Posted on 05/22/2009 10:47:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Organosubstrate of Life: A Creationist Perspective of Microbes and Viruses
Joseph W. Francis, Ph.D.
Abstract
In this paper a new concept in creation biology, the organosubstrate, is described. I propose that microbes and viruses were created as a link between macro-organisms and a chemically rich but inert physical environment, to provide a substrate upon which multicellular creatures can thrive and persist in intricately designed ecosystems. Consistent with this perspective, microbes and viruses a) are abundant in all ecosystems, b) are separated by discontinuity from macro-organisms and discontinuity separates the major groups of viruses and microbes, c) are designed for symbiotic relationships with both macro-organisms and other microbes and viruses, d) extract inorganic minerals from earth minerals, e) participate in the cycling of all elements and compounds important in macro-organismal biology, and f) effect bioremediation. The organosubstrate concept explains organelle/bacterial similarities used as evidence of evolutionary endosymbiosis theory. The organosubstrate concept also suggests that microbe and viral pathogenesis is a relatively recent and rare deviation from original created function. Evidence of this includes the rarity and lower fitness of pathological forms and the late addition to and modification of symbiotic design features in microbes and viruses. The organosubstrate concept is an imminently testable, well-supported concept in biology...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Ping!
Instead of publishing this in Answers in Genesis, try the Journal of Microbiology, Science or some of peer reviewed publication.
Why would they want to publish a science paper supporting the creation model in journals that are devoted to promoting Evo-religion? I don’t see the Temple of Darwin fanatics lining up to publish their materialist religious tracts in the Journal of Creation!
It'd be out of a "scientific" journal right there.
Thanks for the laugh!
Yeah, like a human who fancies herself as a blowfish is capable of taking anything seriously.
Most of the evolosers who publish in the "Journal of Microbiology" would no doubt be unable to meet the reality-based peer-review standards of the Journal of Creation.
No doubt.
Any mention of the Lord, our Creator, in a "science" journal submission, and you're out of their "sacred" club, and blackballed for life. All on the taxpayer dime.
Ridiculous, considering that the Lord is the source of all science. His mention should be explicit in every science article!
I've read articles from the Journal of Creation. I have no doubt that they are written by well-meaning people, but they certainly are not reality-based. Like the global warming enthusiasts, they twist data to fit their theories. As a conservative Christian creationist who happens to be a scientist, I find the JOC embarrasing.
Science is methodology and should not be making declarations about what it cannot demonstrate. Faith on the other hand, is...well, faith.
It takes a little familiarization...maybe coursework and some study. But I personally find that utilizing both science and theology makes God and the universe utterly fantastic.
What specific articles are your referring to?
Thanks for the ping!
At least half of them. This is one good example: A Pathetic Case for an Old Earth. The article is not a book review or critique, it's a string of ad hominem attacks.
Now, the author is undoubtedly a very good Christian and she has written some excellent articles -- see some at her bio. But what scientific proof does Lita Cosner have that carnivorism is a result of sin? Cosner argues that Romans 8:19-22 proves that God did not create carnivores. However, she is reading her opinions into the passage, because there is nothing in the passage to support her assertion.
Cosner simple assumes that because God's creation is good, carnivorism has to be the result of sin. But Jesus was sinless, yet he ate meat.
To back up her contention that carnivorism is a result of sin, Cosner claims God gave Noah permission to eat meat:
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.Yet the focus of the passage she invokes is a limitation on what kind of meat should be eaten -- meat with no blood -- not God suddenly deciding that something that was formerly a sin is no longer a sin. This was a progressive revelation from God and a new restriction, not a 180-degree change in policy.Why is it progressive revelation? In Genesis, God told Noah that "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you." Yet when God gave Moses laws for the Israelites, he told them that certain animals were not to be food for them. Later, God told Peter that it was not a sin to eat animals that were formerly considered unclean.
Looking at the Genesis passage grammatically, note that God uses the past perfect tense when he says "I have given...." This indicates a completed past action. If this were a new law, God would have said, "I am giving" or "I give." So when did humans begin to eat meat? Probably not long after they were expelled from Eden. While Adam and Eve were in Eden, God told them to eat plants (Genesis 1:29-30). This law applies only to Eden though. After the flood, God did not give them a new permission, but rather, put a restriction on an already-existing permission.
For some reason, many creationists believe that the whole world was like Eden before the fall. Cosner makes this error. However, even a cursory reading of the Bible indicates that Eden was a special place with special rules. Otherwise, why did God expel man from Eden?
This is too short a forum and I have too little time to delve into this issue further, but Cosner did not put enough thought and research into her beliefs about carnivorism.
Other examples are anything by Russell Humphreys, like http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_2/j16_2_95-104.pdf. The universe is expanding -- there is no doubt about that. Because of this, no matter where you are in the galaxy, it always appears that you are at the center.
A few articles are quite good, but overall, the JOC just is not a scientific journal. Most of the articles I've read exhibit an urgent defensiveness. If the facts are on your side, there is no reason to be defensive.
GGG, as brothers in Christ, we know that we do not have to be defensive about Jesus Christ. We are commanded to proclaim the gospel. Neither one of us are defensive about it. Yet it bothers me that so many articles in JOC are written from a defensive position. It doesn't appear to me to be a defense of the faith, but rather a stonewall against the facts.
“Because of this, no matter where you are in the galaxy, it always appears that you are at the center.” [excerpt]We appear to be at the center of the Milky Way?
We appear to be at the center of the Milky Way?
How many other places have we observed this galaxy from?
Ack! I meant no matter where you are in the universe. Sorry.
You don't need to. It's the same trigonometry that you learned in junior high school. Here's an article on the subject written in layman's terms and here's a real easy balloon experiment that I did as a young kid.When you use the balloon analogy, remember that it's a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional phenomenon. Also, the balloon gives the impression that the universe is expanding into something from a central point. That's not the case. On a large scale, space itself is actually expanding. There is no center of the universe.
I grew up with the balloon analogy but I think that many educators now prefer the raisin in the dough analogy.
Oh, I thought you were stating an observable fact. (versus hypothetical construct)“You don't need to.” [excerpt]“Because of this, no matter where you are in the [universe], it always appears that you are at the center.” [excerpt]How many other places have we observed the universe from?
“It's the same trigonometry that you learned in junior high school.” [excerpt]I've never attended junior high school, but I do know some relevant math and have done quite a bit of work with 3D math/geometry, etc.
“When you use the balloon analogy, remember that it's a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional phenomenon.” [excerpt]Here are some of the problems with the balloon analogy.
“Also, the balloon gives the impression that the universe is expanding into something from a central point.” [excerpt]Because the balloon is expanding away from a central point.
“On a large scale, space itself is actually expanding. There is no center of the universe.” [excerpt]Mathematically speaking, something that is expanding has a center of expansion.
“I grew up with the balloon analogy but I think that many educators now prefer the raisin in the dough analogy.” [excerpt]The dough still has a center of expansion and finite dimensions though.
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.