Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Looking to grow in the word of God more?

    See our Bible Studies and Devotionals sections in Christian Growth

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

  • How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?

    Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject

    https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042

[_ Old Earth _] DNA alone disproves evolution, period!

OK..even MORE top scientists say DNA disproves Darwin drivel

MrVersatile48 said:
I only have time to post DNA links..

Ian :D

TOP CAT TO BRAINS: FEAST YOUR EYES ON THESE:- 8-)

From search @DNA @ www,creationism.org

http://www.creationism.org/batman/ Batman - Ron LyttleThat the complexity of DNA & RNA could arise from primordial soup by random-chance is scientifically impossible.
http://www.creationism.org/batman/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages


First Life - Excerpt from How Life BeganThe DNA of even the most simple cell has at least as much information as a thousand page ... 1 Speaking of the information in DNA, Philip Johnson explains, ...
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/First ... nCells.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages


CSSHS Archives - v16n2p23.htmHowever, the DNA is not intact, so they use sophisticated equipment to fill the gaps. Where this does not work, they use DNA from other organisms, ...
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n2p23.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRAINS TO TOP CAT..

Gosh, TC.. :roll:

even I get it now... :o

hehehe!!!!!!! :-D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy the new Wallace & Gromit film... :D

whose delightful, delicious DNA is... :o

reviewed @ our Movies forum... 8-)
 
OK..even MORE top scientists say DNA disproves Darwin drivel

MrVersatile48 said:
I only have time to post DNA links..

Ian :D

TOP CAT TO BRAINS: FEAST YOUR EYES ON THESE:- 8-)

From search @DNA @ www,creationism.org

http://www.creationism.org/batman/ Batman - Ron LyttleThat the complexity of DNA & RNA could arise from primordial soup by random-chance is scientifically impossible.
http://www.creationism.org/batman/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages


First Life - Excerpt from How Life BeganThe DNA of even the most simple cell has at least as much information as a thousand page ... 1 Speaking of the information in DNA, Philip Johnson explains, ...
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/First ... nCells.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages


CSSHS Archives - v16n2p23.htmHowever, the DNA is not intact, so they use sophisticated equipment to fill the gaps. Where this does not work, they use DNA from other organisms, ...
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n2p23.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRAINS TO TOP CAT..

Gosh, TC.. :roll:

even I get it now... :o

hehehe!!!!!!! :-D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy the new Wallace & Gromit film... :D

whose delightful, delicious DNA is... :o

reviewed @ our Movies forum... 8-)
 
Your style of posting is as excruciating as it is inane.

Why not post opinions of your own, supported by facts, in what can be called an argument? In the form of paragraphs. Without putting an emoticon at the end of every single sentence.
 
For the same reason that those goodie baskets they sell for gifts have lots of little brightly-colored boxes with 2 cookies each in them. It tends to hid the fact that you don't have much to offer.
 
(Barbarian comments on the rather amusing error in supposing that DNA is composed of amino acids)

To be honest, it is confusing if you don't keep up with biology.

True enough. But the idea is that one should probably not be telling other people about it, if one does not understand it.
 
Even MORE top scientists say DNA disproves Darwinism..

MrVersatile48 said:
I only have time to post DNA links..

@ pages 114/116 of The Revised & Expanded Answers Book - by the PhD/MSc leaders of http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org - search for their online summary - as @ http://www.creationism.org & http://www.discovery.org/csc

See also pages 59, 107, 110, 112, 117, 122/123 & 186 of Refuting Evolution 2 by AiG's Dr Jonathan Sarfati

Back with more fun links to brighten up this cold, wet, windy winter 4 U... 8-)

As in "Give ToE frauds the Boot" :evil:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18585

See also Dump Dating Disasters!!! :oops:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18642

& don't miss...

Give it up already!!!!!! :roll:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18666

Or..

Evo Goes To Court... :o
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18041

Or..

Evo350%loopypoop... :x
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18429

Not to mention...

the 1 & only......

Double dog D*U*H, Deputy Dawg!!!!
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18687

Enjoy, y'all!! :-D

Now to Gerneral Talk forum's Anyone wanna have a FUN discussion???

