Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesiscreationismwith a feature article listing 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bibles account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfatia resident scientist at Answers in GenesisAustraliahad written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to settle the matter amicably provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfatis article from its Web site.
AiGs international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfatis article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SAs article, but in a way that is permissible under fair use of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfatis comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiGs responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the wind taken out of their sails. Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SAs response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
They sure do show that. They show that no mutation has ever added a single piece of information to the genome. It shows that every single organism is run by a program that controls every aspect of its life and reacts to and is affected by the environment around it. It shows that the creation of new genetic traits cannot occur at random and much more.
I just see things as too complicated and too perfect to ever have came about by accident. Evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale. Take a more detailed look at things around you and you can only come to the conclusion that there was/is a creator.
It is not bogus. First of all, the only mechanism that evolutionists have figured would make new information possible is gene duplication. This is a very restricted means of evolving for this reason - the size of the gene limits the possibilities. Secondly, all organisms have duplicate genes throughout the genome (except in the sex cells). The two alleles of the genes perform ssentially the same functions but with small differences. This shows that a gene with slight differences will not result in a transformation of a species.
But the problem is bigger than that. Essentially genes are factories - mostly of proteins and enzymes. Like a factory, they are told what to make and when to make it by others. In this case, the control mechanism is what tells the genes when and what to produce (because many genes can produce more than one product). So even a completely useful, working gene would not do any work because as a new unknown gene it would not be put to work by the program that runs the organism.
How do you know this?
But, interestingly, this is the EXACT mechanism that "E's" claim is the start of another, distinct offshoot of life.
Luke 3:
35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Genesis 10:
21: Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
22: The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
23: And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
24: And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.
So was Salah Arphaxad's grandchild, or his child? And if Cainan was Arphaxad's child, and Cainan begat Salah, then how come Genesis 10:6 says Canaan was the son of Ham?
My own theory is that Luke was trying to show how Jesus was descended from David, to fulfill prophecy, and he added the genealogy of David for completeness, but goofed (or one of his translators goofed) in adding Canaan to the direct line. And it wasn't important to the point he was making, so only a Biblical literalist would consider it a problem.
One. There is a SPELLING difference in the names you point out,
Two. My child has the same name as my grandfather - how is THAT possible?
Three. Not to worry about literalists: if there WAS a problem with the lineage, the JEWS would have noticed it LONG before there were any 'christians' in the world!
King James Version
Genesis 10
1. Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
2. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3. And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4. And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 6. And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. 7. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah, Sheba, and Dedan. 8. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. 10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12. And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. 13. And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14. And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim. 15. And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16. And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, 17. And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 18. And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. 19. And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha. 20. These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations. 21. Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. 22. The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. 23. And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. 24. And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. 25. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. 26. And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, 27. And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah, 28. And Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba, 29. And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan. 30. And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the east. 31. These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. 32. These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. Matthew 1
1. A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2. Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3. Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4. Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5. Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6. and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, 7. Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8. Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9. Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10. Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11. and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12. After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13. Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14. Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15. Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ. |
New International Version
Genesis 10
1. This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.
2. The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras. 3. The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah. 4. The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim. 5. (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.) 6. The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. 7. The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. 8. Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. 9. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD." 10. The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar. 11. From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah 12. and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. 13. Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, 14. Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites. 15. Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites, 16. Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, 17. Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, 18. Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. Later the Canaanite clans scattered 19. and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. 20. These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations. 21. Sons were also born to Shem, whose older brother was Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber. 22. The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram. 23. The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshech. 24. Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah the father of Eber. 25. Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. 26. Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 27. Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28. Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29. Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan. 30. The region where they lived stretched from Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill country. 31. These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations. 32. These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood. Luke 3 23. Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24. the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25. the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26. the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27. the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28. the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29. the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30. the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31. the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32. the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33. the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34. the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35. the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36. the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37. the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38. the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. |
Fine Tuning of Parameters of the Universe
Author: Rubin, S.G.a
Affiliations: a. Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Centre for CosmoParticle Physics Cosmion, 115409, Moscow, Russia
Abstract (English): The mechanism of production of a large number of universes is considered. It is shown that universes with parameters suitable for creation of life are necessarily produced as a result of quantum fluctuations. Fractal structures are formed provided fluctuations take place near a maximum of the potential. Several ways of formation of similar fractal structures within our universe are discussed. Theoretical predictions are compared with observational data.
Does this periodical have a website where the entire article can be read?
The multiple (or really, infinite) universe theory is not new, it just appears in various flavors over time.
The biggest problem with such a theory is that it is completely unverifiable - the state, not to mention the very existence, of other universes outside our own is impossible to determine.
Picture a man before a firing squad, each soldier pulls the trigger and misses, leaving the man alive. No one would suggest it was an accident, due to the odds involved; no one would suggest there were an infinite number of alternate universes where the man was executed, and this was the fluke where he didn't. Obviously it was purposed by some intelligence that the man was to live.
The fine tuning parameters are more numerous than Centurion2000 suggested; there are at least 47 parameters that need to be met; the probability for this universe to have a life-supporting body is one in 10^237. It seems one would need, practically speaking, a near infinite number of (undetectable) universes to guarantee having one with a life-supporting body.
Then it's just weird that all modern science textbooks don't mention what all modern science has shown.
This is the 'I'm too stupid to figure out how, so everyone else must be too stupid too' fallacy. Actually, if one of the more minimalist bacteria is too complex, it's sure escaped me. We can sequence a small bacterial genome in under a day. The whole thing is a bit of circular DNA, a membrane, a few ribosomes, a few hundred enzymes, 21 tRNAs. Even our undergrads can handle that list of components. And the whole thing pretty much self-assembles.
So, you're suggesting that the undergrads are throwing a variety of amino acids into a beaker, and over time, they gradually sequence themselves into the necessary proteins, RNA and DNA molecules for this bacteria, which in turn started to work together to assemble themselves into this self-replicating small bacteria? Is that what they did? Somebody ought to tell Scientific American, because abiogenesis (which is what it seems Gore3000 was referring to) is one of those issues that even SA admits is troublesome.
Or perhaps you were suggesting that the undergrads were working with preexisting complex molecules, and added some intelligence (versus random molecular interaction) to "sequence" the bacteria....which doesn't seem at all to have anything to do with Gore3000's point.
Actually I was not referring to abiogenesis. In fact abiogenesis is totally laughable and even Darwin did not dare to touch it. Only a few wacked out atheists think that is possible. I was talking about the creation of new genetic material. What science has finally shown is how an organism grows from conception to birth. As it had long been suspected, even long before modern science, this is really a miraculous event. From one single cell, a program tells that cell how to divide, how to multiply, what kind of cell to make, where to make them, how many of them to make - this it does for each and every one of the trillions of cells in a human being. To say that such a program can be improved upon by random mutations is utterly absurd.
Are you trying to say the bible is NOT an historical document? That things HAVEN'T been found by archeologists that previously were only documented in that book?
No, I suspect that you are so upset at Mr. Darwin for entirely mistaken reasons, and you deliberately misrepresent the findings of that research to try and deal with the cognitive dissonance.
You clearly dispise Mr. Darwin, yet you agree with him and his theory.
And to deal with that dichotomy, I think you mistakenly argue against the wrong thing.
The proof is in the idea, "I believe that species evolve to adapt to their surroundings, but I do *not* believe in Darwinism."
That is a logical contradiction.
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.