Answering Questions on Creation and Creationism

[Chalnoth]

I did laugh we I read this, only because you "did" find identical patterns
where common ancestry wasn't taking place...

~Michael

Where was this, pray tell?

 

[Chalnoth]

I look at this little video and see God's Trademark in Creation and
the beauty of His Order and Sustaining Power, even though the
creation has been cursed with certain defects.

This doesn't prove anything because it is EXACTLY what we would
expect to find. Champanzees are the closest creation to our human
morphology to remind us how different we are from animals in
intelligence. We are created in God's Image and these animals
share almost 99% of our DNA and yet they are clearly NOT
created in His Image.
They have no human consciousness from which to be creative
understand complicated mathematics or abstract concepts or
infinity. This is what <<screams>> from this observation and
yet DET biologists are oblivious to it.

The arguments made from the creationist POV are something
I will look into but I have agreed in the past with one of them.

What you need to understand is the difference in interpreting
evidence. For instance, if you believe in endosymbiotic theory
your interpretation of micro biology and mitochondria is going
to be different than if you knew there was really no such
thing as prokaryotes. For the record I may use this term
in the future out of habit, but that does not mean I believe
in endosymbiotic theory.

The bottom line is that the ERV's are EXACTLY where we
would expect to find them, just as we would expect to see
identical proteins and the arrangement of nucleotides to also
be almost exactly the same.
~Michael

What, huh? How is this, if we aren't related by descent?

Remember that these bits of DNA are signatures of past events that happened to our ancestors. Why on Earth would humans and chimpanzees share the exact same signatures if they didn't come from the same ancestors?

 

[Breckmin]

May I chime in with a couple of posts from That Other Thread?

No. I want to leave that stuff over there so I don't have to deal
with it... just kidding.

Ctrl+c is your friend.

My wife always has the lights off so I am operating in the "dark"
(I love providing ammo for the opposition)and I often hit
Ctrl-v and accidentally paste what I saved a minute or two ago
and it deletes what I highlighted to save.


(And PCR has been in use since the '80s )

But the thermo cyclers weren't available then (as I explained in
a long post that was deleted so you would have known the
whole gist of what I was saying).
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Just don't make the mistake of attacking evolution itself, since there are multiple billion-dollar a year industries that rely on evolutionary models for their operations.

Not in areas of dispute which are beyond observation. DET does
not have a monopoly on natural selection, common ancestry
within genera nor speciation.

Even overcoming the economic hurdles to refuting evolution is insurmountable, to say nothing of the actual evidence for it.

The issue is not what works and is observed, the issue is that
commonalities do not always equal relatedness.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Creationism technically precedes the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. By about thousands of years, too. I hope you didn't mean this as an excuse.
quote]

There are plenty of more excuses as you should know. #6
being the one for the context, but the others apply for everyone
in general.

1. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.
How many people actually start their assumptions with the fact and
the absolute knowledge that God created???
(first argument will of course be Information needs an Informant.
Schematics and blue prints need Authors, etc.)
This is ABSOLUTELY scientific to DO so!!! Scientific data
demonstrates the need for an Informant or an Author for
blue print "information."

2. If you don't start with wisdom and the knowledge of creation,
how will you be able to correctly interpret the information?
The more information you obtain, especially if you are using
thousands and thousands of inductions that result in aggregate
self-deception, the less you are able to decipher it.
(you can use, "professing to be wise, they became fools"

3. Forgetting about the flood is one of the most important
areas to understanding the world wide deception.
2 Peter 3:5-7 Lack of knowledge in how the flood affected
almost all areas of science is a key factor.

4. Back to point one. Someone made the mistake of claiming
science can never point to the supernatural, and everyone
followed along like little puppy dogs and ignored the evidence
that proved special creation: The miracle of life itself, and
God is not mocked by man's inability to create a living cell.
Abiogenesis is not a viable theory and it never has been for
several reasons.
But then again, people believe polygraphs are somehow
"lie detectors."

5. People followed induction on "everything" instead of
employing the limits of wisdom when it should and shouldn't
be used because invalid assumptions based on induction
often lead to error.

6. People that do have wisdom from divine revelation from
apostles and prophets generally go into theology or other
areas of life and trade, and raise families and such, so
those that go into science are usually outnumbered 110
to 1.

7. Proverbs 16:24.

Please let the record show that because of these above
things it is often unfruitful to debate creation vs evolution
because there are two entirely different sets of assumptions.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Ok, issues here. What does "schematic complex information" mean?
quote]

It "defines" who we are biologically. What defines? Arranged
information defines. Complex information that like a schematic
or a blue print is present in DNA.

Information needs a source.
It has always been that simple, but....only to the person
who does not have a bias against the Creator.

It does not prove that the Creator is the God of Abraham,
that is another argument. (but a "good" one)

~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

It's been observed in horses.

Mice too, IIRC.

