RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 01:48 am
Re: What if.........
Jackofalltrades wrote:
What if God created the earth with the fossils already in it just to mess with the scientisis minds Question Just a random thought.

BTW C.I. The moon thing got me thinking about how the moon is set up to orbit the earth at such a precise rotation that the same side of the moon is always facing the earth. I think that is pretty amazing...makes you wonder, but I'm willing to bet that there is a scientific explanation for this also (guess I shouldn't bet on a sure thing :wink: ).


Billions of years can make moons like ours...

Believe it or not I have thought of that fossil thing many times Smile It is possible God created them... but, if God can create a single drop in the sea, he can create a whole ocean...

It seems more likely that the animals/humans evolved. For God to have created the fossils would somehow have shown God meddling in the free will perceptions of humans. God is more legit then that I think...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 01:55 am
It seems odd that, we possibly, as vast as it is, could be the only planet in this entire universe that has been lucky enough to sport life. So long it is, till people got to the point where they have cell phones and they could call God directly if they had the number...
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 02:09 am
Just a few things I would like to have explained: Where did the plants come from? Was there a single cell living creature (protozoa or whatever) and how did this become an asexual mamal? Did plants evolve from this single cell also? Was there another single cell that was plant based (or whatever)? These are honest questions I would like to have you (whoever feels like it) answer. I'm am not being malicious, but I have a problem with the animal/plant thing, and the fact that for mamals it takes a male and a female to procreate. In looking at evolution and the many posts another question arose in my mind. As all these mutations/adaptations/evolutionary steps took place the new species became more and more superior to the previous ones...is this a correct assumption? If this is a correct assumption how come there are so many species still alive if they are not superior. (i.e. why do we still have cockroaches which science claims haven't changed for millions of years).
Also there are laws in science which are proven. Explain how evolution fits in with the second law of thermodynamics. Here is a very well written paper explaining the problem with evolution and thermodynamics: http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm I found it facinating as there were things I didn't know about this subject and the problems Darwin had with it.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 02:16 am
Jackofalltrades wrote:
Just a few things I would like to have explained: Where did the plants come from? Was there a single cell living creature (protozoa or whatever) and how did this become an asexual mamal? Did plants evolve from this single cell also? Was there another single cell that was plant based (or whatever)? These are honest questions I would like to have you (whoever feels like it) answer. I'm am not being malicious, but I have a problem with the animal/plant thing, and the fact that for mamals it takes a male and a female to procreate. In looking at evolution and the many posts another question arose in my mind. As all these mutations/adaptations/evolutionary steps took place the new species became more and more superior to the previous ones...is this a correct assumption? If this is a correct assumption how come there are so many species still alive if they are not superior. (i.e. why do we still have cockroaches which science claims haven't changed for millions of years).
Also there are laws in science which are proven. Explain how evolution fits in with the second law of thermodynamics. Here is a very well written paper explaining the problem with evolution and thermodynamics: http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm I found it facinating as there were things I didn't know about this subject and the problems Darwin had with it.


Well there was a time when cells were looking for the most stable means in which to rapidly procreate. Cells were new and today may have a life that has long faded. But the cellular struggle to survive took on many forms. This involved at first simple replication till there was a mutation and fertilization was developed. That is my guess. Humans were probably not asexual at any time in their past. We have asexual DNA patterns as throwbacks from when we were pollen and such.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 02:36 am
Question anyone else frome the psudeo science community Question (I said that to get more response...shame on me Embarrassed )
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 03:07 am
Quote:
RexRed wrote:

Jesus couldn't do it (convince the skeptics), look what they did to him? What makes you think I can? He was most certainly a better man than I am... I have proven it to myself? Yea... and people have believed in my lifetime when they have witnessed me speaking in tongues... and more.

The simple law is that a person cannot speak in tongues if they do not have the spirit. If they have the spirit they can. I did not write the Bible so argue that one with God... Now you can spend your lifetime trying to ascertain if this is true but logically I works like power, if you have an outlet hooked to a proper source of electricity it will work...

This spirit (image of God) was what set Adam and Eve apart from the animals. Yet they kept this spirit only on ONE condition, they violated the condition and the spirit died in them.

