[_ Old Earth _] An issue of function by design

[Barbarian]

And scientists don't use the great age of the Earth to deny God. What a foolish idea.

 

[Barbarian]

The world is growing crazy and getting more so by the minute. Crime rates have skyrocketed

Well, let's take a look...

So yet another source either has no idea what he's talking about, or lying to you. You decide.

Even though this is something we're all quite aware of, what most of us do not realize is that the cause of this destructive behavior stems from evolutionary teachings!

Much as I'd like to say teaching of evolution has depressed the crime rate, no has any evidence that it makes any difference at all one way or the other. Your guy, as you now see, is just making up stories as he goes.

You see, what a person believes determines how they behave.

So you think that believing creationism causes one to lie? I don't think this guy is doing this because he's a creationist. There are honest creationists. No, you've just had astoundingly bad luck in picking who you will believe.

 

[brother Paul]

More reading for ToB

http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#cite_note-10

 

[Barbarian]

No fairy tale here..

Well, let's take a look...

From your first link, this fairy tale:
Evolution insists that the Earth must be billions of years old.
Evolutionists necessarily cannot believe the Earth is what it is, and that is 6,000 – 10,000 years old!


It is at this point that those who claim to be true scientists will jump and cite carbon-dating as not only disproof of a divine creation, but of God himself!

No scientist says carbon dating proves the Earth is billions of years old. So either your source is supremely ignorant of what science says, or he's intentionally lying to you. You should understand that the guys who publish stuff like this want you to read it, but don't want you putting it up on message boards where it can be debunked easily.

 

[turnorburn]

Well, let's take a look...

So yet another source either has no idea what he's talking about, or lying to you. You decide.



Much as I'd like to say teaching of evolution has depressed the crime rate, no has any evidence that it makes any difference at all one way or the other. Your guy, as you now see, is just making up stories as he goes.



So you think that believing creationism causes one to lie? I don't think this guy is doing this because he's a creationist. There are honest creationists. No, you've just had astoundingly bad luck in picking who you will believe.

i have decided, as well as many others have decided to get rid of their television sets and even stop listening to their radios because of the crime and violence, and that's from personal testimonies on the streets.. Didn't you see my post?

This is what i believe.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

tob

 

[turnorburn]

The demonstrated fact of favorable mutations pretty much settles the question. Your source is profoundly ignorant of the very subject about which he chose to lecture us.



So was the persistence of new mutations in a population. Until Mendel figured it out, and rescued Darwin's theory.



As you now see, Darwin's point is that it wasn't random. You would never see the variety of life we have, indeed you would never have existed without natural selection.

Oops' missed this video titled The Lie of Natural Selection from Sermon Audio..

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=118092215430

tob

 

[Barbarian]

From your link:
15 questions for creationists to ask about evolution:
How did life originate?
Not part of evolutionary theory. Scientists assume life began somehow (Darwin thought God just created the first living things), and evolutionary theory merely explains how living things change over time. Hard to say whether the author of this site is just ignorant or trying to be deceptive. Bad idea to play that game, though.

How did the DNA code originate?
Same error/dishonesty.

How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

By itself, it couldn't. Natural selection is required. And mutation plus natural selection has been demonstrated to increase useful information in a genome. Would you like to learn how?

Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’

It isn't. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Mutation and natural selection cause evolution (or in the case of a very well-fitted population in an unchanging environment, prevents evolution) If this puzzles you, we can discuss stabilizing selection. Let me know.

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Mutation and natural selection. Would you like me to show you some examples?

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Vestigial organs, suboptimal adaptations, broken genes, and so on. Would you like to learn more about these?

How did multi-cellular life originate?

That's actually a pretty good question, and a valid one for evolutionary theory. It took a couple billion years to happen, so it was an exceedingly difficult step. The evidence is that it occurred by endosymbiosis. The evidence includes a case of directly observed evolution by endosymbiosis. There is also much other evidence for it. Would you like to learn about that?

How did sex originate?

