[_ Old Earth _] Irreducible Complexity?

[Strangelove]

One animal doesn't evolve into another animal. If this statement encapsulates your understanding of evolutionary theory, you clearly need to go away and do some serious reading around the subject. As pointed out before, evolutionary theory does not propose that a fish ends one day as a fish and finds itself a frog the next.

So what does evolutionary theory propose?

So what gives you the confidence to assert that there have been '...no changes in human beings in the entire history of human existance' as, by your own admission, you have never 'looked into' the subject before?

Glad you asked. My confidence comes from faith in God's Word. He says He created man fully formed and fully human from dirt. Hooray!

Also the terrible track record of theoretical science falsely so called and their constant assumptions and guesswork allow me the confidence to say that they are no doubt making all this evolution stuff up.....just like they fabricate their own version of the size and structure of the universe. A version totally in line with the religious alternative "creation scenario" of the ancient pharisees as outlined in their "holy" books like the kaballah.

This is your religion Kalvan whether you are aware or not. You worship the idol of false science developed by the people who killed Christ.

What do you mean by 'reliable'? Why do you regard it as important (or not) that 'complete skeletons' be found? Homo species differ from each other in a number of ways, some species more markedly from another and less so in the case of another. Transitional features are identified, for example, in the development of significantly larger brains than in earlier species and relatively smaller faces with progressively smaller jaws and teeth. One of the reasons many of us have problems with jaws crowded with apparently too many teeth is a consequence of this reduction in jaw size.

Ya.....I can see you would be quite happy with an entire model skeleton extrapolated from a single tooth. If you wanna believe in the stuff then go right ahead. I dont jive to that tune.

In conclusion, implying as you do that evolutionary theory suggests that 'monkeys evolved into humans' is quite at variance not only with what the theory says but also with what the evidence indicates. Humans share a common ancestor with the other apes; the common ancestor of the great apes (including humans) and monkeys would have been a much earlier animal from amongst the earliest primate species.

Ok....lets see evidence of this "common ancester".

Where is he?

 

[lordkalvan]

So what does evolutionary theory propose?

Populations evolve, not individuals.

Glad you asked. My confidence comes from faith in God's Word. He says He created man fully formed and fully human from dirt. Hooray!

The Bible doesn't actually tell us anything about the exact methodology that God used to bring this about. My Bible doesn't say anything about 'fully'. Maybe your understanding is mistaken and your confidence in it misplaced. Hooray!

Also the terrible track record of theoretical science falsely so called and their constant assumptions and guesswork allow me the confidence to say that they are no doubt making all this evolution stuff up.....just like they fabricate their own version of the size and structure of the universe. A version totally in line with the religious alternative "creation scenario" of the ancient pharisees as outlined in their "holy" books like the kaballah.

You have yet to demonstrate 'the terrible track record of theoretical science falsely so called', not to mention the rest of your unsupported assertions in this paragraph. It looks like little more than handwaving to me.

This is your religion Kalvan whether you are aware or not. You worship the idol of false science developed by the people who killed Christ.

Your beliefs may be sincere, but they are not evidential.

Ya.....I can see you would be quite happy with an entire model skeleton extrapolated from a single tooth. If you wanna believe in the stuff then go right ahead. I dont jive to that tune.

And there you go again not only misrepresenting anything I have said, but in this case alleging that I would be 'happy' with something that I have never shown any indication of thinking at all. Is this a prelude to you slipping Hesperopithecus haroldcookii into the discussion? Is it a prelude to your asserting that palaeoforensics has no utility and value at all?

Ok....lets see evidence of this "common ancester".

Where is he?

Well, just for the moment why don't you simply take my word for it? You know, like I have had to simply take your word about the 'thickness' of the Universe and how the most distant stars we can see with the unaided eye are much closer to us (but how close remains your well-guarded secret) than this greatest 'thickness' of the Universe.

 

[Strangelove]

The Bible doesn't actually tell us anything about the exact methodology that God used to bring this about.

GEN 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Thats good enough for me!​

Ok....lets see evidence of this "common ancester".

Where is he?