Jesus Christ brought this spirit back to the world...


See, now your just telling me all these weird fairy tales with nothing but a book of fairy tales to back it up...and I'm supposed to drop everything I've learned and accept your highly unlikely story at face value?

Sorry, but I need more...much more.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 03:10 am
Back on page one...
GrandDuke wrote way back on page one:
Quote:
Without wanting to get drawn into a long debate about Creation vs. Evolution, I would counter your...

Seens like we really got into it huh? BTW where is the guy that started this thread...Haven't heard from him for a while? How 'bout it vol_fan06
are you still out there following this. Look what you started Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 03:20 am
Something to chew on LONG POST LOTS TO CHEW ON
Eorl wrote
Quote:

See, now your just telling me all these weird fairy tales with nothing but a book of fairy tales to back it up...and I'm supposed to drop everything I've learned and accept your highly unlikely story at face value?

Sorry, but I need more...much more.


Read this, masticate it a little then get back to us crazy creationists. You can probably skip the first part as it relates to Dr. Norman's research on vitamin B12.
Evolution 'unscientific'
Interview with biomedical researcher Dr Eric Norman
Q. Dr Norman, what is the specific biomedical research area in which you have been labelled a groundbreaking pioneer?

A:It has to do with vitamin B12. Along with co-workers at the University of Cincinnati, I developed a highly accurate, simple urine test for identifying an early deficiency in this vitamin.

Why is B12 deficiency serious?

It can lead to anemia (called 'pernicious anemia'). It can also cause problems with the nervous system. These include walking difficulties due to spinal cord degeneration, and memory loss which is indistinguishable from early Alzheimer's. The person can become confined to a wheelchair or permanently demented. However, if it is treated early with B12 injections, these conditions can reverse. If not treated in time, the changes can be permanent.

What causes B12 deficiency?

Usually it is not from a poor diet. As a person ages, the stomach produces less of the protein which carries B12 into the body. Thus, even though a person eats a perfectly normal diet, the vitamin B12 cannot be absorbed. Of course, since B12 is found only in foods from animals, strict vegetarians are also at risk. It has been known that vitamin B12 is needed to change methylmalonic acid (MMA) to succinic acid. With low B12 levels, this conversion is blocked, so MMA builds up in the body. Testing for MMA in a urine sample using gas chromatography mass spectrometry is the best way to detect vitamin B12 deficiency.

Is there evidence that this problem has been seriously overlooked? For instance, that people in nursing homes labelled as having the untreatable Alzheimer's brain degeneration actually had this treatable B12 deficiency?

Yes. Traditionally doctors have looked for anemia; when there was none, they did not suspect B12 deficiency. However, research shows people can have neurologic and psychologic problems without having anemia. In my studies of hospital patients with diagnosed B12 deficiency, 20 per cent had no anemia. Many had severe neurologic problems; they just had not been diagnosed correctly because they did not have anemia.

Has there been any testing on the general population?

As part of my research, hundreds of people over age 65 were tested. I found that about five out of every 100 had a B12 deficiency without any evidence of anemia. This research was partly funded with a grant from the National Institutes of Health. This work also showed that about 49 per cent of the people identified as having a definite B12 deficiency with the MMA test had a normal or low-normal blood test for B12. This means that blood tests for vitamin B12 are not accurate enough for screening.

It seems that with proper screening in that age group, many thousands of people can be rescued from being demented, crippled, or both. Are others beginning to pick up on this?

Yes, a number of other researchers have now reproduced what I have done. Some have measured MMA in the blood and are coming up with the same pattern of results. At a recent national convention on the subject, MMA testing was mentioned as the biggest advance in this area in recent years. Now some doctors are screening their patients to identify B12 deficiency early, when it can be corrected.

That's wonderful. How did your belief in Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord influence your research?

I received Jesus as my Lord and Saviour when I was 11. However, in my late twenties I began to really study the Bible and realized that God's entire Word was trustworthy. I believe as I have followed Christ, He has guided my life, including my research. One of my favourite Bible verses is Proverbs 3:6. ['In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.']

What about evolution?