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18636

Or C U @ the cinema..theatre..festival..exhibition.. 8-)

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18457

Ian :D

See:-

ttp://www.creationism.org/batman/ Batman - Ron LyttleThat the complexity of DNA & RNA could arise from primordial soup by random-chance is scientifically impossible.
http://www.creationism.org/batman/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages


First Life - Excerpt from How Life BeganThe DNA of even the most simple cell has at least as much information as a thousand page ... 1 Speaking of the information in DNA, Philip Johnson explains, ...
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/First ... nCells.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages


CSSHS Archives - v16n2p23.htmHowever, the DNA is not intact, so they use sophisticated equipment to fill the gaps. Where this does not work, they use DNA from other organisms, ...
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n2p23.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Must go! :roll:

Ian :wink:
 
NOTW said:
“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?†Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a very large polymer (a string of two or more molecules) which contains more than a billion molecules. It is normally referred to as a very long spiraling ladder or helix. This long ladder is composed of nucleotides which are sets of three different molecules. Each nucleotide has a phosphate and the sugar, deoxyribose. These two molecules alternate to make up the sides of the ladder. Each sugar molecule is attached to one of four different nitrogen bases which attach to another nitrogen base from the other side of the ladder to make the rungs of the ladder. These nitrogen bases, adonine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, are the molecules which provide the programming for the structure and function of the cell.

In the same way that we use two digits (1 and 0) as the basis for programming our computers, our cells use four digits for their programming. It is a very complex process based on the movement of molecules which I previously explained is caused by molecules changing shape. (I will try to keep this as simple as possible but remember that just the basics normally take two or more weeks to teach at the high school level. Fortunately, there will not be an exam at the end of this free lesson.

In a nut shell, a strand of mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) is used to make a copy of a piece of one DNA strand replacing the nitrogen base thymine with the nitrogen base uracil. This mRNA carries this tiny blue print out into the cell where the blue print is used to make a protein molecule. The protein molecule is carried to the appropriate spot in the cell where it reacts with another molecule to change shape and create motion so the cell can function.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Micro and Macro Evolution

DNA is very important because it finally provides us with a very precise definition of micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors. If a new phenotype (physical structure) is caused by a gene which was present but recessive in any of the parent organisms, then that must be micro evolution. Such as your bird flu OTW!

A good example of micro evolution would be if our little tribe of people who all had brown eyes but had the "hidden" trait for blue eyes caused by a "recessive" gene, went off to some isolated area and lived out of touch with any other people. Over a period of generations, due to death, disease, or what ever, we bred out all of the genes for brown eyes so that we only had the genes for blue eyes and everyone now has only blue eyes. This can only be defined as micro evolution because the gene for blue eyes was already present in the parent organisms. Micro evolution works fine with both creation and evolution models. The debate is about macro evolution and not micro evolution.

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One Base Strand

Evolution had a very serious problem in the 1970's. There wasn't one piece of biological evidence supporting the evolution of life. Then someone discovered in the late 1970's that every living organism on this planet has the same base strand of DNA. Evolutionists quickly grabbed hold of this as biological proof that we all have one common ancestor. It became their biological banner.

You have to understand that evolution is a random process which requires the use of mathematics to analyze its probability. So, instead of blindly swallowing this claim, I decided to analyze the claim with the use of genetics and mathematics to see if it really proves evolution or does it actually prove creation (remember that at this time I was still an evolutionist.) Below is my analysis.

In one strand of DNA there are more than one billion molecules with 1/3 of them being the programming nitrogen bases. Since there are four different nitrogen bases used for the programming, we have 333+ million to the fourth power different possible molecular structures which equals 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power. For simplicity's sake, I rounded this down to 122 x 10 to the 32nd power. It actually works out to the advantage of the evolutionists giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This is very important because, in a random process, any and all of the different structures can come into existence at the same time. Now let's make a very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these structures could support any form of living organism. To do this you subtract the number of zeros in one billion (9) from the exponent 32. This equals 23, so we still have 122 x 10 to the 23rd power possible DNA strands that should have come into existence at the same time.

Next we make another very conservative assumption favoring evolution that only one in one billion of these strands would have survived four billion years of evolution. This means that for every DNA strand that survived until today, 999,999,999 strands became extinct which is extremely conservative. This would be a very high rate of extinction. That leaves us with 122 x 10 to the 14th power which is 122 with 14 zeros behind it. It would look like this: 12,200,000,000,000,000. There is a little problem with this; there are only two to three million different species on the planet or 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.

With this in mind, by the most phenomenally conservative estimate which grossly favors evolution to the extreme, there must be tens of thousands of different base strands of DNA for evolution to be true. This is an absolute requirement.

The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities. For evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accurately place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family and not be able to move species around the way evolutionists do today. A single base strand of DNA for all organisms proves creation by design and disproves evolution.



Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Actually, reality proves evolution a hoax more than anything else. All one has to do is go to a zoo to see what apes breed. And they have bred that way since the beginning of recorded history. That's why Jesus said to have the faith of a child. A child doesn't analyze, twist, or distort. He also doesn't rely on science to see reality, but mere observation. :)
 
I'm sorry Heidi, did you want to see an ape give birth to a kitten? If you'd been paying attention, you'd have seen that evolution doesn't work that way.
 
Heidi:

You return to stir the nest. Welcome back.

why Jesus said to have the faith of a child. A child doesn't analyze, twist, or distort.

Have you been around children? All they do is twist and distort! I agree it is based on the inability to analyze, but also on their strong desire for what they want as opposed to what is correct. Think of a kid having a tandrum at the store because he wants a candy bar right before dinner. Twist, distort and cry, failing to analyze that they are wrong....they simply want it to be true that they deserve the candy bar.

IMHO, this is a quality I have seen to be more prevelant among creationist claims rather that analytical sceince.

He also doesn't rely on science to see reality, but mere observation.

Science, in a nutshell, IS observation.
 
Roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.

Let's get on to Heidi's fake "scientist" and his odd ideas...

Weird idea #1:
Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors.

Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Microevlution is variation within a species. Evolution is technically a change in allele frequency over time.

Weird ides #2:
For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

First, this would be microevolution, since it did not result in a new species. Second, such new genes have often been observed to evolve by mutation.

1: J Clin Invest. 1980 Nov;66(5):892-900.


A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family.

Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, Capurso A 2nd, Weisgraber KH, Mahley RW.

Significant hypertriglyceridemia with a very marked decrease of high density lipoproteins (HDL)-cholesterol levels (7-14 mg/dl) was detected in three members (father, son, and daughter) of an Italian family. The three affected individuals did not show any clinical signs of atherosclerosis, nor was the atherosclerotic disease significantly present in the family. Lipoprotein lipase and lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase activites were normal or slightly reduced. Morphological and compositional studies of HDL in the subjects showed a significant enlargement of the lipoprotein particles (approximately 120 vs. approximately 94 A for control HDL) and a concomitant increase in the triglyceride content. Analytical isoelectric focusing of HDL apoproteins provided evidence for multiple isoproteins in the apoprotein(apo)-A-I range, with nine different bands being detected instead of the usual four bands observed in normal subjects. Two-dimensional immunoelectrophoresis against apo-A antiserum indicated a clear reduction of apo-A in the alpha electrophoretic region, with splitting of the protein "peak." The observation in otherwise clinically healthy subjects of hypertriglyceridemia, reduced HDL-cholesterol, and marked apoprotein abnormalities, without a significant incidence of atherosclerotic disease in the family suggests this is a new disease entity in the field of lipoprotein pathology, very probably related to an altered amino acid composition of the apo-A-I protein (see Weisgraber et al. 1980. J. Clin. Invest. 66: 901-907).


Your young psuedoscientist is a bit out of date. About 25 years to be precise. There are more. Would you like to see more?

Weird idea #3:
With this in mind, by the most phenomenally conservative estimate which grossly favors evolution to the extreme, there must be tens of thousands of different base strands of DNA for evolution to be true. This is an absolute requirement.

Here our psuedoscientist assumes that DNA sequences are arrived at randomly, like shuffling a deck of cards. So his estimate is hilariously wrong.

Random variation in sexually-reproducing organisms is randomly drawing chromosomes, plus a mutation or two. But over time, natural selection treats these different genomes differently, depending on how they help or hinder the organism in leaving descendants. So the process isn't random at all.

Weird idea #4:
The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities.

Don't see how. Start with one genome, mustate it to produce slightly different offspring, apply natural selection to pick out the survivors, This is observed in labs every day. When an idea is directly contradicted by observed reality, it's time to do some thinking about it.

For evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accurately place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family

So far, phylogenies obtained by genetic analyses have been remarkably accurate in duplicating descent worked out by other means. Would you like some examples?

Next time, wouldn't it be smarter to cut and paste from someone who actually understands the subject?
 
Back
Top