Recommendation for everyone who whants the truth!

[Bushido216]

Boy it is lets gang up on the creationist day isn’t it!

Bushido said: Then explain to me the genetic similarities of populations today?

Well duh, the same creator, similarity in design tells us of one designer, not a common ancestry.

Explain to me the trend we witness in the fossil record?

The trend is of men’s own making bushido, the word of God mentions nothing of it.

Explain to me how light from supernovas are visible to us?

Do you really mean why do we see distant starlight in a young earth - correct? Well that really isn’t my area of interest so I won’t have much say to say about it – but I’ll let you bring up some points and maybe we can help each other understand from a Biblical perspective why it is possible.

Explain to me how we don't see any isotopes with a halflife of over a million years? Or even 20,000?

Actually we do see radioisotopes with a halflife less than a million years if that is your question. Of the 1400 or so radioisotopes known to exist, only 75 have half lives greater than 700 years. Here are just a few whose half life measure in the days and even less:

Polonium 210 = 138 days
Sulfur-35 = 88 days
Iodine-125 = 60 days
Chromium-51 = 28 days
Phoshorous-33 = 25 days
Lead-214 = 12 minutes
Bismuth-214 = 10 minutes
Protactinium-234 = less than a minute
Polonium-214 = less than 200 micro seconds

a.) The same creator arguement would be valid if we didn't see the fossil record.
b.) It isn't.
c.) Oh, please, it's not that hard. Light from a dead star would require millions of years to get here. You can't argue appearance of age here because that's just an outright lie on God's case.
d.) No, my question is as it was. Why don't we see isotopes with half-lives over a million years? If the earth is only 6,000 years old, then they should still be around. They need millions of years to be converted to a more stable form.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl said: Crusadar - back again and already insulting the faith of everyone who disagrees with you?

I was never really gone Karl, just been very busy. And no Karl, I’m not insulting your faith in God - only your religion of evolutionism.

You don't suppose for a moment that suggesting that I "believe" in "evolutionism" as a religion is insulting? It is. Stop it. It's untrue, and you know it, because I've told you before. If you think I'm lying about that, come out and say so. If you don't, then stop with the false accusation.

Are you actually an atheist trying to discredit Christianity, or merely spiritually arrogant?

A low blow indeed I might add. An atheist who openly acknowledges that Jesus Christ is his personal Lord and Savior and submits to Him, as I have demonstrated many times – I wonder how many atheists acknowledge that.

One may pretend to adopt a position in order to discredit it. However, the question is rhetorical.

explain how shared retri-viral insertions point to YEC and not evolution.

Rather than get into a discussion about something I have a very limited knowledge of how about I just link you here (something which I rarely do): and let you decide for yourself.

The sum of the argument on that link seems to be "Oh, that's a good evidence, perhaps X, Y and Z'. A better demonstration of ad hocery would be hard to find. It's a little like suggesting that Newton's explanation of the motions of the planets is wrong, because perhaps they're propelled by invisible pixies.

Explain how observations such as the greater similarity between the proteins of crocodiles and turkeys than between crocodiles and turtles supports creationism rather than evolution.

Which protein in particular karl, the old cytochrome c argument perhaps?

Cytochrome C would be a good example. Would you like to actually address the question?

Explain how the chromosomal fusion event, as evidenced by the telomere residues in human chromosome 2 support creationism rather than evolution.

I’m impressed karl, you use such big scientific sounding words, lets hope you know what it is your talking about. But instead of simply hurling terms you probably found on some evolutionist website lets bring these supposed evidences forward so we can discuss from a Biblical and scientific perspective their merits in supporting common ancestry.

I have brought this evidence forward a number of times, and never has a Creationist answered it. I'll dig it up yet again if you will actually address it.

Until you have done so, kindly keep your unsupported statement that the evidence points to YEC to yourself, as well as your implications that Wblastyn is not "born again" because he disagrees with you (which surely violates Rule 1 of these forums, not that the fundamentalists give a flying **** about that if they can abuse a more liberal brother) and that evolution is a lie where they belong - within your artificial YEC dominated universe.

First of all karl tell me what you think it means to be born again and if it is according to what scripture says then I’ll take back my words – but if I have offended blasty, then I apologize to him. However a part of being born again is defending the word of God, not compromising its truths to whichever theory man happens to currently hold with reverence.