Gradually. The simplest form of sexual behavior is conjugation, whereby two prokaryotes connect via pili, and exchange plasmids. There are all sorts of stages of sexual reproduction. The simpler ones are optional, but in most eukaryotes, it has become the only way to reproduce.

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Let's test that assumption. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connect, and I'll see if there's a transitional for it.

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years

Let's test that one, too. Name me one species that has persisted for hundreds of millions of years. There are phyla and classes, maybe some orders, but no species that anyone has been able to show me. It's at least theoretically possible, but unlikely, since it would require a very well-fitted population in an environment that remained the same for hundreds of millions of years.

How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Evolutionary theory doesn't say it did. Mutation and natural selection can account for behavior. But meaning is something quite different. Many evolutionists think God did that.

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?

That's mostly a creationist thing. In science there has to be some evidence.

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Antibiotic protocols. Flemming, the discoverer of penicillin, predicted the evolution of resistance to the antibiotic, and proposed ways to delay it. Modern antibiotic protocols are designed to target the known modes of bacterial evolution. Barry Hall's experiments have show expected pathways of future resistance which can be targeted prevent evolution of resistance by specific organisms to specific antibiotics. Would you like to learn about those?


In this section we will explore these key questions:
Why is evolution relevant in the medical field?
Why does evolution matter when it comes to fighting pathogens?
What role does evolution play in hereditary disease?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?
For the same reason that geology is taught as an "operational science." It relies on experimentation, making hypotheses, and then testing them. Since many of the predictions of evolutionary theory have, on investigation been confirmed, it is accepted by scientists. Would you like some examples?

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

It isn't. The Dover trial settled that. ID, which is merely a disguised version of creationism, was ruled a religious doctrine, and therefore not legal to teach in public school science classes.

 

[Barbarian]

i have decided, as well as many others have decided to get rid of their television sets and even stop listening to their radios because of the crime and violence,

As you learned, crime has greatly declined since the 1990s and is a fraction of what it used to be. That's not debatable. It just is.

 

[Barbarian]

Oops' missed this video titled The Lie of Natural Selection from Sermon Audio..

Apparently, the dishonesties I cited were from a transcript of the video. If you think there's something in it that is not wrong or dishonest, tell us about it.

 

[turnorburn]

Different video, maybe after you watch it we'll discuss the fraudulent claims of some evolutionists..

tob

 

[turnorburn]

More reading for ToB

http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#cite_note-10

Thanks for the link Paul but I'm trying to show Barbarian that Gods word gives us all of the information we need about creation..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

I'm trying to show Barbarian that Gods word gives us all of the information we need about creation..

That's not Biblical:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

And accordingly, many, many things not in scripture have been discovered about His creation that have saved lives and made others lives less painful.

 

[brother Paul]

Think here for yourself...step out of the box and consider the facts...

All proteins are made within cells and rely on the encoding of the DNA within, all the while cooperating with all subsystems necessary to transcription and translation, thus, proteins could not have pre-existed the cell thereby forming it, but rather are of it, which they themselves give form to it and its mechanisms and enzymes (which are also proteins formed in the assumed by many pre-formed cell which itself is actually comprised of proteins).

Therefore there cannot be, nor ever could have been, a semi evolved cell or semi cellular state that could make the proteins required for any cell’s formation. The extant claim however by many is that the first cells evolved slowly from non-living matter but as you can see this is not possible. The cell (which itself is made of proteins) must already be in place, and must already be functional with the DNA, transcription/translation process (totally dependent on already extant proteins) already functioning for these proteins to even exist.

SO no DNA no cell, but…no cell, no functional DNA…one did not (in fact could not) pre-exist the other and still exist. There are NO examples anywhere we have searched od free floating functional proteins not made within a cell (already made up of proteins)…no free floating DNA found anywhere as well…

So just as the geo-Column shows us all new species (in ANY local area) arise suddenly and fully formed with all inter-dependent operative subsystems functional and in place, the cell likewise had to suddenly appear all at once fully formed with all its inter-dependent subsystems operative and in place. The DNA could not have evolved within a cell since the cell itself (its very structure) is dependent on the DNA and the cell could not evolve from DNA since DNA only exists and is only functional in the context of a cell.

