The Deception of Genesis

[KerrMetric]

I notice that you appeal to the argument of authority very often. More of these believe this.. more of those... none of these... etc... Is majority always right?

It is most of the time when the majority are the people who are skilled in the job and the minority don't even work in the area.

I don't appeal to the argument of the majority when 60% of geologists say this but 40% do not. I do when 99.9999999% of geologists say this and some small group of insurance agents makes a geological argument counter to the 99.999999% of geologists.

A trick I'm sure you use in your life too.

 

[KerrMetric]

You are the one playing the game. I asked you for an example, you are unable to provide one. I have to assume your talk is mere bluff and you do not know what you are talking about.

Coming from someone who seemingly can't spot science from pumpkin growing that is sweet. You know full well that there are many expositions of this written by life scientists on the web. So find them and critique them if you will.

Why not be sure of your facts before making wrong assumptions. Which geophysicist are we talking about.

Me.

 

[KerrMetric]

Why is it you guys never do any science?
Why is it you are the ones who cannot parse scientific information?
Why is it you are out of tune with the vast majority of the worlds academic science community?
Why is it that if you were so skilled or "into science" you don't or can't do it?
Why is YECism an embarrassment to most Christians and the larger denominations?

 

[Uphill Battle]

It is most of the time when the majority are the people who are skilled in the job and the minority don't even work in the area.

I don't appeal to the argument of the majority when 60% of geologists say this but 40% do not. I do when 99.9999999% of geologists say this and some small group of insurance agents makes a geological argument counter to the 99.999999% of geologists.

A trick I'm sure you use in your life too.

really? wow. Somebody better go back and tell those few people who forwarded TOE in the first place to retract it... seeing as "99.99%" disagreed at the time.

wow, exponental growth of the 9's. and stop calling us insurance agents. we DO have souls, you know.

not much. If I don't ACTUALLY know the numbers, I don't put them down.

****edit*****
should have been disagreed.. not disagree.

 

[Micaiah]

Nice game. Why don't you read what biologists have to say on this matter as opposed to having a geophysicist parse the material for you. There are many websites/books that detail the different mutations, how they add or change to the genome and how this is mathematically provable as information increase. In other words do your own leg work!!!!!!!

I sometimes think you guys don't do the work so as to remain ignorant so that you can pretend the game is still playable. Anyone who makes the information comment about mutations is either ignorant of the facts or is lying. Why not learn the facts?

In fact why not define "information" for us so that w can mathematically show that mutation can add information. This can and has been done many times.

I take it you have reviewed the literature and accept what they say is correct and what I have said is wrong. Why don't you give us an explanation of your best example along with its reference?

So you are a geophysicist. Tell us about the geological column then and why my comments and understanding is incorrect. Then answer the questions posed. You're not afraid to give simple clear answers are you?

 

[KerrMetric]

really? wow. Somebody better go back and tell those few people who forwarded TOE in the first place to retract it... seeing as "99.99%" disagreed at the time.

wow, exponental growth of the 9's. and stop calling us insurance agents. we DO have souls, you know.

not much. If I don't ACTUALLY know the numbers, I don't put them down.

****edit*****
should have been disagreed.. not disagree.

I was using a hypothetical as you well know. It's also a matter of difference between the arguers being in the field or out of it. And the fact that science is practised by hundreds of thousands these days as opposed to a hundred or two 200 years ago or a few dozen 500 years ago.

Find me an example in the last 50 years of a wholesale revolution in science from one lone wolf? I'm not saying there aren't any but I'm struggling to think of one right now - though I am sleepy.

Good night all. I'm pooped.

 

[KerrMetric]

I take it you have reviewed the literature and accept what they say is correct and what I have said is wrong. Why don't you give us an explanation of your best example along with its reference?

So you are a geophysicist. Tell us about the geological column then and why my comments and understanding is incorrect. Then answer the questions posed. You're not afraid to give simple clear answers are you?

This is a message board not a blog. Give me your example of what is wrong in geology and I'll comment when I return.

Night all.

 

[Micaiah]

really? wow. Somebody better go back and tell those few people who forwarded TOE in the first place to retract it... seeing as "99.99%" disagreed at the time.

wow, exponental growth of the 9's. and stop calling us insurance agents. we DO have souls, you know.

not much. If I don't ACTUALLY know the numbers, I don't put them down.

****edit*****
should have been disagreed.. not disagree.

It is a bit of an up hill battle .

 

[Micaiah]

This is a message board not a blog. Give me your example of what is wrong in geology and I'll comment when I return.

Night all.