No compromise. Creation in six days is not a 'Biblical Truth' - it is a particular fringe interpretation. The Biblical Truth is that God created, not the how. This is generally agreed by all but the most fundamentalist theologians.

As for "born again" - anyone who commits to follow Jesus is reborn spiritually. That is all it means. An entire theology derived from one discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus is unbalanced.

You forget that it is not about faith bashing as you suppose, but brotherly rebuke as I have stated enough times we owe that to each other as brothers in the body of Christ to challenge every doctrine that deviates from the word of God and question those who would follow them not out of ridicule but out of concern.

If it's not about faith bashing, then stop bashing the faith of others. What else do you call telling Blasty he's not "born again", and theistic evolutionists in general that they're "compromisers", and following the "religion of evolutionism", despite being told before that these are inaccurate caricatures.

 

[lucaspa]

I was never really gone Karl, just been very busy. And no Karl, I’m not insulting your faith in God - only your religion of evolutionism.

What, exactly, is the "religion of evolutionism"?

Are you actually an atheist trying to discredit Christianity, or merely spiritually arrogant?

A low blow indeed I might add. An atheist who openly acknowledges that Jesus Christ is his personal Lord and Savior and submits to Him, as I have demonstrated many times

Demonstrated where? Not here. So we don't know that you are not an undercover atheist. You sound like an atheist. You accept the atheistic statement of faith that evolution = atheism.

However a part of being born again is defending the word of God, not compromising its truths to whichever theory man happens to currently hold with reverence.

And here is the crux of the disagreement. Weblastyn does defend the word of God. What we are not doing is defending the theory of interpretation some men (literalists) currently hold with reverence. You keep denying God, Crusadar. You deny that God really did create. Therefore Creation is also from God. Rather than listen to what God tells you in Creation and in the text of Genesis, you impose your interpretation of Genesis 1 on God and tell Him how He had to create! More chutzpah than I have.

You forget that it is not about faith bashing as you suppose, but brotherly rebuke as I have stated enough times we owe that to each other as brothers in the body of Christ to challenge every doctrine that deviates from the word of God and question those who would follow them not out of ridicule but out of concern.

Then you understand why we brotherly rebuke you for turning the Bible into a god. It's out of concern. Notice that you didn't say "every doctrine that deviates from God (or Christ)" but from "the word of God". However, that "word" is only what you say it is, isn't it? What you are saying is that you rebuke any doctrine that questions you and fellow literalists.

Crusadar, do you think the whole world was enrolled? Luke 2:1. It's the "word of God". If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[lucaspa]

Well duh, the same creator, similarity in design tells us of one designer, not a common ancestry.

Does it? While a Creator *could* use similar designs, God is not *compelled* to. After all, how is a divine creator to be held accountable for obeying rules? The organisms could be designed any way God chose. There could be warm-blooded and scales, cold-blooded and feathers, cold-blooded and having placental birth. However, this is not what is observed. There are similarities between species. Evolution, by stating that all organisms arose from a common ancestor, can account for this. The similarities must be there because of inheritance. Evolution also gives predictions (essential to a scientific theory). Because organisms are related, evolution predicts that the characteristics we have not seen will also follow the same pattern of similarity as the characteristics we have seen. Unfortunately, intelligent design cannot make the same predictions. For instance, a dog has many similarities to humans: warm blood, bones, hair, placental birth, nursing its young. However, suppose I want to study fracture repair (which I do), does the dog also have similar processes of fracture repair to humans? Evolution would predict yes, the organisms are related and will share all characteristics. Creation by intelligent design cannot make the same prediction. Perhaps the Designer decided to use the facture repair process of fish.

Let's take some concrete examples. Ichthyosaurs, sharks, and dolphins have the same general shape. Common designer, you might say. But look more closely. There are differences that make no sense. For instance, ichthyosaurs and sharks have a vertical tail fin, dolphins have a horizontal one. Dolphins have a blowhole on top of their head. Icthyosaurs have nostrils on their snout. Where is the similarity of design? Or look at the swimming motion of sharks and dolphins. Sharks have a side by side motion of their tail fin. Dolphins have a ver clear running motion! But they aren't running, they are swimming! The running motion comes from their land dwelling ancestor that ran. But a Designer isn't limited by that; He can give the dolphin the same design of swimming motion as a shark.