In graduate school, I had an open mind about it. People presented evolution as fact, and I thought, 'Can you show me? Not just statements, but from real evidence?' As I studied the complexity of life processes and biomolecules, I saw there were really no facts at all for evolution.

Dr Norman, didn't you work on DNA for your Master's degree?

Yes, I did chemical synthesis on parts of the DNA molecule. These sub-units, the nucleotides and nucleosides, have bases out the side that act like 'letters' carrying genetic information. I worked many long months connecting just three of these bases.

But everyone is told that this complex molecule needed for life, with millions of bases in the proper order, just 'happened'.

Actually, I found that to connect these DNA 'letters' together correctly, a protective group must be attached on parts of the molecule to prevent wrong connections. A catalyst is also needed as a condensing agent, and the chemical reaction must take place in a completely water-free environment. If the flask is left open even momentarily, the humidity in the air would prevent the reaction. So I thought, I am connecting only three bases together. How could DNA randomly form out in an ocean or pond? What about all the proteins, sugars, and lipids also needed for life? The DNA in a 'simple' bacterium carries so many 'letters' in sequence that, if you typed it out, it would fill about 2,000 ordinary pages. One human cell would take about a million pages.

So you came to your creation belief experimentally, in a sense?

Yes. I did not read any specific creation literature. Evolution is just unscientific. It violates the laws of chemistry including the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the laws of probability, and information theory.

Anti-creationists commonly charge creationists with misusing the Second Law of Thermodynamics, saying that an 'open system' solves the problem.

Well, if you put a drop of dye in a swimming pool, that's pretty open, but the molecules are going to diffuse out, not collect together. Systems tend to move into states of greater disorganization. The complex DNA molecules I was working with have a tendency to break down into less complex forms. Very hard, directed work is required to get even the simple parts to form in a particular order. Random processes just won't do it. Chemical synthesis is a very exact science. Living things make these chemicals because they carry intelligently designed programs which direct all the complicated machinery needed.

So an open system and energy doesn't solve the problem for the evolutionist? You need to have all this programmed machinery already there?

In fact, a number of scientists are now acknowledging this and admitting that there must be an undiscovered scientific law that caused simple molecules to organize themselves into life. But they don't know how.

What about six-day creation versus long-age creation like Rossism?

Hebrew professors say the word 'day' in its context in Genesis can mean only a 24-hour day. Also, the Genesis account is in harmony with other Bible passages. I believe what God tells me and there is nothing in my understanding of science that convinces me otherwise. In evaluating all the models, the six-day, global-flood model, which is what the Bible plainly teaches, is the only one that really holds up.

Some would be surprised that scientists like yourself who have made a name in their field can believe in creation and the Bible.

Actually, I know of quite a number of scientists in various fields who are solidly creationist, although they are not out there giving talks at seminars or submitting papers on it. I think it is important to get it into the open and rationally discuss the existence of a creation model. I think that if the facts are brought out, more and more people will fall into the creation camp because that is where the evidence lies.

Why do most educated people believe in evolution?

I think it is because they have been told that 'most educated people believe in evolution'. They have rarely investigated the facts. That is why I think the Creation Science Foundation, the Answers in Genesis ministry, and Creation magazine are so beneficial and important.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available online at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/evolution.asp
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis


I think that sums up the creationist view fairly well Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 03:55 am
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 03:58 am
Jack, this seems like a much a more reasonable argument than anything I have seen so far, at least on the surface.

I still have misgivings obviously, not the least of which is the fact that he start out with "Jesus" (and presumably the results of the research he was yet to undertake) when he was 11.

But I will respond to this more completely soon.