If the first cells slowly evolved where did they get the proteins necessary for their own existence while the DNA/transcrip/translate process was developing?

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

All proteins are made within cells and rely on the encoding of the DNA within

No. Even today, with lots of protein-gobbling bacteria around, we know that short proteins can be made by naturally-occuring amino acids on volcanic rock. How do we know amino acids form without living things? They have been found inside meteorites, including some that don't exist in living things on Earth. And there is an excess of L-forms in the Murchison meteorite.

all the while cooperating with all subsystems necessary to transcription and translation, thus, proteins could not have pre-existed the cell thereby forming it, but rather are of it, which they themselves give form to it and its mechanisms and enzymes (which are also proteins formed in the assumed by many pre-formed cell which itself is actually comprised of proteins).

See above. Came as quite a surprise. But as you know, that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

Therefore there cannot be, nor ever could have been, a semi evolved cell or semi cellular state that could make the proteins required for any cell’s formation.

Would have been, if we didn't find out that peptide bonds form without living things.

The extant claim however by many is that the first cells evolved slowly from non-living matter but as you can see this is not possible.

God said it did. And the evidence shows He was right. At least some RNAs self-catalyze as well. But none of that means anything for evolution, which assumes living things and describes how they change. You might as well complain that chemistry doesn't say where atoms came from.

So just as the geo-Column shows us all new species (in ANY local area) arise suddenly and fully formed with all inter-dependent operative subsystems functional and in place

Wrong again. Even honest creationists admit that such detailed fossil information is rare, not nonexistent. .

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation – of stratomorphic intermediate species – include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation – of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates – has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation – of stratomorphic series – has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Dr. Kurt Wise, YE creationist Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://web.archive.org/web/20110725105117/http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf

the cell likewise had to suddenly appear all at once fully formed with all its inter-dependent subsystems operative and in place.

Wrong. There are much simpler self-replicating systems. Would you like to learn about them? One of the key bits of evidence is that the one structure that is absolutely necessary for life as it is on Earth, is the simplest structure, which forms spontaneously. Can you guess what it is?

And remember, this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Darwin supposed God did it directly. God says that life came about through non-living material as He intended.

Doesn't matter. Evolutionary theory is about how living things change, not how they came to be.

 

[brother Paul]

Actually yes I would live to see your source for this "short proteins can be made by naturally-occurring amino acids on volcanic rock" as naturally occurring proteins...the rest of the first paragraph is only about naturally occurring short chain amino acids not proteins. And we are no SURE about the meteor related possibilities (which would be fine with me...it just shows the chemistry of life is available elsewhere)

 

[Barbarian]

Actually yes I would live to see your source for this "short proteins can be made by naturally-occurring amino acids on volcanic rock" as naturally occurring proteins...the rest of the first paragraph is only about naturally occurring short chain amino acids not proteins.

Actually, proteins are just chains of amino acids, joined by peptide bonds. Short chains are nominally called "peptides", and longer ones are nominally called "proteins", but there is no essential difference, and some so-called "peptides" are longer than some so-called "proteins." The point is that they aren't dependent on living things. Peptide bonds form in nature.

The inorganic polymerization of amino acids into proteins through the formation of peptide bonds was thought to occur only at temperatures over 140°C. However, the biochemist Sidney Walter Fox and his co-workers discovered that phosphoric acid acted as a catalyst for this reaction. They were able to form protein-like chains from a mixture of 18 common amino acids at only 70°C in the presence of phosphoric acid, and dubbed these protein-like chains proteinoids. Fox later found proteinoids similar to those he had created in his laboratory in lava and cinders from Hawaiian volcanic vents and determined that the amino acids present polymerized due to the heat of escaping gases and lava. Other catalysts have since been found; one of them, amidinium carbodiimide, is formed in primitive Earth experiments and is effective in dilute aqueous solutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid

Turns out at least some meteorites have them.

 

[turnorburn]

That's not Biblical:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

And accordingly, many, many things not in scripture have been discovered about His creation that have saved lives and made others lives less painful.