Give me your responses first. You made the comments. I'm asking you to substantiate them. If you review your past comments on this thread they are a collection of dogmatic assertions with little supporting arguments or evidence. I'm used to scientists providing references and evidence to support their assertions. I could liken you to an insurance agent but think it would be unnecessarily unkind - to the agents.

 

[KerrMetric]

Give me your responses first. You made the comments. I'm asking you to substantiate them. If you review your past comments on this thread they are a collection of dogmatic assertions with little supporting arguments or evidence. I'm used to scientists providing references and evidence to support their assertions. I could liken you to an insurance agent but think it would be unnecessarily unkind - to the agents.

On the question of geology, can you tell me in you own words:

1. where we can find complete examples of the geological column?
2. How deep it is now?
3. How deep it would be hypothetically if it was not subject to weathering and erosion?

Please provde references with your comments.

You broached the questions first. That is your post.

Again quit being lazy and provide an example from the numerous ones on the web. I shall look at your example and critique tomorrow.

The onus is on you since, as you well know, you are out of step with the geological community numbering tens of thousands if you include the industry as well as academia.

Why should I cut/paste the well known list of geological column sites worldwide that I know you have seen before?

Bed time.

 

[Micaiah]

You broached the questions first. That is your post.

Again quit being lazy and provide an example from the numerous ones on the web. I shall look at your example and critique tomorrow.

The onus is on you since, as you well know, you are out of step with the geological community numbering tens of thousands if you include the industry as well as academia.

Why should I cut/paste the well known list of geological column sites worldwide that I know you have seen before?

Bed time.

I gathered you had an interest in geology and posed some questions that should be easy to verify if things are as clear cut as you suggest. I haven't claimed you were wrong or right, just asked a few questions. Given the number of times you have tried to justify your attempts not to respond to questions and back up your claims, I would have thought it would have been more efficient just to give your answers.

In regard to the mutations, I have had a look on google and noted there are just the usual colection of examples. I was half hoping you had something new to add to the topic. Maybe you still do.

Goodnight. I await your responses.

 

[Critias]

Talk about obscure. There is what, about 20,000 Messianics in the world. How many are theological scholars? 10 or 15 of them. How many get any respect in Judaism as a whole? Zero?

Are you saying because they are few that their opinions are meaningless? Is it respect that you require in order to hear what someone says?

Jesus was one. Jesus didn't get respect. Do you listen to what Jesus said?

Since, you made the claim of there being 20,000 Messianics in the world, provide your data of this claim. Then provide your data that there are only 10-15 of them that are Theologians.

 

[Micaiah]

Awaiting more responses from our friend. He is going to be busy tomorrow.

In fact why not define "information" for us so that w can mathematically show that mutation can add information. This can and has been done many times.

Define information? Lets look at it this way. When the first hypothesized cell evolved, it had no DNA for say a leg, arm, or brain. I'm not sure exactly how much DNA it is supposed to have and what the DNA was like. I'm not sure anyone does. Feel free to correct me if you know. I think you could agree with my statements however about the DNA it did NOT contain. Here we are supposedly many millions of years later and presto we have DNA for legs, arms, and a brain. Oh add to that ears, nervous system, hair, many different bones, skin, eyes, reproductive organs etc. etc.

Somehow the DNA for all these body parts was acquired. The question is "How was it acquired?" The example illustrates what I mean when I refer to information. I'm speaking of the DNA that we have at present that provides the coding for all of the body parts that were not present in that first simple cell.

Here are some further thoughts on the concept of information.

I take a page from a book and copy the information. Do I now have more information than before?

I have a word processor with some programmed macros that insert information such as addresses into letters. Does each letter thus produced represent a net gain in information?

I receive an email and 20% of the text has become garbled in the transmission. Does each letter thus produced represent a net gain in information?

I don't like what the Bible teaches on origins and so cut out several chapters from the book of Genesis. Is that a net gain in information?

The above examples provide a simple illustration of some of the processes by which the DNA can mutate or change.

Sometimes mutation is random, sometimes it is non random. Insertions, deletions, duplications, single nucleotide substitutions, transpositions, and inversions are some of the kinds of genetic mutations that occur.

From what I have read our knowledge of genetics and how the DNA mutates is still in its infancy. I have not seen any one on this forum able to provide a simple explanation outlining the mechanism by which the DNA of the first cell supposedly acquired all the information that our DNA contains. We have no clear examples of how this happened in the past or how it can hapen today.

If you are able to provide us with the information be my guest.