My POINT however was....how can you criticise science for not adequately explaining the existence of your soul...WHEN IT DOES NOT EXIST ???
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:10 am
Just for fun
I couldn't resist Very Happy
http://www.bookcrossing.com/journalpics/516392.JPG?date=3%2F16%2F2003+5%3A03%3A17+PM
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:15 am
Eorl wrote
Quote:
My POINT however was....how can you criticise science for not adequately explaining the existence of your soul...WHEN IT DOES NOT EXIST ???
This may miss the point a little but you can feel the wind, can not actually see the wind. It's kinda like that.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:17 am
You ask me to prove that my soul exists. You prove that it does not. :wink: (Is this off topic again...Darn Confused )
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:32 am
Back on page 46 I posted this link: http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html
This is one problem I have with the fossil record. The other is all the transitional gaps.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:38 am
Darwin and the urban myth
I posted earlier:
Quote:
Darwin's mystery illness


Unfortunately a myth about Darwin was spread that he recanted on his "Origins of the Species" on his death bed, and accepted Jesus. This is not true; unfortunately, he firmly believed what he wrote when he died.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 04:55 am
Jackofalltrades wrote:
Eorl wrote
Quote:
My POINT however was....how can you criticise science for not adequately explaining the existence of your soul...WHEN IT DOES NOT EXIST ???
This may miss the point a little but you can feel the wind, can not actually see the wind. It's kinda like that.


No it aint nothin like that.
Wind I can measure, see the effects, eliminate alternative causes of those effects, I can even reproduce as much wind as I like to demonstrate to others...in fact, I might just produce some right now Wink
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 05:07 am
Again, Prove your soul does NOT exsist. But I agree with you on the wind thing...I gotta change my diet Laughing
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 05:15 am
The article re: radiometric dating raises some old but valid issues re the various methods. The geochron labs have established protocols, multiple sampling,isochron calculation, concordia plots, and a number of QA techniques. For example, we dont sample just the plagioclase or mica in an old exposure of granite, we look at plag, K feldspar, mica,and trace element minerals.
i wouldnt expect a layman to understand , let alone "have problems" with a fairly robust series of techniques. The idiotic section at the end of this link, lets all the air out of its own limited credibility. Its an example of someone whose gotten a small exposure from a college strat course and then made himself "an expert". Actually hes quite a moron.
There are a number of places where any radiometric method is unsuitable and there we use other methods including mag stratigraphy , stable isotopes , and lattice mineralogy. Post emplacement contamination is always a problem , but not an issue so serious that renders the techniques invalid. This post makes it appear that, If "I invented a car in 1900, I shouldnt go drive it because it didnt have satellite radio. Its a series of nonsequiturs on radiometric aging. Its good that some physician is passing himself off as a radiological dating expert.

Your problem with fossil gaps is an old Creationist mantra.Let me summarize the mantra


1You wont accept evolution so you dont incline your mind to any fossil evidenceanyway. So to ask you to look at the data objectively is a bit of a hopeless situation

2 When some sequential fossils are found that are quite compelling to all but the terminally dense, a Creationist will say, Yeh but look at the gaps between this and any follow on species.

So , your own logical conclusion is therefore what?
That Some really involved deity is busy creating fairly homologous species at different times and then was busy burying them and then letting the rock go through diagenesis , just as a joke on us. Yeh right.
What you believe is irrelevant, science is moving on unlocking secrets of evolution every day.


http://www.nmsr.org/essay4a.htm

Heres a link thats not so prolix. It just quietly dismisses your "Physicians" expertise by people really familiar with isochron methods .
Be particularly aware of Don Wises article in the bibliog, he excoriated the Creationists for their lack of anyscientific knowledge
"Rarely correct, but never in doubt".
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 05:25 am
Farmerman Wrote:
Quote:
Your problem with fossil gaps is an old Creationist mantra.
1You wont accept evolution so you dont incline your mind to any fossil evidence

2 When fossils are found that are quite compelling to all but the terminally dense, a Creationist will say, Yeh but look at the gaps between this and any follow on species.

But I still have a problem with how the plants evolved at the same time as the critters. What did the first creatures subsist on? Each other? Please direct me to a reference on the evolution of plants and how it coincides with the evolution of animals. There are no walking plants and no animals that put down roots (in simple terms).

BTW I love fossil evidence however I interpret it differently. I really need some sleep so I gotta stop for now.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 05:29 am
farmerman wrote
Quote:
terminally dense

Yes we are all terminal. It is stastically proven that one in every one of the people on earth will die. As far as being dense, last time I checked I could still float in the pool :wink: .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 24
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 04:24:13