You forgot the rest of that text..

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Peptide bonds form in nature.

I never questioned that (and no they are not "proteins")...as I drink my covalently bonded water...and of course all these (even proteins) form in nature....but only in living things, not on their own...Fox's intelligently designed experiment was ingenious but still no proteins forming in nature outside of within living things ....no free floating DNA either...( no one said there were no free floating amino acids but the numbers of those that would be essential to the forms and functions of living things are so miniscule they are irrelevant IMO)

Wrong. There are much simpler self-replicating systems.

You mean like crystals (for one example) ....so yes show me a couple of sources and teach me how these are indicative of a Cell evolving without DNA already making the proteins, or DNA making proteins to form a cell it will function within...please...

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

tob writes:
I'm trying to show Barbarian that Gods word gives us all of the information we need about creation..

Barbarian observes:
That's not Biblical:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

And accordingly, many, many things not in scripture have been discovered about His creation that have saved lives and made others lives less painful.

tob writes:
You forgot the rest of that text..

Nope. I just cited the verse that rejects your unscriptural claim.

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Saint Paul is saying here, that those who rejected the evidence of nature gave way to all sorts of superstitions and idolatries. Creationism is only the latest of these.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, proteins are just chains of amino acids, joined by peptide bonds. Short chains are nominally called "peptides", and longer ones are nominally called "proteins", but there is no essential difference, and some so-called "peptides" are longer than some so-called "proteins." The point is that they aren't dependent on living things. Peptide bonds form in nature.

I never questioned that (and no they are not "proteins")

Peptides are short polymers formed from the linkingof (usually less than or equal to 100) amino acids andcomprise some of the basic components of human biological processes, including enzymes, hormones, and antibodies. The link between one amino acid residue and the next is known as a peptide bond or an amide bond–formed whena carboxyl group reacts with an amine group of an adjacent residue–giving the chemical its name.

Proteins, by contrast, are typically much longer chains of(greater than 100) amino acids similarly linked by peptide bonds. They play a critical role in biochemical reactions within cells. Proteins are ubiquitous in cellular chemistryand structure and are crucial for carrying out most of the biological functions of living organisms.There are various distinctions between peptides and proteins, but to define them simply: peptide chains are short and proteins long.
http://www.americanpeptide.com/corp/jm/BPJ_7_11.pdf

Ever wonder what the smallest protein is? Apparently it's TRP-Cage, a protein with only 20 amino acids derived from the saliva of Gila monsters.
http://www.science20.com/princerain/blog/smallest_protein

The longest peptide I know of, WALP-31, is 31 aminos acids long. Longer peptides show the same folding as other proteins. So you see, "peptide" and "protein" aren't discrete categories, and where you put the dividing line is unclear.

Fox's intelligently designed experiment was ingenious but still no proteins forming in nature outside of within living things

You missed the part about this happening on volcanic rock?

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. There are much simpler self-replicating systems.

You mean like crystals (for one example)

No.

....so yes show me a couple of sources and teach me how these are indicative of a Cell evolving without DNA already making the proteins, or DNA making proteins to form a cell it will function within...please...

And now so can a set of custom-designed chemicals. Chemists have shown that a group of synthetic enzymes replicated, competed and evolved much like a natural ecosystem, but without life or cells.


"So long as you provide the building blocks and the starter seed, it goes forever," said Gerald Joyce, a chemist at the Scripps Research Institute and co-author of the paper published Thursday in Science. "It is immortalized molecular information."


Joyce’s chemicals are technically hacked RNA enzymes, much like the ones we have in our bodies, but they don’t behave anything like those in living creatures. But, these synthetic RNA replicators do provide a model for evolution — and shed light on one step in the development of early living systems from on a lifeless globe.
http://www.wired.com/2009/01/replicatingrna/

So DNA is not necessary. It seems to have come along later, after life was well on its way. If humans can do this so easily, it seems rather perverse to insist that God couldn't do it.

And once again, a reminder that this isn't about evolution, which merely assumes living things and describes how they change.