Here is a discussion on the possible

Much research has flowed from this discovery to elucidate the mechanism for the apparently novel ability of these bacteria.2 Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. The genes for these enzymes are located on plasmids:3 plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in Pseudomonas.

Apologists for materialism latched onto these findings as an example of evolution of new information by random mutations and natural selection, for example, Thwaites in 1985.4 Thwaites’ claims have been repeated by many, without updating or critical evaluation, since.

It comes from the following AIG link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

 

[Micaiah]

The reasons for skepticism regarding the possiblility of these mutations being random is discussed in the paper with some of them being derived from reservations expressed by the Japanese scientists doing the work.

AIG conclude as follows:

It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution.11 Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation—the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes.

 

[KerrMetric]

Awaiting more responses from our friend. He is going to be busy tomorrow.



Define information? Lets look at it this way. When the first hypothesized cell evolved, it had no DNA for say a leg, arm, or brain. I'm not sure exactly how much DNA it is supposed to have and what the DNA was like. I'm not sure anyone does. Feel free to correct me if you know. I think you could agree with my statements however about the DNA it did NOT contain. Here we are supposedly many millions of years later and presto we have DNA for legs, arms, and a brain. Oh add to that ears, nervous system, hair, many different bones, skin, eyes, reproductive organs etc. etc.

Somehow the DNA for all these body parts was acquired. The question is "How was it acquired?" The example illustrates what I mean when I refer to information. I'm speaking of the DNA that we have at present that provides the coding for all of the body parts that were not present in that first simple cell.

Here are some further thoughts on the concept of information.

I take a page from a book and copy the information. Do I now have more information than before?

I have a word processor with some programmed macros that insert information such as addresses into letters. Does each letter thus produced represent a net gain in information?

I receive an email and 20% of the text has become garbled in the transmission. Does each letter thus produced represent a net gain in information?

I don't like what the Bible teaches on origins and so cut out several chapters from the book of Genesis. Is that a net gain in information?

The above examples provide a simple illustration of some of the processes by which the DNA can mutate or change.

Sometimes mutation is random, sometimes it is non random. Insertions, deletions, duplications, single nucleotide substitutions, transpositions, and inversions are some of the kinds of genetic mutations that occur.

From what I have read our knowledge of genetics and how the DNA mutates is still in its infancy. I have not seen any one on this forum able to provide a simple explanation outlining the mechanism by which the DNA of the first cell supposedly acquired all the information that our DNA contains. We have no clear examples of how this happened in the past or how it can hapen today.

If you are able to provide us with the information be my guest.

Here is a discussion on the possible



It comes from the following AIG link:

I notice that you do not define information. It's not a concept (a phrase you use because like every Creationist in history you wont want to be pinned down) it's a definition.

Define INFORMATION or be quiet.

 

[KerrMetric]

I gathered you had an interest in geology and posed some questions that should be easy to verify if things are as clear cut as you suggest. I haven't claimed you were wrong or right, just asked a few questions. Given the number of times you have tried to justify your attempts not to respond to questions and back up your claims, I would have thought it would have been more efficient just to give your answers.

No it would e more efficient for you to state what the column is and why you have problems with it.

Awaiting your response. As someone who obviously disagrees with consensus it is up to you to bring something to the table.

Let's just pretend I cut/pasted all the web pages on the geological column. The balls in your court.

In regard to the mutations, I have had a look on google and noted there are just the usual colection of examples. I was half hoping you had something new to add to the topic. Maybe you still do.
.

I ever provided an example - I guess the usual collection is easily found because it suffices for your needs.

Oh and define INFORMATION or be quiet on that topic.

Why is it Creationists NEVER define it

Why is that?

I dare you to define it - I double dog dare you!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[shernren]

It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution.11 Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation—the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes.

This is chock full of escape holes. When there is conclusive evidence that they are not actually talking science, if they respond at all, they will say "Well, we only said they could have..." When normal science puts forth tentative hypotheses and rejects or rearranges defective ones, it's called typical blind worldly-foolishness or some other similar derogatory term. So what is it when YECs do the same? Pure humility, or simple faithless leaving of an escape hole?

Here's a good counter: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html this time someone has done the link-finding for you so I hope you will seriously read through this and tell me honestly how much you understand of it, so that we can work through this together instead of just shouting at each other. There's some stuff in there I don't really get either, which I may be able to understand if I bounce them off someone else.

Critias: Sorry for the delay. You posted in #115:

No. Genesis 1-3 speaks of God and what He has done. Genesis 1-2 is the Creation Theory. Creationists believe it is historically accurate in what Genesis 1-2 speaks of.

TEs want this Theory removed and discarded. They want they Evolutionary Theory to be its permenant replacement. Since both claim to study God's creation when applied, and creation itself speaks of the Creator, as does the Creation Theory, how will the Evolutionary Theory point to a Creator?

TEs want the Theory that points to God, gives credit to God, removed and replaced with a Theory that does not point to God or give Him credit for His handy work. Creation, in understanding where it has come from, speaks of God, so how does the Evolutionary Theory speak of God? How does it lead one to know there is a Creator?

I have already seem a vast amount of Christians say God didn't have an earthquake quake or the skies to rain, etc. I have seen what is attributed to God in the Bible, Christians say it is not God's doing but rather a natural process.

So, explain why this natural process that elimates God out of the picture is better than one that speaks of Him.

There are utilitarian reasons and philosophical reasons. The utilitarian reason is that science based on the Bible would never have gotten anywhere. I'm as sorry to say that as you probably are, but I think you'll have to acknowledge it. If one tries to study the phenomena of the Bible as scientific events one ends up researching floating iron, miraculous sudden mass blindness, fire from heaven, virgin births, resurrections, teleportation and such. Whether or not these events happened historically, they did not happen scientifically.

Now, I do believe these events happened historically. But I put the "whether or not" there because from what I perceive (correct me if I'm wrong) we are discussing the merit of these theories divorced from the evidence that supports or contradicts them. After all, it is because of such discussions that some Christians fully understand the evidence for an old earth and do not try to explain it away, the way creation science does, instead saying that "God created young and screw the evidence". They believe that the YEC theory has more philosophical merit than the evolutionary theory, whether or not the evidence points towards it.

So very well: we will ignore what conventional science says the earth has been through.

But even then, why is it that only inexplicable events can be attributed to God? Of course, inexplicable events can only be attributed to God - or can they? They can be attributed to observational error. They can be attributed to a deist God. They can be attributed to the God of Islam or of Hinduism or of the ancient Oriental mystic religions or of Zoroastrianism. They can be attributed to science that is currently beyond our knowledge, or unname-able forces beyond our universe. So whatever the evidence for/against YEC theory, how does it point exclusively to the Christian God? Couldn't (indeed, doesn't) a Muslim say that the universe was created in 6 days 6000 years ago by Allah? Couldn't a deist say that the universe was created in 6 days 6000 years ago by a god who then orphaned us for sinning and has never been seen since? Apart from the evidence in creation, which as conventionally interpreted points against YECism anyway, there would be no way to distinguish between these belief systems. So it would seem that YECism holds no special claim of pointing to God.

On the other hand, TEism holds no special claim of pointing away from God. Of course explicable events can be explained as happening independently of God's will. The problem, for YECism, is that when they say that only inexplicable events can be attributed directly to God, they are also saying that all explicable events cannot be attributed directly to God (hence the inferiority of TEism, in which events are explicable). The whole problem is that there are far more explicable events in the world today than there are inexplicable events whichever view of origins one holds; ergo, there are far more events that cannot be attributed directly to God than can be, and this is precisely a classical theist / deist worldview. The only way to resolve this is either to try to repeal science so that all events are inexplicable (which is something akin to what happens in creation science, although in a limited way), or to attribute to God even the explicable events. When one takes the latter, then evolutionary theory does not point away from God: although it explains events, even the events that are now explicable can still point to God.

Natural processes do not push God out of the picture unless you want them to. If you say natural processes do not push God out of the picture, then I will have problems explaining my life, since from my conception until now I have not seen a single miracle that science cannot explain, either partially or fully: so is God absent from my life?

Does the fact that my world is reasonably predictable mean that God does not rule it and did not make it?

 

[Critias]

Define INFORMATION or be quiet.

What is this? Do what I tell you or be quiet? Sigh...What grade are we in?

 

[Uphill Battle]

No it would e more efficient for you to state what the column is and why you have problems with it.

Awaiting your response. As someone who obviously disagrees with consensus it is up to you to bring something to the table.

Let's just pretend I cut/pasted all the web pages on the geological column. The balls in your court.






I ever provided an example - I guess the usual collection is easily found because it suffices for your needs.

Oh and define INFORMATION or be quiet on that topic.

Why is it Creationists NEVER define it

Why is that?

I dare you to define it - I double dog dare you!!!!!!!!!!!

in·for·ma·tion
n.

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

not REALLY what you are looking for, is it though? People define things to suit their needs. such as "species". (the same thing we get accused of with "kind"

 

[Critias]

Mind answering post #232, Kerr?