But still, it's quite interesting to see that only in equines there is a lot of information on robertsonian fusion events. In fact, there are 2 or 3 donkey species that show odd chromosome numbers quite regularly in their population and for me, przwalski horses and domestic horses are the only species I know of with unequal chromosome counts that still can produce viable offspring when mixed. I know of no group of species that has such chromosomal diversity.

Question to the people here: is this something specific to equines, or is this an artifact produced due to the fact that equines are studied more deeply on this. Or is it just my ignorance and is such diversity in chromosome numbers known from other groups of species that I am not aware of?

 

[Breckmin]

your severe lack of cognitive ability

I am sorry if I offended you Blayz, but what is starting to already take
place is why I have not engaged in this discussion for several years now.

There is really no way to win here, because if I am telling the truth,
than the majority of the world is somehow deceived through aggregate
self-deception and ignoring God as Creator, and all I can really be
is the bearer of bad news either way.

I am not trying to be argumentative in saying that any question
I present here is independent of whether I ask the question, or
whether you ask yourself the very same question.

Likewise, anything I say about the Bible or any bible verse I quote
(please remember this IS the Christian Forums and we DO believe
in divine revelation from apostles and prophets, representing the
truth to the nation of Israel) is there and has been there 1000's
of years before I came along and carries with it knowledge and
wisdom on its own, and it is the Power of God's Spirit that opens
our eyes when we "pray" for God to reveal truth to us, and
protect us from deception.

We all need protection from deception because inductive
reasoning is everywhere.

~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

I don't know..what about those with DNA?

~Michael

DNA viruses don't insert themselves in the genome of the host organism. Rather, they enter the cell core and use the replicative machinery of the cell without inserting themselves into the DNA.

 

[Tomk80]

There are plenty of more excuses as you should know. #6
being the one for the context, but the others apply for everyone
in general.

So it was actually meant as an actual excuse?

1. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.
How many people actually start their assumptions with the fact and
the absolute knowledge that God created???
(first argument will of course be Information needs an Informant.
Schematics and blue prints need Authors, etc.)
This is ABSOLUTELY scientific to DO so!!! Scientific data
demonstrates the need for an Informant or an Author for
blue print "information."

You want us to start with a preconception. Sorry, bad idea scientifically. If this really was how you say it is, we should be able to arrive at that conclusion without assuming it beforehand.

2. If you don't start with wisdom and the knowledge of creation,
how will you be able to correctly interpret the information?
The more information you obtain, especially if you are using
thousands and thousands of inductions that result in aggregate
self-deception, the less you are able to decipher it.
(you can use, "professing to be wise, they became fools"

Very simple, by looking at the evidence and using logic to arrive at a model that fits all the evidence. In other words, test, retest.

3. Forgetting about the flood is one of the most important
areas to understanding the world wide deception.
2 Peter 3:5-7 Lack of knowledge in how the flood affected
almost all areas of science is a key factor.

Show me evidence that a worldwide flood happened in the first place. Geology started out assuming this, but (test, retest) quickly found this to be wrong.

4. Back to point one. Someone made the mistake of claiming
science can never point to the supernatural, and everyone
followed along like little puppy dogs and ignored the evidence
that proved special creation: The miracle of life itself, and
God is not mocked by man's inability to create a living cell.
Abiogenesis is not a viable theory and it never has been for
several reasons.
But then again, people believe polygraphs are somehow
"lie detectors."

More importantly, people make the claim that for something to be science, it needs to be testable. If you cannot test a claim, it is not science. The supernatural is not science for exactly that reason, it cannot be tested. At least not in the way many people, including creationists, present it.

5. People followed induction on "everything" instead of
employing the limits of wisdom when it should and shouldn't
be used because invalid assumptions based on induction
often lead to error.

To be honest, that sounds like it applies to you. You start out with the assumption that God exists, without justifying that assumption first. You do not recognize the "limits of wisdom" you yourself have. Than you expect us to reject all conclusions that we have made while accepting the limits to our wisdom, for your own assumptions. I would think it wise for you to remove the beam from you own eye first.

6. People that do have wisdom from divine revelation from
apostles and prophets generally go into theology or other
areas of life and trade, and raise families and such, so
those that go into science are usually outnumbered 110
to 1.

You pretend that all scientists are atheists, or all evolutionists are atheists. You couldn't be more wrong.

7. Proverbs 16:24.

què?

Please let the record show that because of these above
things it is often unfruitful to debate creation vs evolution
because there are two entirely different sets of assumptions.

~Michael

Sorry, but again no. Your own preconceptions do not an argument make. Many theists who assume a creator from the start do accept evolution and even abiogenesis. They see nature as the method used by God to create. Your basic premise on all of the above is that evolution is concluded because people reject God from the start, but that is a false premise to begin with.

And logically, since you begin with a false premise, you end up with the wrong conclusion.

 

[Tomk80]

Ok, issues here. What does &quot;schematic complex information&quot; mean?

