

That being said, out of thousands upon thousands of proteins and enzymes made by life, inevitably there is bound to be a small subset which defy the rules.  I don't know every protein or enzyme in the arsenal, however if there is one, it is bound to be quite small in length, and simple in secondary structure.  It might not even have a tertiary structure.

Most amino acids on the other hand, can form quite readily from high-energy compounds.  The Miller-Urey experiment proved that.  Of course, people went nuts when the results were anounced in  either '53 or '54.  "Life can be spontaneously generated" was all anyone could talk about.  J. Oro did some more experiments about six years later with HCN and found he could make a few amino acids that way.  Then the wheels fell off the trolley, as they say.  The "early earth" atmosphere did not contain reductive chemicals.  A bit of a problem, but one ToE proponents were willing to brush aside.

The next step to a protein proved to be far more challenging than anyone anticipated.  It seems they don't go together quite so easily, and have structures which we are only now beginning to understand.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:53   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,21:35)
I didn't say I had any authority to interpret the Bible

Then why do you keep talking?


If the Bible stands by itself, and if you're no more an authority than anyone else is, then what the hell does anyone need *YOU* for?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:56   

Reddot,

By the way, hope you enjoyed your vacation.  Mammoth is a great park, but the best time to visit is the end of april.  The entire joint is a morel mushroom patch the likes of which i have never seen.  I have also seen giant ginseng, ramps (allium tricoccum) and a buzzard roost with a 6 foot pile of dung in it.  They have been using thing that at least since the time of Job.  Or earlier.  Or later.  It's all the same, depending on your worldview.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,21:59   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 05 2007,21:51)
 Lenny's question 'How did the oak trees outrun the trilobites' aside,

Well it was Velociraptors that were outrun by the oak trees.  ;)  But my question never got answered, I notice . . .


Perhaps Junior would have an easier time with another question:

*ahem*


Why are modern leatherback turtles found only at the TOP of the geological column, when, according to all the precepts of "flood geology", they should be found at the BOTTOM?  After all, they (1) weigh a ton (literally) and sink like a rock at death, and so should have been "hydraulically sorted" to the very bottom, (2) live in the deep oceans,  and therefore should be at the very lowest level of Flood sediments, and (3) can barely move on land and therefore can't reach the high ground.


So why is it that we find leatherback turtles only at the TOP of the column.


Do tell, Junior . . . .



-edit-   Wait, wait, don't tell me ------ it's ANOTHER UNDISCLOSED MIRACLE, right?  God just gave them all a lift, huh?

(snicker)  (giggle)


Maybe THAT explains how the oak trees outran the Velociraptors, too . . . . . .


BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AHA  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:01   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,21:52)
Proteins and enzymes are not simply polymers of amino acids - that is only half the story.  They are highly specialized, massively built, and precisely folded polymers of amino acids.

So f'ing what --- amino acids are specialized, massively built, and precisely ordered polymers of smaller molecules.

Yet we find them inside meteorites.

No WONDER nobody takes you seriously, Junior.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:07   

Wow, so far RedDot is an expert in Biblical literature, a biochemist, a molecular geneticist, and an expert in geological cave formation.


Jack of all trades, huh.

Is there ANY field you're not a master of, Dot?


(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:07   

Reddot, over on your blog you claim this

   
Quote
What has been shown, is that the probabilities of the number of mutations occuring in a species which would be necessary to create another species are astronomically high. Only single celled organisms, viruses (and the like), and a few insects produce the numbers necessary to even come close to making the odds closer to possible - and they still can't do it.

and this
   
Quote
I am astounded that you understand statistical theory and cannot grasp the concept that the probabilities are massively against purely natural processes producing life, and then producing vast variations of life.

Could you please provide the actual probability figures, and the calculation you did to arrive at them?  Please provide justification for any assumptions you make, and show all work.  Thanks.

Also, earlier you said this:

   
Quote
It is my belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, useful for teaching and rebuking.  As far as my interprentations go, they are not my own, but those of both the ones who have instructed me, and those of the various professors of theology who wrote most of the available study Bibles.

Which version of the Bible is the inerrant one?  The 1611KJV?  NKJV?  Other?  How did you decide which one was inerrant, since they disagree with one another?

Thanks again - I'm really looking forward to your answers!

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:14   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,15:13)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,15:03)
Finish the rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament.  In it you will read that Christ came to fulfill and complete the law.  

Thanks for your opinion.

Jesus's opinion, apparently, was different:


Matthew 5:17-18  " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



Wait, wait, let me guess --------->  that's a mis-translation, right?


(snicker)  (giggle)

He did fulfill the Law when He died.  At the Lord's Supper he formed a new covenant with those who believe in Him.  Lucky too, or us Gentiles would never be allowed salvation.  It is faith in Christ which saves us, not obediance to the Law.  That does not mean that there are no rules, just that salvation used to come from strict obediance only.  There are several great discussions of this in Hebrews.  Fortunately because of love, Christ was sent to do away with that, and establish a new pathway to God, we were doing an awful job keeping up our end of the bargain.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:16   

Where the heck is Heddle now, when he'd actually be USEFUL?

After all, there's only room on this planet for ONE Christian who speaks directly on behalf of God . . . . . .  Heddle  can set this pretender right.



(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:16   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,22:14)
He did fulfill the Law when He died.  

Where does it say that.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:18   

Isn't it odd that Junior falls all over himself to tell us all about his religious opinions, but, for some odd reason, never seems to have the time to answer anybody's questions about his, uh, "science" . . . . ?

That does indeed seem to be a predictable pattern with fundies, doesn't it . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:27   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,21:41)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2007,21:22)
If this guy's just going to repeat the four or five hundred old creationist claims, I'm outta here.