So common design breaks down when you look at the data in detail

The trend is of men’s own making bushido, the word of God mentions nothing of it.

So? The 'word of God' doesn't mention electrons, either, yet we are communicating thru electronics. The 'word of God' doesn't mention the Americas, either. Yet we live here. The trend is there. That is why creationism has the Flood -- to explain the fossil record.

Explain to me how light from supernovas are visible to us?

Do you really mean why do we see distant starlight in a young earth - correct? Well that really isn’t my area of interest so I won’t have much say to say about it – but I’ll let you bring up some points and maybe we can help each other understand from a Biblical perspective why it is possible.

Actually we do see radioisotopes with a halflife less than a million years if that is your question. Of the 1400 or so radioisotopes known to exist, only 75 have half lives greater than 700 years. Here are just a few whose half life measure in the days and even less:

Polonium 210 = 138 days
Sulfur-35 = 88 days
Iodine-125 = 60 days
Chromium-51 = 28 days
Phoshorous-33 = 25 days
Lead-214 = 12 minutes
Bismuth-214 = 10 minutes
Protactinium-234 = less than a minute
Polonium-214 = less than 200 micro seconds

Nice duck. All these are made by decay of other isotopes. What Bushido meant was isotopes that are not made this way. Original isotopes, if you will. There are 40 nuclides with half-lives ranging from 1,000 to 50 million years that are not made by decay of other nuclides or interaction with cosmic rays. So, if the earth were young, we should find detectable amounts of these 40 nuclides on earth. But we don't. None. Zip. There are 17 nuclides with half lives over 50 million years and we find all of them in the earth's crust. Young earth is falsified.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa said: Let me be sure I understand you correctly. You actually spoke to God and this is what God said. Can you document that in any way? Can you explain why God says something completely different in His Creation? No, He spoke to me through His word.

Glad you cleared that up. So we are dealing with the same old claim: your fallible human interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is the correct theory.

 

[aziel92]

(ouch heated discussions here!! ) A lot of the protein similarities (and tissue and organ) we see really explained by something other than common ancestor and common design. This is namely common FUNCTION. Cytochrome C, if I remember correctly, is part of the electron transport chain which is the energy maker in mitochondria. If you take twenty amino acids and go about making a protein that must fit certain specifications (for Cyt C: must work at this pH, must transport e-, must work in conjunction with other proteins so on and so forth) you will find that the variety of proteins that can be made to fit is extremely limited. If you look at protein similarities you will find that the closer the function is and the more similar the parameters must be in order for that protein to work, the more similar it will be. this is of course very logical. So for Cyt C, if you take a whole bunch of species and look at the nth # protein within the electron transport (meaning they will all have basically the same exact function) it follows that of course they will be quite similar and should come as no surprise. Therefore similarities work independently from common ancestor. Also, indirectly this makes it difficult for the evolutionists because in order for the electron transport system to work (and all other cellular functions) each protein must have a certain amino acid sequence with little room for fudge in order for the whole system to work. It is very difficult to explain this by gradual natural selection.

 

[Bushido216]

We're talking about whole D.N.A. sequences.

But while we're on the subject. If we inherit our mitochondria from our mothers very close to 100% of the time, then how come there aren't four mitochondrial D.N.A. (R.N.A.? I forget) types in the world?

 

[lucaspa]

(ouch heated discussions here!! ) A lot of the protein similarities (and tissue and organ) we see really explained by something other than common ancestor and common design. This is namely common FUNCTION. Cytochrome C, if I remember correctly, is part of the electron transport chain which is the energy maker in mitochondria. If you take twenty amino acids and go about making a protein that must fit certain specifications (for Cyt C: must work at this pH, must transport e-, must work in conjunction with other proteins so on and so forth) you will find that the variety of proteins that can be made to fit is extremely limited. If you look at protein similarities you will find that the closer the function is and the more similar the parameters must be in order for that protein to work, the more similar it will be. this is of course very logical. So for Cyt C, if you take a whole bunch of species and look at the nth # protein within the electron transport (meaning they will all have basically the same exact function) it follows that of course they will be quite similar and should come as no surprise. Therefore similarities work independently from common ancestor.

Not really. There are literally millions of protein sequences that would perform the functions of cytochrome c.

