Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
I suspect Bishop Wilberforce's arguments impelled him to add that phrase in the later edition.
New genetic material is not necessary. Changes to existing material will also do. A loss of genetic material could also work.
Bunk. Quite to the contrary, they tend to stress the scientific method. Which becomes problematic for mainstreamers. Makes them look bad.
Creationists start with an immutable belief (a dogma - in this case Genesis) and then they try to find facts that support it. But, regardless of whether or not they find any, their belief is NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
I've seen this stated a number of times. Dave Rohl was accused of this when he provided proofs that should cause at a minimum a 300 year alteration in the historical timeline of the Egyptian Empire and a rewriting of history as to who Shishak was etc. That charge stood in the way of people listening to him. Yet his approach was to go into the field, gather the evidence - largely irrefuteable and present it. He couldn't even get a hearing in some quarters. Not because his data didn't pan out; but, because of ideology. They didn't want to hear what he had to say and largely were stuck in their own worlds. One frenchman would not look at his evidence regarding a pair of tombs situated beside each other at the site and rather wanted to work off drawings of the site which didn't clearly show the problem. This is called finding a way to avoid the facts no matter what the cost. What's more, it's on video tape for posterity. So it isn't a matter of accusation. You guys can hurl these accusations, I've seen the video. I've seen it first hand. And so has most of America and the world by now. You want to tell me another one? "Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest" By David M. Rohl. You can make claims, I can name specifics and provide direction to the proof of it.
I would only ask you to think about this - you don't have to answer me - simply ponder this within yourself. Is there anything, any evidence that could be presented to you that would make you change your beliefs? Are you even open to that?
I'm a Christian. And I'll define that. It means I'm a follower of Christ and his message. Not a follower of philosophy. Christianity is strictly defined. And among that is the immutable understanding of the accepting of all things that are irretrievably true. Denying something that is beyond a doubt true is the same as lying or deciet - both of which are sin. Passing on something that is either not true or may be false without due warnings is just as wrong. So the approach to all things in life is careful consideration of what is or is not true. If you have someone out there ignoring truth to state a claim, they ain't following Christian teaching. Which is why I find it gauling for people to say that christians don't follow scientific method. I would then have to wonder what you're defining as Christian or being allowed to be defined as Christian for you.
When you present me something that is at odds on it's face with something that is True. Then my immediate reaction is to reject it. If you told me that the Moon is made of cheese, immediate rejection. Some would believe it if their religious leaders so told them and would have no choice in the matter. Christians are not mind numbed robots who check their brains at the door. There are some who claim to be Christians that are that way; but, I'll not venture far down that path as I debate them regularly.
You'll never convince me that something I know beyond a doubt is true is other than true. Period. If I have question about something or if I don't know something, all one has to do is prove their case. But, Kirk, Spock and Scotty are all fictional Star Trek Characters. That is absolutely true. If you come to me trying to tell me they're real, you have a very tall burden of proof to meat before I call the nuthouse to come get you and help you find reality again. I'm fair; but, I'm also demanding. I don't let people get by with anything when high stakes are involved. I can't think of any higher stakes than peoples souls. So unless you can prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm sorry, I have to reject it. Even if I weren't a christian, that would have to be my approach. I've spent too much of my life being burnt by people's lies. I have no more use for swindlers.
"New genetic material is not necessary."
Really? Then how do you get from Bacteria to Blue Whales? Through a loss of information?
Re: Sickle Cell
The symptoms of this "good" mutation include: acute attacks of abdominal and joint pain, ulcers on the legs, defective red blood cells, and severe anemia -- often leading to death.
Oh, I'd beg to differ. There are all sorts of ways to prove scripture true. Not the least of which is fullfilled prophecy. But as with me, for you, proofs would probably have to meet a pretty high standard. I would not expect otherwise.
Your ocean analogy (it being wet) is false.
Not unless you can explain an intermediary interposing itself to stop you hitting the water. Kind of like a Christ figure for the story.. lol
Changes to existing material would in effect be new material unless the changes you're referring to are a loss of information... in which instance I ask again, how do you get from a self replicating asexual Bacteria, to a sexually reproducing Blue Whale via a loss of information?
Let's get back to the ole "if then" statements. If Energy (Matter) can be neither created nor destroyed then how does evolution account for the seeming creation from nothing of life as we know it? Reductio ad absurdum would show that since life comes from life, either life has always existed (negated by the 2nd law of thermodynamics) or there was an initial causal action that began life.