Well, after all, that's all he HAS.  It's not like Junior here has ever taken a science course, or anything.

He *wants*  to blieve that he is here to preach to the heathens.  What he's REALLY here for, deep down inside where he doesn't want to look, is simply to proudly show off to everyone how godly and holy he is, and how excellently special he is in the eyes of the Lord, and how terribly and spectacularly martyred and mocked he is by the big bad evil world for his most excellent piety and faith.

He won't last long.  Just enough to feed his martyr complex.

Actually, I'm here because I had been invited.  Probably to mock me - to be sure, but regardless, I was invited.  I took the bait because debating all of you is stretching me mentally.  It is a challenge, and frankly, fun.  I am not here to preach, however, I will answer most questions posed to me.

As far as science courses, I have taken plenty - but so far, no one has asked.  You have merely assumed that all of my assertions are gleaned only from "kooky", "fringe" websites or publications.  That my science education can be boiled down to the rantings and ravings of a lunatic few.

You would be mistaken in those assumptions.

I also am anything but Holy.  Only God is Holy.  I'm not even a stain on the bubblegum stuck to his shoe.  But for some reason He loves us grotesque little beings, and wants to be with us - badly enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for us.

One more thing, because I was invited and will never be apart of this group, I also will leave whenever you would like.  All you have to do is ask.

So keep asking me questions, or ask me to leave...both of which are acceptable.  Trivializing me is not helping you.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:35   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,22:27)
So keep asking me questions, or ask me to leave...both of which are acceptable.  Trivializing me is not helping you.

Asking you questions gets boring real quick unless you actually make an attempt to answer them.

Now, how about that definition for biological information, or those probability calculations?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:36   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,22:07)
Wow, so far RedDot is an expert in Biblical literature, a biochemist, a molecular geneticist, and an expert in geological cave formation.


Jack of all trades, huh.

Is there ANY field you're not a master of, Dot?


(snicker)  (giggle)

I have studied multiple disciplines, yes.  I am a master of none, and I am weakest in Geology.  My primary science is physics.

Now, how many of your opponents have given away their weaknesses?

  
RedDot



Posts: 58
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:38   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,22:18)
Isn't it odd that Junior falls all over himself to tell us all about his religious opinions, but, for some odd reason, never seems to have the time to answer anybody's questions about his, uh, "science" . . . . ?

That does indeed seem to be a predictable pattern with fundies, doesn't it . . . . .

Sorry, you've caught me researching.  I'm working on replies, however they will go up on my site first.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:43   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,22:38)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 05 2007,22:18)
Isn't it odd that Junior falls all over himself to tell us all about his religious opinions, but, for some odd reason, never seems to have the time to answer anybody's questions about his, uh, "science" . . . . ?

That does indeed seem to be a predictable pattern with fundies, doesn't it . . . . .

Sorry, you've caught me researching.  I'm working on replies, however they will go up on my site first.

Ok, fair enough.  One quick question before you go - as a YEC, do you subscribe to Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory?

Just curious.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,22:52   

Reddot, in case we never see you again (and to be honest I deplore dogpiles so just in case you are googling or other research answers to my questions I for one would be delighted if you just answer the question) 'What the heck are you talking about when you say 'biological information' and what is the appropriate metric for evaluating such a beastie.  

We can do geology later.  I am fairly confident that the YEC's have mostly left the appalachians alone.  The reasons for this may become clearer as we progress.

toodles

edited to add a )

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,23:04   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,22:27)
 I took the bait because debating all of you is stretching me mentally.

Of that, I am quite certain.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,23:05   

Just a general note: the cardinal rule of moderation here is don't insult other commenters. Comments which violate that rule are moved to  The Bathroom Wall.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,23:06   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2007,23:05)
Just a general note: the cardinal rule of moderation here is don't insult other commenters. Comments which violate that rule are moved to  The Bathroom Wall.

OK, I'll try not to insult the nutter anymore.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,23:14   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,22:27)
So keep asking me questions, or ask me to leave...both of which are acceptable.

Dude, your martyr complex is getting tiresome.


As for questions, these will do for starters:

How did the alleles on Noah's Ark increase from 16 per locus to over 700 per locus, in the space of just 4500 years, without any being added by mutations?

Why do old-earth anti-evolution creationists think all the young-earth arguments are full of shit?

When did witches, uh, stop having supernatural powers.  (snicker)  (giggle)  And how can you tell.

How did oak and pine trees get above Velociraptors in the geological column?

Why are leatherback turtles found only at the TOP of the geological column, and not at the BOTTOM as predicted by all the precepts of "flood geology"?



Any time you're ready . . . . . .



Oh, and it would be nice too if you could explain to us just what the hell a "created kind" is, and how one can objectively determine whether any two given organisms are or are not the same "kind" . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,23:15   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,23:27)
One more thing, because I was invited and will never be apart of this group, I also will leave whenever you would like.  All you have to do is ask.

I doubt we'll be asking. You have to be rude on a daily basis for several months before we ask you to leave, and you don't seem that type.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,23:17   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2007,23:15)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,23:27)
One more thing, because I was invited and will never be apart of this group, I also will leave whenever you would like.  All you have to do is ask.

I doubt we'll be asking. You have to be rude on a daily basis for several months before we ask you to leave, and you don't seem that type.

Anyway, we want you to stay around so we can show all the lurkers how silly creation "science" is.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2007,23:23   

Hey Dot, another question I'm curious about:

Norman Geisler, Kent Hovind, and Hugh Ross have all stated that flying saucers come from the Devil and are used to entice good Christians into the Occult.

Do you agree with them?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005