Summations Only

Okay, let me get this straight. You have this idea (the "braking system") that flies in the face of what we actually know about genetics, then you complain to herebdragons about not being able to understand his technical prose. I.e., you know next to nothing about genetics, you admit as much, and yet you have the intellectual audacity to propose an idea regarding genetics? Seriously?

In lots of places, starting with Genesis 2:1 and 2: "Finished" it says, "ended" it says. And this ending is emphasized everywhere the Sabbath rest is presented as an ordinance, which is in lots of places in the Bible. Most Protestant Christians understand this resting from work as provided in the sacrifice of Christ, in the teaching that we cannot work for our salvation but are saved by abiding or resting in Him who did it all for us. I don't recall calling it "biblical" -- did I? I thought I said modern creationism doesn't CONTRADICT the Bible, and went on from there to say that mountain building is consistent with lower mountains being what the Flood had to surmount in the pre-Flood world. If I did use the term "biblical" it would have been in this sense only, or in the sense that modern creationism bases all its arguments on the Biblical foundation, which is different from saying the arguments are IN the Bible. But perhaps it would be clearer to keep saying it doesn't contradict the Bible. See above, and mountain-building fits the geological facts and doesn't contradict the Bible, which is all I was saying. Aardvarks playing cards have nothing to do with either. There is. Pod Mrcaru lizards, different breeds of dogs in different parts of the world that occurred just by being isolated there, same with different breeds of cattle, same with two different kinds of wildebeests, same with different bears in different parts of the world, same with Darwin's finches and his Galapagos turtles, same with every different population in a ring species, same with different races of humanity, everywhere but particularly where small populations were isolated such as in Iceland. You could multiply these examples for most species. The evidence is everywhere, but the ToE manages to make up the wrong explanations for it. Yes, the poor dears have been laboring under a deceitful theory which is so hedged about by official authority that they are deprived of the truth. Poor dears. If they weren't so busy looking at the trees maybe they could raise their sights and see what is really there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are shifting the burden of proof. It is up to you to provide evidence for your claims.You haven't presented any evidence that intricate design is produced by a supernatural deity, so your claims are dismissed.

No, I mean the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. We have the functional intermediate stages which Behe claims shouldn't be there. They are there. We have the step by step evolution of the irreducibly complex middle ear.Behe argues that all three bones have to be in the middle ear, or no functional middle ear. The reptile-mammal transitional fossils disprove this. Not at all. Most DNA in a genome has nothing to do with morphology. Even then, you could have drastically different sequence for DNA that does result in morphology and still have the same morphology. For example, you could completely change codon usage, or mix and match DNA sequences from different species.In fact, that's exactly what humans do. We take DNA from very distantly related organisms and mix them together. For example, there are fish that fluoresce due to carrying a jellyfish gene that humans put there. So why couldn't a deity do the same thing?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It goes way beyond that. There was a discussion on phylogenetics a few months ago where it discussed the calculations involved. There is an equation you use to figure out how many trees are possible given the number of characteristics you are sorting. As it turns out, for 30 characteristics there is an astonishing 10^38 possible trees."So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 1038 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). "
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1So out of the 1x10^38 possible combinations of DNA bases for cytochrome c that a designer could have chosen (reminding you again that cytochrome c has nothing to do with morphology), the designer just happened to pick the 1 combination of similarities and differences that evolution would produce? That doesn't add up.No designer would spend the massive amounts of extra effort and time just to make designs fall into the pattern that evolution would produce when there is zero reason to do so with respect to function. It makes no sense.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

As I am sure you are aware, it is possible to put any set of objects into a nested hierarchy based on the distribution of a single characteristic. The difficulty comes in seeing if the tree holds up for all characteristics, or at least a statistically significant number of them. Does the tree for radial tires also match the tree for number of cylinders or type of drive system (2x4 v. 4x4)? Does the distribution of FM radios follow the distribution of fuel injection?

OK, that's clearer.(I note that this is in fact a quality shared by aardvarks playing cribbage, it's a wide field.) Well, show me evidence of an entire family of mammals descending from two individuals in a couple of thousand years, then we'll talk. I concede that evolution is immensely powerful, but I should like to see some evidence that it's that fast. It is difficult to see inside your head because of the dense and obdurate matter of your skull, which is as impervious to the eyesight of scientists as it is to the facts they discover.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi, Faith. I think this "Biblical fact" is far from clear. There are several later miracles that seem to involve mechanics that resemble "creation," such as the flies and frogs that spontaneously appeared in Egypt by God's power (Exodus 8), the manna that appeared with the dew by God's power (Exodus 16), perhaps even an assortment of fiery objects that were manifested by God's power (Genesis 19, Exodus 10, 1 Kings 18). And I'm not sure how to explain that whole business with the loaves and the fishes without invoking some mechanism that I would be obliged to call "creation."Also, if I accept this "Biblical fact" that God has not created anything new since Genesis 2, it leads me inescapably to one of two conclusions about myself:

1. I, Blue Jay von Thylacosmilustein, having been born in 1982 (several thousand years after Genesis 2), was not created by God.
2. I actually was created by God, but it was several thousand years ago; meaning that my parents have simply misremembered something or (as AlphaOmegakid would likely claim) are among the damnedest of liars.

Clearly, your claim that "Creation ended with Genesis 2" causes some tension with the core components of the Creationist belief system, so perhaps you should reconsider it.

We need to be clear what exactly creation is. I guess the first thing I'd say is that you can use the term strictly or you can use it loosely and your examples are all of using it loosely. The Creation of Genesis 1 is about the creation of the world and all living things -- NEW -- things that had never existed before -- created out of nothing. Flies and frogs were created new then too, so it's not creation when they are made to appear in the plagues of Egypt. Miracle OK but not creation. Loaves and fishes had certainly existed since the creation too, loaves since the creation of humanity anyway. They already existed. When Jesus does the miracle He doesn't bring anything new into existence, He miraculously multiplied things that were already in existence.Manna is the only thing that could maybe be considered created in the strict sense, but I don't think that's the meaning of that event either. Manna no doubt already existed in heaven and all God did was send it down from heaven to feed the people, so it's really just another miracle.I skimmed your references to "fiery objects" -- not sure about the first one, the second one the destruction of Sodom? The third the fire from heaven that consumed Elijah's sacrifice? I don't see creation here either, again just miracles making use of already-created things, in this case fire. First, your physical body follows the pattern God created when He created Adam. He created the DNA that all physical bodies possess, and the system that combines the genes from the parents to make the body of the child. So again, there is no creation there, just one of countless expressions or products of the system God created on the sixth day.Your soul, now, that's an interesting question, but I think it has the same answer as the above: I don't think God creates each soul in the same way He created the universe brand new out of nothing. Human souls have already existed since Adam too, so like the human body there has been a pattern or template for the human soul in existence since then too. What God gave you is your very own, the same way He gave you your very own body. He gives us all kinds of things, and things unique or brand-new to each of us, but doesn't create them brand-new out of nothing as He created all things at the Creation. In the loose sense of the term, of course God created you, created you as a unique human being, but all the parts that go into you from all the parts of the body to your soul out of whatever His recipe is for human souls, were already in existence since the original Creation week. No, it turns out to be a semantic problem in the end rather than a real problem about original Creation. Thanks for these questions though. I'd never thought all this through before. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Speaking of my process you say you've accepted it. Well good.Modulus writes,:"I've accepted it several times and I am waiting for you to progress your argument. You can't because you don't have any more argument. Your observation is all you have, and its something humans noticed thousands of years ago. So its not science."Let me show you a logical problem Your having Modulous. Asserting I'm NOT doing science in my process and demonstrating it are two different things. I have admitted the investigation I am doing by observing intricate order is NOT as elaborate as you process but it investigates and tests sequences of order that bring about a clear purpose.Now forgetting for a moment my conclusion of a designer, what you would need to do is clearly demonstrate that I am not following a logical process of investigation To study an order which is clearly present and for all purposes axiomatic.You see Modulous your task is impossible. You have no way of refuting the fact that I'm following a scientific method to observe order.Fogetting my conclusion show how my process is not science, by the basic standards of the wordComplaining about my conclusion is of no importance to me unless you can show a logical fallacy in my process.I'm so confident you cannot do this, it nearly establishes my conclusion without much effortBesides this remember. The process of evoulutionary methods are nothing more than elaborate investigation that concludes even more intricate order, even if I don't talk about its conclusionYou can't even upset my process in any real argument formand we've already discussed conclusions and how they are established by indirect evidenceSo you see Mod I don't need to advance an argument where the argument is Valid as it stands.You see Mod Secular fundamentalist love to complicate things to the point that simple truths are no longer recognizable"For the invisible things of him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (designed), even his eternal Godhead and power, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"Romans 1:20So give it a shot Modulus, see if you can do the impossibleDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So ... no evidence?

The thing is, the evidence IS the appearance of design, which includes such things as I listed a while back, such as a perfection of form that doesn't occur in random things, and in nonliving nature only in crystals -- at least I can't think of any other examples from nonliving nature. Straightness, perfect circle or near-perfect, any geometric form really, that has perfection or near-perfection, smoothness, uniformity in some cases, irreducible complexity, systems like automobiles and the porcelain factory machinery, that accomplish by complex functions some definable purpose, Dawn's intricate order, in fact orderliness itself, intricacy itself, and I'm sure lots of other qualities that aren't coming to mind. All these we associate with human workmanship, i.e. design, products made for a purpose, so when we also see functioning complex systems that all work together in living things we rightly infer a Designer of those systems. Randomness produces heaps, asymmetries, messy things, lumpiness, imperfect shapes, but coherent functioning things imply a designer,It may be begging the question or circular etc., but there is no way to produce any other evidence for design. But just as we can't come up with evidence it's also true that you can't come up with evidence that evolution can produce things that look designed. You can point to microevoluton which is just the functioning of an existing system, which in itself was designed. You can't come up with evidence that evolution produced that system.So here is an example of you asking evidence of us when you don't have any of your own for your contrary point of view. It's all the mental construct of theory, no actual evidence. We have the construct of Creation and the observation that design is produced by designers. That's more than you have. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And easy example of "near-perfection, smoothness, [and] uniformity" would be a drop of water forming on the end of a pipette or faucet.It may not last for long, but it meets your criteria while it does. And there is no way that it can be considered to be "designed."Nor does it have "irreducible complexity" or "purpose."

Your're right, it pretty much is impossible to to show your process is not science since you have not described your process except in the most vague and incomprehensible way.Why are creationists so secretive about their evidence and methods?If creationists are so good at doing science, why do they always run from discussions about scientific processes, like how to determine what is evidence? Why do they constantly have to hide behind made up definitions for words? Why do they refuse to present any of this supposed evidence that they claim so supports their premise, and instead rely on assertions about what they KNOW to be true?HBD

Thank you very much for that paragraph detailing the science that got the Nobel Prize. If you typed all that out yourself I'm very grateful, that's very kind. If you merely copied and pasted it, still it was nice of you instead of referring me to the website. No, not at all, these people are doing actual science, not conjuring with evolution. That's why I wanted to see what the prize was given for, and I'm happy to see it was given for actual real bona fide science, not the construction of evolutionary fairytales. Now, they probably also believe in evolution, but they are also no doubt too busy with their scientific work to spend tine criticizing it, too busy looking at the trees to see the forest. Which is understandable. As long as they are doing real science instead of making up stories about stuff dug out of a rock I'm happy. If one of them got a prize for a theory about what killed the dinosaurs I'd probably have to decide the Nobel Prize is a shuck.I'm sure I can forgive you for your next paragraph of nothing but condemnation of me for faults you impute to me that I actually do not have, or the paragraph after that which is a similar straw man rant against creationism.But I do thank you for the list of Nobel winners. Unless I've badly misunderstood the achievements that earned them the prize, it confirms my never-faltering faith in true science.Which evolution isn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.