Repeat after me: Science can never prove anything. The best it can do is say that, based on all available evidence, the theory has not been disproven.
If you reject that notion, then there really is no point in continued conversation.
You're talking about full-blown SSA, where a person inherits two SSA alleles. SSA is recessive- if you receive only one allele, the effects are positive.
Of course they're hypothetical. But you were discussing the hypothesis. And if you're going to claim the lability of RNA prevents such an organism from existing, you have to address the objection that the organism had surely evolved a means to protect its RNA.
And while you are at it also complain to MIT.
At one stage you used to use primary data to argue your point. I'm disappointed you're resorting to duelling quotes. See, it doesn't matter if Jim Watson himself told you RNA double helices aren't stable, there are at least a half dozen perfectly stable RNA double helical structures in the protein data bank. Try this or this or this.
The point of this discussion, is that it is almost a consensus that RNA is too unstable a molecule to be the origin of life.
No doubt there is among your pals at Designed Universe.
The few science courses I took in college referred to these odds as "negligible".
The usual way to create 'new' genetic information is to duplicate the gene. once you have two copies, they can evolve in different directions.
Cool, so how do you get from a self replicating asexual Bacteria, to a sexually reproducing Blue Whale via a loss of information?
He made some specific predictions which turned out wonderfully well if he's to be regarded as a charlatan. A fossil series from land animals to whales and Precambrian life come to mind. Essentially any new fossil that falls upon and further outlines the generally accepted phylogenetic tree of life is a Darwinian prediction fulfilled.
Then you have the new lines of evidence confirming the old. In particular, the convergence of independent phylogenies (molecular, morphological, paleontological).
Then there's the data from embryology, these days being examined at the genetic/molecular level in the discipline of evolutionary developmental biology.
A good summary across all lines is the old standby link 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Darwin got the science so right that, in Dobzhansky's words, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
How lucky can a charlatan get?
How is making two copies of a gene loss of information?
Error #1: Matter and energy are created and destroyed and we see it in action. That's why I corrected your misstatement the first Law. Next.
then how does evolution account for the seeming creation from nothing of life as we know it?
Error #2: Life as we know it was not created from nothing (except in fairy tales or mythology). Next.
Reductio ad absurdum would show that since life comes from life,
Error #3. Nothing shows "life comes from life". The definition of life itself is rather fuzzy for modern biologists. Next.
either life has always existed (negated by the 2nd law of thermodynamics)
Error #4: No, life has not always existed. Nor is such a proposition negated by your poor understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Next.
or there was an initial causal action that began life.
Error #5 While possible, there is no reasons to presume so and, most importantly, it is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.
I hope that helps your understanding.
Is Chandra Wickramasinghe the guy who claims that there is prima facie evidence that SARS comes from outer space?
Really. How did we get flight, spaceflight, medicine, etc. Archeology is a form of science which has proven beyond a doubt the existance of cities that were considered to be fables. It has proved who certain kings were, when they lived, etc. Applied science has done a great deal. That was all science and scientific method in action.
Science most certainly can prove things and most certainly has proven things. But only when coupled with action and objectivity. There are a great many people who went about trying to prove man could fly. It took dedicated objective men to test and observe, then put the principles science proved to them into action in the first flyable airplane built by the Wright brothers.
Science, I'm not too worried about. It's people trained in scientific methodology that hijack the profession and use it as a proving ground for how to best present their ideology that I have a problem with. I have no problem with guys running about gathering and testing information. It's when they start closing windows and doors and shutting others out to defend a position even if the position is not sustainable that science suffers and people are lied to - as in the case of the current written history of Egypt. Shoshenk I has been identified as Shishak for generations based on bad information. At this point, it is known to have been Ramsees the Great. Ramsees who's given name was Sissa in Egyptian or Shishak in the hebrew. But Hebrews never ever wrote their enemies' actual names for the record, they always change the name as an insult, thus the trailing K. The name in Hebrew is an insult.
If you reject that notion, then there really is no point in continued conversation.
No, If I reject that notion with prejudice and example, there isn't much point because you no longer have an excuse. Right..
Well, perhaps if by "hydraulic" you mean "precious bodily fluids".....
;-)
If you're going to question the theory, at least bring something other than tired, worn-out, and thrice-refuted arguments. We crave novelty. Hit us with something new.
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.