If you look at the specific differences between cytochrome c's of different species, and the number of differences, you find that species that are more distantly related have more differences and species that are more closely related have fewer differences. This isn't "independent from common ancestor." Instead, it is directly dependent on it.

Here is a page comparing cytochrome c differences:
http://www.fmarion.edu/~humanbio/natsel.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.aa.pdf

Also, indirectly this makes it difficult for the evolutionists because in order for the electron transport system to work (and all other cellular functions) each protein must have a certain amino acid sequence with little room for fudge in order for the whole system to work. It is very difficult to explain this by gradual natural selection.

Actually, it's very easy. Natural selection would tend to converge on those sequences at the active site. Going from poor activity to the most maximal activity. Just the fact that most species have different cytochrome c's and they all have about the same high activity shows just how much diversity you can have with a protein.

Now, want to know how natural selection can make an enzyme? Here natural selection makes something not found in nature: a DNA enzyme:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5449/2441?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=286&firstpage=2441

BIOCHEMISTRY:
DNA Cuts Its Teeth--As an Enzyme
Elizabeth Finkel*
Science 286: 2441-2442, Dec. 24, 1999.
DNA enzymes can inactivate genes in laboratory tests by binding to and cleaving their RNA messages. These molecules may be moving toward the clinic
Each year some 1 million people worldwide with blocked coronary arteries opt for a procedure called balloon angioplasty. A surgeon inserts a catheter into the clogged artery and inflates a balloon that smears the atherosclerotic plaque against the vessel wall like peanut butter. It's simple and often effective. But 30% to 40% of these procedures fail because the cells of the artery wall react badly to the trauma the procedure inflicts: They furiously repair the damage, often totally clogging the artery in the process.
Molecular biologists have tried to stifle the key genes involved in this overzealous repair process by inactivating or destroying the RNA messages they produce. They have had varying degrees of success in animal models. Now, a team of researchers led by Levon Khachigian at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, has attacked the problem with a promising new gene-inactivating technology: an enzyme made from DNA.

The work, reported in the November issue of Nature Medicine, was an early test of the therapeutic potential of DNA enzymes, which until now have been mainly laboratory curiosities. Compared to other molecules that can inactivate genes, DNA enzymes are more stable and cheaper to make, and they may be more discriminating in choosing their targets, which could reduce side effects. And in Khachigian's test, they appeared to be effective. His DNA enzyme, designed to bind to and cleave the RNA made by a damage-sensing gene called Egr-1, seemed to keep ballooned arteries from closing up in rat models of heart disease. "This is an exciting new use of a powerful technology," says pathologist Tucker Collins of Harvard Medical School in Boston.

DNA enzymes are the able apprentices of RNA enzymes--RNA molecules that can catalyze chemical reactions, such as cleaving other RNA chains. Ribozymes, as they are called, were discovered in the early 1980s in living organisms; scientists soon made new variants in the laboratory, with different abilities, and then began to wonder whether DNA, RNA's chemical cousin, could follow the act.

No DNA enzymes are known in nature, but in 1994 Gerry Joyce of The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and his then-postdoc, Ron Breaker, decided to try to create one using a laboratory version of natural selection. They hoped to produce a DNA molecule that could match the most elementary catalytic ability found in ribozymes: snipping the RNA phosphoester backbone. The starting ingredients for their primordial soup were trillions of random variants of a 50-base-long DNA chain, tethered to a matrix by a sequence that included an RNA nucleotide. When they washed the matrix with a lead solution, molecules capable of using the metal ion to help snip the tethering RNA nucleotide "selected" themselves into the column washings. The researchers then repeated the process several times, starting each round of selection with the population of molecules that had emerged from the previous round.

After 3 days, Breaker had evolved an efficient RNA-cleaving DNA enzyme. And later work in Joyce's lab by graduate student Steve Santoro produced the prize specimen, known as 10-23, for the 10th generation and 23rd clone. 10-23 had a catalytic efficiency higher than that of any known ribozyme. "It's the best we've ever seen; it will target any RNA you want," boasts Joyce.

