Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science
CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 2,421-2,439 next last
To: Californiajones
I'd like any Evolutionist to create gravity

I'd like to see anyone create gravity. It would be especially interesting to see a lying creationist create a little gravity.

661 posted on 02/14/2006 4:27:24 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones
Evolutionists claim that evolution explains the creative nature of the universe,

What's that verse about bearing false witness?

662 posted on 02/14/2006 4:29:15 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
Science can't even answer the question of what came first, the chicken or the egg?The chicken is merely the egg's way of making more eggs.
663 posted on 02/14/2006 4:31:50 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: fabian
I think it's interesting how the article talks about an incredible little motor in our cells called the flagellum and yet don't see that some intelligence had to make it.

It sure didn't require any intelligence to come to that ignorant conclusion!

664 posted on 02/14/2006 4:35:13 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones

""Origin of the Species" is the title of Charles Darwin's book."

No, it isn't. :)

" Origin means how something originates.

Meaning how something comes to be.

Meaning how it all started.

Meaning Evolution has to do with how things began."

Nope. It's not about the origins of life. It specifically says there is no answer to that question. If you had actually READ the book, you would know this. Next you want to trash a book, actually reading it might help. :)

" Meaning Evolution bumps up against God as Prime Mover, God as Creator or even God as Personal Intercessor.

Meaning Evolution makes an inherent claim against a Designer of the Universe by asserting that man evolved from conscienceless single cell life forms."

Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about whether a God exists. Nor does any other scientific theory.

" It is the inherent assertion of the Origin of the Species that God does not exist. "

Again, read the book next time and get back to us. :)


665 posted on 02/14/2006 5:05:18 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
"The brianiacs can't even answer the chicken or the egg question. Get back to me when they do."

Scientists can't answer why the chicken crossed the road either. What's your point?
666 posted on 02/14/2006 5:09:49 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
In 447 you made this comment:

So for example, you are positing that a deletion at the same exact position in the human, chimp and gorilla L-GLO genes occurred independently of each other?

I wanted you to be aware that deletion events are not uncommon and now have been observed rather routinely.

667 posted on 02/14/2006 5:32:03 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla; Ichneumon
Don't bother. (looking at actal genomic data).

This pretty much sums it all up. Don;t look at data, don't think., circle wagons, contimue to parrot nonsense polemic about the mythical "LGLO gene".

The mechanism of how an organism deletes a repeat(s) of a DNA segment as described in the paper is irrelevant to the type of mutations found in shared pseudogenes.

Again, typical. Irrelevant? It's the most relevant study to date done to allow an understanding of chromosomal properties over an evolutionary time frame ever.

None of it is irrelevant to such discussions. The note to itchy and scratchy was concerning his spamming of a poor talk origins religious tract concerning repeat elements as an indicator of common descent.

As far as the "LGLO gene" perhaps you could actually describe it -- especialy in terms of the actual name of the gene, and the nature of the morphism in human, gorrilla and chimp.

In other words do something that is rather obviously becoming clear that is anathama to you -- think it through.

Or you could for the 14 thousandth time be one who monotonically repeats the holy writ about "exact same place" etc...

668 posted on 02/14/2006 5:48:11 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
Western civilization will make it from here or fall on how it meets current challenges, not what it thinks about Bronze Age creation stories. And if you're not insisting upon a literal interpretation of scripture, you should save your stupefying dithering for people who do.
669 posted on 02/14/2006 5:57:34 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

You got 666. Nice going. Always good to have one of our guys occupying the high ground.


670 posted on 02/14/2006 6:20:31 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; shuckmaster

Check your calendar.....

Hmmmm...a full moon and Valentines day back to back.

671 posted on 02/14/2006 6:33:36 AM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
The mechanism of how an organism deletes a repeat(s) of a DNA segment as described in the paper is irrelevant to the type of mutations found in shared pseudogenes.

I know you won't understand this, but please read it:

L-Gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GULO), which catalyzes the last step of ascorbic acid biosynthesis, is missing in humans. The whole structure of the human gene homologue for this enzyme was disclosed by a computer-assisted search. Only five exons, as compared to 12 exons constituting the functional rat GULO gene, remain in the human genome. A comparison of these exons with those of their functional counterparts in rat showed that there are two single nucleotide deletions, one triple nucleotide deletion, and one single nucleotide insertion in the human sequence. When compared in terms of codons, the human sequence has a deletion of a single amino acid, two stop codons, and two aberrant codons missing one nucleotide besides many amino acid substitutions. A comparison of the remaining human exon sequences with the corresponding sequences of the guinea pig nonfunctional GULO gene revealed that the same substitutions from rats to both species occurred at a large number of nucleotide positions. From analyses of the molecular evolution of Alu sequences in the human GULO gene homologue, it is thought that two Alu sequences were inserted in the vicinity of a presumed position of lost exon 11 during the same period as GULO lost its function. It is predicted that six LINE-1 sequences located in and near the gene homologue were inserted not during that period.

