NGC 6712 said:
Ow! Geez, sorry to hear that! Maybe buy some bubble wrap and cover everything in the house in it?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)
- Thread starter Metal Minister
- Start date
Ow! Geez, sorry to hear that! Maybe buy some bubble wrap and cover everything in the house in it?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
It's why I haven't exactly been posting on here. Luckily being in my line of work as long as I can type I can work from home - which I do a lot anyway. I wasn't teaching till the autumn anyway - and I have just had that reassigned because there is no way I am going to be mobile by then.
Upvote
0
NGC 6712 said:
Well, the best of luck to you in your recovery, and I'll add this latest thing (getting hurt again, not the specifics) to the prayer chain!
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Wow...its pretty pathetic that discovery channel is reaching so far to prove human and macro-evolution that they're doing a c.g. special on mermaids and how they evolved! Unreal...Smh
May God Richly Bless You! MM
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
I've been told I should pick up the books "Darwin's Black Box", "Darwin On Trial", and "Bones of Contention". Does anyone know if these are good books or not?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
They are a little dated but good books. For example we know more about the flagellum then Behe did when he wrote DBB(1996). Instead of Bones of Contention (2004) I would get the more up to date "Science & Human Origins" (2012) instead since fossils interpretations (story telling) are constantly changing. I would get Behe's The Edge of Evolution (2007).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
Yep, we now know that Michael Behe's flagellum was actually not irreducibly complex because in earlier generations that didn't have this complex "motor" the flagellum was still a useful probosces as a secretory apparatus.
The Flagellum Unspun
This particular creationist claim has the unique honor of being proven wrong in an actual court of law.
Also, please explain where fossil story telling keeps changing. As far I was aware, the fossil record unequivocally matches with the predictions of taxonomy and genetics and is clearly indicative of animals having inherited traits being passed down through flowering lines of descent.
Upvote
0
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
This video is a little heavy on the jargon but you molecular biology types will appreciate it.
The Evolution of the Flagellum - YouTube
This video shows how each incremental step in the development of the flagellum is still useful and therefore could easily form via natural selection.
There's no way this thing is "irreducibly complex"
These intelligent design guys are barking up the wrong tree. They are trying to find God's hand in every little thing but are failing because their science is so unsound.
If they would just drop their narrow interpretations they would see the bigger picture which is even greater evidence of God's design.
The whole universe was made in such a way with just the right laws to allow life to arise and evolve on this planet. That's some pretty amazing evidence of a God wouldn't you say?
But no, they reject all that and insist instead on using bad science to try to disprove evolution which is completely counter-intuitive.
I wish for once they could just open their eyes and embrace the amazing wonders we've uncovered about the universe and see if their faith isn't actually strengthened.
The Evolution of the Flagellum - YouTube
This video shows how each incremental step in the development of the flagellum is still useful and therefore could easily form via natural selection.
There's no way this thing is "irreducibly complex"
These intelligent design guys are barking up the wrong tree. They are trying to find God's hand in every little thing but are failing because their science is so unsound.
If they would just drop their narrow interpretations they would see the bigger picture which is even greater evidence of God's design.
The whole universe was made in such a way with just the right laws to allow life to arise and evolve on this planet. That's some pretty amazing evidence of a God wouldn't you say?
But no, they reject all that and insist instead on using bad science to try to disprove evolution which is completely counter-intuitive.
I wish for once they could just open their eyes and embrace the amazing wonders we've uncovered about the universe and see if their faith isn't actually strengthened.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ID claim may be prove wrong in the court of law just like OJ was found innocent of murmuring his ex-wife but the science says otherwise. If anything TTSS evolved (devolved) from the flagellum and not the other way around. If this is the best that evolutionist can come up with then it shows just how powerful evidence the flagellum is to ID.
Personally my favorite example of ID is the smallest motor known to man; ATP synthase. There is no example of a living cell without a ATP synthase which is near to 100% efficient.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
O M G PICK UP A BIOCHEMISTRY TEXT BOOK LOOK AT BACTERIA FLAGELLUM ATP SYNTHAASE GLYCOLOSIS KREBS CYCLE OXIDATIVE PHOSPHOROLATION YES THEY ALL JUST "EVOLVED" GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Khaos theory accept my proposal in origins pleeeassse and i will accept one of yours
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Khaos theory accept my proposal in origins pleeeassse and i will accept one of yours
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
Nope. Check your sources again.
Oh really? So in your mind when we've conclusively proven beyond a reasonable doubt that something is false it actually gives MORE credence to it?
Wrong again...
"The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drive the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse."
From: Rotary DNA motors.
This system then continued to evolve with greater efficiency into the modern ATP synthase we know today.
While MOST organisms do have this, you are lying when you say "there is NO example"
ATP synthase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upvote
0
The Evolution of the Flagellar Assembly Pathway in Endosymbiotic Bacterial Genomes
What organisms that doesn't have a ATP synthase?
And all evolutionist can do is find what different ATP synthase have in common and assume these parts had to evolve first. This still requires you dogmatic believe in Neo-Darwinsim. It's the same with RNA world. If you don't believe in abiogenesis then there is no reason to believe in RNA world ever existed.
Upvote
0
RNA still has carbon in it
Wiki
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes
The whole thing is so r e t a r d e d
Wiki
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes
The whole thing is so r e t a r d e d
Upvote
0
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
So you are taking the fact that we've observed SOME bacteria losing their flagellum as evidence that ALL flagella came before ALL probosces?
If I have to explain to you why this line of logic is fallacious then I don't think we can even have a normal conversation anymore...
But ok, lets assume ALL flagellum "devolved" into a secretory system (which they didn't)...
This is still perfect evidence of changing the functional purpose of a system which is exactly the kind of addition of "new information" that you guys like to deny.
The bacteria lost their mobility but gained an ability to export proteins. Is this adding new "information"?
The fish lost their gills but gained lungs. Is this adding new "information"?
The birds lost their teeth but gained wings. Is this adding new "information"?
Is this just not clicking together in your head or are you actively trying to deny these things?
Upvote
0
i am writing words on a page believe what i say because i write words on a page with no references to back anything up other than copy pasted media articles which are beyond meaningless given the authority i speak with on a subject i claim absolute knowledge all without reading either sides fundamental doctrine but i persist in my ignorance
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Khaos Theory from that literature you didnt even read yourself.
Genome shrinkage is a common feature of most intracellular pathogens and symbionts
Shrinkage. This is what the fall of man may predict. Mehusalah was 969. There has been decline.
Genome shrinkage is a common feature of most intracellular pathogens and symbionts
Shrinkage. This is what the fall of man may predict. Mehusalah was 969. There has been decline.
Upvote
0
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
Upvote
0
I personally think that flagellum devolved into TTSS is still a leap of faith. My only point was scientist believes flagellum was around long before TTSS.
Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe run some tests to see what it would take to get two similar protein with different functions to evolve from one to another. They found it took at least 7 neutral mutations for one E.Coli protein to evolve to another which would take 10^27 years to find the functional sequence. Remember natural selection is totally useless in selecting neutral mutations.
This is just with two proteins while Flagellum vs TTSS requires multiply proteins to change functions. The bottom line: Science is against evolution.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Not sure what you think a Creation model would look like but the newly created genomes would have been pristine, virtually mutation free even after a thousand years due to longevity. Following the Flood they would have flourished simply because of the availability of vast gene pools. Over time mutations would accumulate and populations would interbreed and gene pools would start to bottleneck.
The Bible paints a picture of devolution, not evolution like your used to thinking of it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
Well, the "orchard" model that was presented here which is widely accepted by creationists now depicts zebras gaining stripes from non-striped horses.
So I'm wondering where the information for making stripes came from since creationists are saying that they developed from non-striped horses.
Did horses "devolve" into zebras by GAINING stripes? doesn't make sense to me...
Earlier in this thread I finally got a creationist to define "information" as "the function of a gene"
So any time there is a change in the function of a gene, isn't that adding new information?
If you think this is an incorrect definition then please define "information" for me.
Oh, and no one has yet to explain to me where zebra stripes came from.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