To target a specific RNA molecule, 10-23's RNA-cleaving catalytic domain can be fitted with stretches of DNA that bind to target sequences in the RNA. When the 10-23 catalytic domain is within range, it cleaves the RNA by speeding up the background reaction that makes RNA inherently unstable: the attack by an oxygen in one of RNA's ribose sugars on one of the bonds in the backbone. The so-called hammerhead ribozyme, originally found in plant viruses, works the same way, but 10-23 is less choosy about where it cleaves the sequence. Whereas the hammerhead prefers to bite where it finds a sequence of the nucleotides guanine, uracil, and cytosine--a target that may not be accessible on a tangled RNA molecule--10-23 can sink its teeth into any junction between the two kinds of nucleotides, purine and pyrimidine. Such a sequence is found at the start site of RNA messages, which usually dangles freely. Says Breaker, who is now at Yale University, "That's the beauty of 10-23; a target sequence is always accessible."

Because 10-23 is made of DNA, it has some other powerful advantages over ribozymes. DNA lacks the inherent instability of RNA. "We have seen our DNA enzymes last at least 48 hours in serum," compared to minutes for ribozymes, says Lun-Quan Sun, a biochemist at Johnson and Johnson Research in Sydney, which owns the patent for commercial applications of the 10-23 DNA enzyme. DNA is also easier and cheaper to make than RNA. And because it takes a more precise match for a DNA sequence to bind to RNA than for RNA to bind to another RNA molecule, DNA enzymes may be better than ribozymes at selecting their targets and ignoring similar sequences.

One place DNA enzymes could not supplant ribozymes, however, is in gene therapy. A gene for a therapeutic ribozyme could be inserted into the body, which would then make the ribozyme continuously; a DNA enzyme, in contrast, has to be synthesized and given as a drug.

Santoro and Joyce published the 10-23 sequence in the April 1997 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, putting RNA-cleaving DNA enzymes in the hands of any researchers who wanted to copy the catalytic sequence. Explains Breaker, "These would be the simplest enzymes anyone can make. Just send an e-mail to a company that makes DNA, and you can have it the next day."

In the last few months, researchers have reported promising test tube results with customized variants of the 10-23 DNA enzyme. Sun and colleagues, for example, designed a DNA enzyme to target the growth-stimulating gene myc, which effectively froze the growth of smooth muscle cells in a culture dish. And Kazunari Taira's group at the University of Tokyo and the National Institute of Advanced Interdisciplinary Research at Tsukuba Science City in Japan deployed a DNA enzyme against an abnormal gene message made in certain leukemic cells. The abnormal protein keeps the leukemic cells from self-destructing when normal cells do, leading to uncontrolled growth. The DNA enzyme destroyed the abnormal messenger RNA and triggered the self-destruct circuitry in the leukemic cells.

Khachigian's work with DNA enzymes is a first step toward the clinic. His group altered 10-23 so it would target the RNA from Egr-1, a wound-repair gene identified by Khachigian in Collins's lab at Harvard in 1996. Egr-1 acts like a chief of disaster operations. Undetectable in healthy arteries, its protein appears on the scene within minutes of injury, recruits a crew of tissue repair factors, and disappears a few hours later. Because Egr-1 acts early in wound repair, Khachigian thought it might be a strategic target. "It's a case of shooting the messenger," he says.

Six hours before ballooning and during the procedure, the researchers applied the DNA to the outer surface of a rat's carotid artery, relying on chemical carriers to ferry it into the smooth muscle cells in the vessel wall. After 2 weeks, the new layer of cells lining the artery was twice as thick in untreated rats as it was in rats that had been treated with the DNA enzyme. Next, Khachigian plans to try this approach in pigs and then, if all goes well, in human patients.

But DNA enzymes modeled on the RNA-cleaving 10-23 molecule are just the beginning. In laboratory evolution experiments like the one that spawned 10-23, catalytic DNA molecules sporting bizarre new structures have emerged, some with four strands rather than the usual one or two, others co-opting amino acids--the building blocks of proteins--for extra catalytic power. Over the last year, these modified DNA variants have proved able to catalyze a whole new array of reactions in the test tube--for example, cutting, rejoining, and chemically modifying DNA strands. And Breaker thinks new DNA enzymes as potentially powerful as 10-23 could target proteins as well as RNA and DNA. "We must now consider the possibility that other enzymes like 10-23 are out there, with even greater catalytic power, just waiting to be discovered."

Says Breaker, "My goal is to develop the therapeutic warheads of the future."