Posted on 03/27/2013 11:15:00 AM PDT by EveningStar
A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial ...
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
If it’s not in our time frame it was kinda mean of them to misuse our units of measurement.
Maybe, you should try to understand it.
It’s not that hard, if you try.
And DNA is incapable of replicating itself with 100% accuracy - thus change is inevitable. The real question isn’t IF evolution happens - it is what could possibly stop it from happening.
But what if the information wasn’t whispered, but given in front of all? And the listeners best able to remember and communicate all the information were given monetary reward and high social status?
Death ?
You are aware that virtually all mutations are detrimental to an organism's survival and their offspring's ?
It really comes down to the math.
Like substituting, removing, or adding a letter, or rotating the order of my post is going to add information that changes its meaning.
All it will do is destroy the information that is present.
If it’s not literal and unchallengeable, it’s not much of a guide.
I think you’re on to something!
Name anything, besides the abstract or theoritical, that is perfect.
Anyone that has NEVER read at least actual scientific paper published in a peer-reviwed journal (this does not include and article in Popular Science, a press release, article by a Washington Post science writer, etc.) has any business even having an opinion about evolution at all, or frankly, an opinion on anything having to do with science.
People should read your post. I believe you hit the nail on the head. It’s not evolution, how long is a day, can we trust the measure of half-life, etc. Materialism is the problem. Used to be Newton got the brunt of it, then Darwin and Marx, then Einstein in slightly different form, now not anyone in particular. But a certain kind of religiosity, not present in all believers, nor in equal amounts among those who have it, when presented with a materialistic worldview—not necessarily to the exusion of anything outside, just when whatever may or may not lay behind the veil of tears is systematically ignored—feel themselves trapped in an airtight casket. The idea of a watch wound long ago, unwinding in perfect order, gears moving gears as predetermined by their placement at the beginning, suffocates them.
Likewise, lots of scientists and areligious—or antireligious—types feel any reference to a world beyond the physical is the first step on the road to madness. Not all, obviously. Too many are religious to make a rule out of it. But this is what’s behind Einstein’s “finite but unbounded,” which when you think about it makes no sense, but is all about cutting out the metaphysical. And this from a guy who rejected a whole branch of physics, quantum mechanics, in part because of what he thinks Gid wouldn’t do.
They don’t want to think about what’s out there, physicists. It’s irrelevant to their work. So they cut the physical off. It’s its own thing. And it’s unbound, which can only mean there’s nothing on the other side of it. Or at least that we’re going to pretend like there isn’t.
But these are only the extremer forms. Most people who believe in science, to whatever degree, aren’t strict materialists. A little materialism doesn’t imply all materialism. Just because you think we can accurately measure radioactive decay does not doom you to think that given the initial conditions of the physical universe and all the laws of physics you could predict every future material event, down to what I had for breakfast.
Likewise, if you admit that physical reality is bound, and that maybe there’s something on the other side, you won’t automatically go mad.
I think I already have.
Virtually all mutations have almost zero effect and are “neutral”. It really comes down to math.
Of those that do have an effect it is usually going to be detrimental; if one assumes the offspring with the mutation is going to live in the exact same environment as its parents.
Bacteria have not just a gene for a high fidelity DNA polymerase to reproduce - they also have a gene for an error prone DNA polymerase that they express when under stress.
So why do you think a bacteria would respond to stress by making sure that its offspring have MORE mutations?
It really comes down to the math.
No I do not claim that dating is done just by measuring their thickness. Just like dating based on cores, you have to assume, and many assumtions are incorrect.
If man came along on day six, that’s a heck of a lot closer to the beginning than billions of years later, right?
Jesus never got it wrong.
So you agree.
Bacteria have mutated and lost information, even though they have retained some survival qualities.
It’s like losing your arms and therefore not being able to be arrested because you have no hands to cuff.
Tublecane ?
Is that you ?
Tell me more.
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.