It "defines" who we are biologically. What defines? Arranged
information defines. Complex information that like a schematic
or a blue print is present in DNA.

Information needs a source.
It has always been that simple, but....only to the person
who does not have a bias against the Creator.

It does not prove that the Creator is the God of Abraham,
that is another argument. (but a &quot;good&quot; one)

~Michael

Michael, do you realize that you haven't actually answered Naroia's question to any extent in your response? You've only provided more vague generalities.

 

[Breckmin]

Sorry, what exactly is this "quote unquote" negative data?

Not negative data, but the claim from DET that it is a negative
argument because it is the absence of evidence.

The creationist does NOT make an appeal to ignorance. The
evidence IS the fact that it can't be done, NOT the fact that
we don't know. To claim that we don't know is only on the part
of those who still have wishful thinking.

Don't be hasty in declaring stuff like that. Are you familiar with Jack Szostak's work?

This video on a possible origin of life is based on his results. It is new stuff (for me at least ) and quite neat:

I'm sorry, but I have just been out of the deception too long and
it just all looks like foolishness to me now.

The requirements for the "primordial soup" and what they are asking
us to believe took place in one small area at once is completely
ridiculous.

There is a joke in creationism. "They are believing a miracle and they
don't even have God there to make the miracle happen." Of course
this does not apply to the theistic evolutionist.

Just like with the living cell, once you tear it apart "no matter
how much money you pour into research, you can never put
humpty dumpty back together again." (not really a joke, just
a saying that was taken and applied from a Lee Strobal video.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

DNA viruses don't insert themselves in the genome of the host organism. Rather, they enter the cell core and use the replicative machinery of the cell without inserting themselves into the DNA.

I wasn't aware I contradicted this.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

[/b]

You pretend that all scientists are atheists, or all evolutionists are atheists. You couldn't be more wrong.

No where did I make this claim. But this is exactly why I do not
"debate" DET anymore.

I propose that all theistic evolutionists are creationists...they
are just under the same deception I was under. Invalid assumptions
based on induction.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

[/b]
So it was actually meant as an actual excuse?

Just a few reasons. I'm sure we could think of more.

You want us to start with a preconception. Sorry, bad idea scientifically. If this really was how you say it is, we should be able to arrive at that conclusion without assuming it beforehand.

For the Christian there is a common sense element to knowing there
is a God. It also comes from the scriptures in verses like Romans 1:20.

To the intellectual who understands the logical fallacy of strong
atheism, technical atheism or agnosticism would be the starting
point, but you would expect, once they examined evidence, unless
they had a reason to reject a supreme being of some sort, the
conclusion would be axiomatic.

If you examine what is going on in RNA and DNA from an "information
requiring a source" standpoint, you have even MORE evidence for
God. It is illogical to believe that information can arise on its own.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Michael, do you realize that you haven't actually answered Naroia's question to any extent in your response? You've only provided more vague generalities.

The majority of you seem to know more about coding for proteins
than I do, so I would consider the fact "information" in DNA (and RNA
being the precursor for it) to already be a given.

We often refer to DNA as a blue print, yet we ignore the One
who first drew the blue print before it was corrupted.

I'm not here to argue, I'm just passing through.

~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

I wasn't aware I contradicted this.

~Michael

Then why did you think tRNA is relevant to the discussion regarding retroviruses?

 

[Breckmin]

Tom
<<Very simple, by looking at the evidence and using logic to arrive at a model that fits all the evidence. In other words, test, retest.>>

What if your "logic" is misguided because you rejected communication
from the One you are actually studing about?

How can you test and retest when you were not even there?
When you do not observe mutations that would warrant such common
ancestry, AND you don't have fossil evidence for it?
~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

The majority of you seem to know more about coding for proteins
than I do, so I would consider the fact "information" in DNA (and RNA
being the precursor for it) to already be a given.

But you seem to think "information" is some quality in and of itself. It is not.

We often refer to DNA as a blue print, yet we ignore the One
who first drew the blue print before it was corrupted.

But despite our referring to DNA as a blue print, it is actually a chemical, following chemical reactions. It is used as an analogy, not more than that. There is no reason to assume a "One" who "drew" the "blueprint" exactly for that reason. The line of reasoning you take is a result of taking an analogy literally. Not valid.

I'm not here to argue, I'm just passing through.

~Michael

But even then this doesn't mean you can answer a question for qualification with more vague statements.

 

[Tomk80]

No where did I make this claim. But this is exactly why I do not "debate" DET anymore.

You may not have wanted to make that claim, but you definitely strongly implied this with:
"People that do have wisdom from divine revelation from apostles and prophets generally go into theology or other areas of life and trade, and raise families and such, so those that go into science are usually outnumbered 110 to 1"

If you don't want me to attribute certain claims to you, you shouldn't make them in the first place.

I propose that all theistic evolutionists are creationists...they
are just under the same deception I was under. Invalid assumptions
based on induction.

~Michael

Ah, so now they're just "misguided"?