Posted on 04/08/2008 2:44:28 PM PDT by blam
Interesting article citation.
Yup. And this fellow was the one used as the example.
I remember another poster from a couple of years ago who wrote: "They (evolutionists) are of their father the devil." That poster eventually was banned.
All one needs to do to assess evolutionary conservation of a sequence is to compare the human genome to the chimp genome to the dog genome.
The pseudo-gene that (if it worked) would produce an enzyme to make Vitamin C has more differences accumulated between human and chimp than the hemoglobin gene. You can check for yourself on Pubmed by ‘blasting’ the four sequences. The pseudo-gene changes at the neutral mutation rate.
The third position codon bias is also wells supported.
DNA is simply a molecule. It is not a computer. When transcribed to mRNA then translated into an amino acid sequence that can usually perform a function either signaling, enzymatic or structural.
A computer CAN use DNA instead of O's and 1’s in a microchip. But that doesn't make DNA a computer any more than 0’s and 1’s.
Ah.
I didn’t follow that thread; kinda lost patience with the level of disengenuous/dishonest argumentation on the cre side of these crevo threads.
Or you deity used evolution as the process to make you.
Yeah, God forbid someone disagrees with you. Off to the gallows with us “Creation Weenies” eh Many?
So What's At Stake?
An evolutionary understanding of human origins is ultimately destructive to Christianity if one embraces its full implications.
There is a major crisis of biblical authority if you reject the historicity of Adam and Eve. There is no clear transition from mere story to true history as you move from Eden to the Flood to Abraham to the Exodus to David to Babylon to Jesus. On what authority will you decide what happened and what didn't?
An evangelical must deal with the verses noted above. If, after working through the issue, you understand what the Bible teaches and then reject it, you must let go of the terms evangelical and inerrantist, since you believe the Bible to be untrue on this point.
If you're going to abandon a historical Christian teaching on the basis of current scientific theory, macroevolution rests on very shaky scientific ground and explicitly anti-supernatural metaphysical ground.
As savage as animals are, how can we understand Adam's innocence in the garden, and thus the significance of his fall into sin? The startling contrast between the original human state and the fallen state of Genesis 3-9 and beyond makes little sense if Adam lived by the law of the jungle prior to 2:7.
Evangelical evolutionists must seriously restrict the implications of macroevolution and focus very heavily on the reception of the image of God in Genesis 2:7. The larger a role they let evolution play in their worldview, the more doctrinal trouble it causes–a good clue that the belief is in error. For example:
How does evolution affect our understanding of Old Testament animal sacrifices?
If we evolved from animals, should we derive our morality from the natural behavior of animals?
If we evolved from animals, why are we morally accountable for our actions at all if animals are not?
If animals cease to exist when they die, why do humans experience an afterlife–especially the wicked who don't have eternal life?
Can animals be saved, blessed, baptized, etc.?
Should highly-evolved animals be considered persons, have rights or even citizenship as some evolutionists propose? If we evolved from animals, what makes human life so sacred and more valuable than animal life?
Can highly-evolved animals rightly be owned as pets, or is that a form of slavery?
If we evolved from animals and are not commonly descended from Adam and Eve, who is to say we are all really equal? Might some of us be more or less evolved than others?
If we relegate the first chapters of Genesis to myth, how much trust can we put in the many doctrines that have the creation account as their foundation?
Perfect example.
I’m done with this thread.
Do animals know good and evil?
It appear that list has issues - copied from the net.
;Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”.[6] The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and, according to Forrest and Branch, is deliberately misleading.
For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture for Wells.
Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. For example, Leonard Loose signed the Dissent document at the age of 96, after a career as a high school teacher and missionary, but is listed as being affiliated with his alma mater, the University of Leeds,[30] even though Loose’s affiliation with the University of Leeds and the scientific community ended over 70 years ago.
Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position. For example, Ferenc Jeszenszky is a physicist in Budapest who handles the “Hungarian Creation Research” videos, but appears instead on the list as “Former Head of the Center of Research Groups, Hungarian Academy of Sciences”.;
Those who want to do well in school and get a cushy gov't job and even cushier retirement.
Or there is a lot more to a computer program than IO.
The common scheme of parsimony,
visible everywhere in creation,
strongly suggests that the “introns” formerly deemed “junk DNA”
do have important roles in human development.
Those roles easily could turn out to be
interfaces between the 4 spacetime dimensions of the material realm
... and a “metareal” realm comprising
additional - non-material - dimensions.
Cf. the 10 “condensed” dimensions of string theory and the
11 dimensions of its superset, M-theory.
Pass it to the left dude, you've had enough!
William of Ockham never quite got to the point of insisting on that.
A real experiment -- like where you get your hands dirty (figuratively speaking) and put your theory's reputation on the line?
Perish the thought.
astrophysicists don't do "real exeriments" either.
Besides, whatever the result of a "real experiment", the Creatans will only claim it was really Intelligent Design. It's their Catch 22 argument.
Personally, I find evolution much less disturbing than a god that spends his time creating mosquitoes, ticks, smallpox and tapeworms. From an evolutionary perspective, these unpleasant forms of life just evolved because they could survive in their particular niche. There's no good or evil to it, but merely survival. The ramifications of a god that would create such creatures however, (or create another evil god to do it for him), are far more disturbing and bizarre.
nice post....
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.