Well, just for the moment why don't you simply take my word for it?

LOLZ!

No evidence then!

 

[lordkalvan]

GEN 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Thats good enough for me!​

I still don't see 'fully' anywhere in that reference.

LOLZ!

No evidence then!

You forgot to include the rest of my post that explained my reasons for not providing such evidence. Here they are again:

You know, like I have had to simply take your word about the 'thickness' of the Universe and how the most distant stars we can see with the unaided eye are much closer to us (but how close remains your well-guarded secret) than this greatest 'thickness' of the Universe.

Does 'quotemine' mean nothing to you at all?

 

[Strangelove]

I still don't see 'fully' anywhere in that reference.

Well it says "man" which is defined as an adult male human. And he's got "nostrils". Lolz! What do you think he created there? A bacteria cell that He calls man and happens to have nostrils sticking out!? (**giggle**). Lol....oh Kalvan...

You forgot to include the rest of my post that explained my reasons for not providing such evidence. Here they are again:

You know, like I have had to simply take your word about the 'thickness' of the Universe and how the most distant stars we can see with the unaided eye are much closer to us (but how close remains your well-guarded secret) than this greatest 'thickness' of the Universe.

If you have a direct question you want to ask me about the size and structure of the universe then you should start a new thread on the Biblical and modern theoretical explanations for the size, structure and age of the universe and we can have it out there.

Why dont you start your new thread with an explanation of how we get the 14 billion year old universe figure from.

I'm just trying to stick to the topic.

Does 'quotemine' mean nothing to you at all?

No nothing at all. I have no idea what it means.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well it says "man" which is defined as an adult male human. And he's got "nostrils". Lolz! What do you think he created there? A bacteria cell that He calls man and happens to have nostrils sticking out!? (**giggle**). Lol....oh Kalvan...

Nope, I'm pointing out that, despite your earlier assertion, God does not seem to say anywhere that he created man 'fully formed', nor does he say anything about the methodology he used. Maybe he used evolution?

If you have a direct question you want to ask me about the size and structure of the universe then you should start a new thread on the Biblical and modern theoretical explanations for the size, structure and age of the universe and we can have it out there.

You consistently ignored the questions I asked before on the now-locked thread, so why should I expect you to answer them in a new one?

Why dont you start your new thread with an explanation of how we get the 14 billion year old universe figure from.

Because I am not going to let you shift the burden of proof as you keep attempting to do. Why don't you start a new thread with an explanation of how the 'thickness' of the Universe is determined according to your ideas, what the distance is to the most distant stars that we can see with the unaided eye, and how that distance is determined?

I'm just trying to stick to the topic.

Which, of course, no doubt explains why you introduced your assertion to the effect that 'theoretical science falsely so called...fabricates their own version of the size and structure of the universe'.

No nothing at all. I have no idea what it means.

Strange, as you do it so well.

 

[Strangelove]

Nope, I'm pointing out that, despite your earlier assertion, God does not seem to say anywhere that he created man 'fully formed', nor does he say anything about the methodology he used. Maybe he used evolution?

Huh? It's almost like your saying that there is a God there Kalvan. This is excellent. You are making progress. Now you just need to have faith in a Son of God and blammo! Your saved!

You consistently ignored the questions I asked before on the now-locked thread, so why should I expect you to answer them in a new one?

Because I am not going to let you shift the burden of proof as you keep attempting to do. Why don't you start a new thread with an explanation of how the 'thickness' of the Universe is determined according to your ideas, what the distance is to the most distance stars that we can see with the unaided eye, and how that distance is determined?

So either start the new thread where I will be happy to answer any and all of your questions or......let it go.

I dont know whats buggin you so much....I never said I knew the exact size of the universe or the distance of the stars or the age of the universe, from science.

I just know things from the Bible.

What I know from science AND the Bible is that the Earth is stationary. Which means its the centre of the universe and that stars are much closer than theoretical science describes. It also means no big bang and no expanding universe which is the basis for the calculation of a 14 billion year age of the universe.

Now, if you want more details then, like I say...open a new thread cos its off topic here.

 

[lordkalvan]

Huh? It's almost like your saying that there is a God there Kalvan. This is excellent. You are making progress. Now you just need to have faith in a Son of God and blammo! Your saved!

Nope, just expressing things in terms you seem most comfortable with.

So either start the new thread where I will be happy to answer any and all of your questions or......let it go.

See my previous points.

I dont know whats buggin you so much....I never said I knew the exact size of the universe or the distance of the stars or the age of the universe, from science.

The point is that you demand a courtesy and consideration in responding to your questions that you are unwilling to extend to others.

I just know things from the Bible.

Like the 'thickness' of the Universe, huh?

What I know from science AND the Bible is that the Earth is stationary. Which means its the centre of the universe and that stars are much closer than theoretical science describes. It also means no big bang and no expanding universe which is the basis for the calculation of a 14 billion year age of the universe.

None of this follows axiomatically from a stationary Earth.

Now, if you want more details then, like I say...open a new thread cos its off topic here.

You introduced the 'off topic' material, so you have to live with the consequences. I only mentioned it as an example of you asking for things you are not prepared to give.

 

[Strangelove]

None of this follows axiomatically from a stationary Earth.

Of course not because an axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated.

A stationary Earth has been scientifically proved AND is demonstrated everyday when you look at the sky.....so it follows automatically from a stationary Earth.

Need an explanation? Start a thread.

 

[lordkalvan]

Of course not because an axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated.

A stationary Earth has been scientifically proved AND is demonstrated everyday when you look at the sky.....so it follows automatically from a stationary Earth.

Neither axiomatically nor automatically.

Need an explanation? Start a thread.

You failed in your previous efforts; if you want to start a new thread and fail again, be my guest.

 

[Deavonreye]

Did I miss something, . . . or did he just say that a stationary Earth "has been proven"? Where is the review paper on this?

 

[jasoncran]

Did I miss something, . . . or did he just say that a stationary Earth "has been proven"? Where is the review paper on this?

sl and all keep the geocentric comments of this thread as its not about that all. i will delete them. you and lk and myself have gone round and round over this. lets not do that again.

 

[Strangelove]

Did I miss something, . . . or did he just say that a stationary Earth "has been proven"? Where is the review paper on this?

http://www.christianforums.net/f22/sun-orbits-earth-31070/

 

[jasoncran]

read only, its a closed thread.

 

[lordkalvan]

read only, its a closed thread.

And no peer-reviewed papers, either.

 

[Strangelove]

And no peer-reviewed papers, either.

Well....yeah.....no peer reviewed papers for a moving Earth.

 

[jasoncran]

back to topic. this is not the thread for that.

 

[Pebbles]

The mechanism by whitch the bombadier beetle evolved is very intresting.

Basically all eukaryotic species not just the beetle produce hydrogen peroxide as a toxic by product of cellular processes, It's a highly potent oxidizing agent, Chemical composition (H2O2) and of course you wouldn't normally want this rattling around in your cells it would cause sevear damage. Thus in us and most creatures we remove this chemical converting it into oxygen and Water. the enzyme that dose this is called "Catalase"

(Here's a fun fact... A naturally occuring inhibitor to Catalase is produced by our cells on Chromosome 21 The duplication of this chromosome embryonically causes "Downs syndrome" Triplody 21, Resulting in abnormally high amounts of Hydrogen peroxide in the cells it's this effect that causes poor growth and the developmental delays in the condition... New treatments are begin devised to increase catalase function and cuse them of the most serious problems of there condition)

In the beetle however it produces and exports hydrogen peroxide extracellularly and stores it in a resiviour in the tip of it's abdomen it's likley they evolved this first probably as a seperate squirting function, as you wouldn't want to eat hydrogen peroxide and it makes a fair deterent on it's own (It will blind you if you get it in your eyes.

Insects don't urinate as much as we do they excrete Uric acid crystals thus any protine is usually retained and the beetle produces large amounts of Hydroquinone a substance produced by the deactivation of amino acids. it is the mixing and development of a export mechanism whitch is similar to the hydrogen peroxide exportation that cause the fizzing banging reaction when released.