From: The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene--the gene responsible for scurvy--and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon.

672 posted on 02/14/2006 6:38:59 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"You got 666. Nice going. Always good to have one of our guys occupying the high ground."

We Godless Evilutionists have to keep up appearances. :)
673 posted on 02/14/2006 6:40:24 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I know you won't understand this, but please read it:

This abstract is even less relevant than the Nature paper.

Here they are comparing the defunct human L-GLO with the functional rat gene. The separation between these two species is substantially larger than between humans and chimps. The chimp, gorilla and orangutan L-GLO most likely has these other genetic lesions as well.

The interesting aspect of L-GLO is not that mutations accumulate to non-expressed genes (a very mundane observation), but that after the split of the great apes from the rest of the mammalian lineage, you see a new mutation: the single nucleotide deletion present in only humans, chimps and gorillas.

674 posted on 02/14/2006 7:07:56 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; Ichneumon
Irrelevant? It's the most relevant study to date done to allow an understanding of chromosomal properties over an evolutionary time frame ever.

If you read the paper, you would realize they were only looking at the pattern duplicated DNA segments. The study is comprehensive in this respect, but only in this respect.

In other words do something that is rather obviously becoming clear that is anathama to you -- think it through.

Take your own advice ace. Up until now you have been searching pubmed for "L-GLO" or "deletion" and just cutting and pasting the abstracts without any clue as to what the papers are actually showing.

675 posted on 02/14/2006 7:15:16 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
If you were a biologist

Ph.D. in Biophysics, Harvard, 1984. You've challenged my credentials, it's now incumbent on you to post yours. Put up or shut up.

676 posted on 02/14/2006 7:19:36 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Exactly my point.

Well, not "exactly" your point. Your point was: "Every article I have read is based on silly conclusions like 'Gee, it's hot here in Miami...'"

And yes, there is a discrepancy between satellite data and surface data. As stated:

"Surface thermometer measurements indicate that the temperature of the Earth is warming at an average rate close to +0.20 deg. C/decade since 1979, while the satellite data shows a warming trend of about half of this."

And as also stated:

"Independently produced data sets that describe the four-dimensional temperature structure from the surface through the lower stratosphere provide different temperature trends. These differences are seen in varying degrees in comparisons of separate in situ (surface and weather balloon) data sets, in comparisons of separate space-based data sets, and in comparisons of individual data sets drawn from the different observational platforms and different trend analysis teams."

Despite concerted efforts to reconcile this conflicting data, you breezily conclude that: "scientists of all sorts, including at NASA, are using 'global warming models' to try to suggest there is actually global warming in an attempt to get that all important grant study money."

And then you make the remarkable statement that: "Any idiot can fudge numbers to make them say what they need them to say."

Unlike, say, any idiot who (1) ignores the actual meteorological data, (2) derisively dismisses efforts to reconcile that data, (3) presumes without a whit of evidence that scientists working on the issue are doing so in bad faith, (4) and makes embarrassingly uninformed and juvenile cracks like "every article I have read is based on silly conclusions like 'Gee, it's hot here in Miami," and "any idiot can fudge numbers to make them say what they need them to say."

677 posted on 02/14/2006 7:23:00 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

That's not what Behe said. What he said was that at the time, astrology could be considered a science because it was an attempt to explain the world. He was speaking of the philosophy of science, which is basically nothing more than a system of inquiry designed to explain the world around us, so by that definition, yes, astrology was science.

Unfortunately, Behe gave his critics the sound bite they were looking for, and they've been using it ever since.


678 posted on 02/14/2006 7:32:21 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: hail to the chief

Not precisely. You see, Malaysian politics does not seek to explain the functioning of American presidential elections, yet science seeks to explain ALL aspects under God's purview, including the human soul. There is NO field where science does not say: I can explain that, God; you are not needed here.


679 posted on 02/14/2006 7:35:53 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Hmmmm...a full moon and Valentines day back to back.

the only thing missing was "Barry White" songs in the background.....

680 posted on 02/14/2006 7:42:28 AM PST by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 2,421-2,439 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson