Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

I don't know,(if first cell reproduced exchanging information) maybe you should read what some of the people who research this have said.

I have read what researchers say on the topic. (Both evolutionist and creationist researchers)

Information is a non material thing that requires intelligence.

The 'simplest' cell is irreducibly complex containing 'volumes' of information. The more we discover about the genome, the more we see the fingerprint of a Creator. Several years ago, scientists decided to model the genome of one of the simplest bacteria. It turns out though, that the genome is anything but simple. There are many biological robots working within the cell of every known organism. Take a look at the simplified drawing on this site, giving us a slight glimpse at the complexity and organization.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
In order to just PARTIALLY simulate this bacteria..."It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
The article goes on to say.... "On the other hand, the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable...."
Nearly unbelievable... except to those who believe that our God is a God of wonders. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...44025281CC0D493A963544025281CC0D4&FORM=VRDGAR

Science helps confirm an omniscient Creator.

 

[Caino]

The truth of evolution is in the layers of this old earth. YEC is a blind faith which requires persistent denials.

 

[Rosenritter]

I don't know, maybe you should read what some of the people who research this have said. I'm not paid to research everything for you and as I said we have no way of actually testing the ideas in detail since there are no fossils. We're left trying to look back at similar genes among organisms with common ancestors around the predicted time to maybe glean some understanding. There can never be any fossils to examine and the original organisms form are likely long gone. Your argument is simply one of incredulity and that the process must be (according to your incredulity) impossible.

What I was responding to was you said something that was simply untrue. I corrected you and if you'd made any real attempt to educate yourself first you'd have known that what you were saying was untrue. It's not exactly specialist knowledge known only to experts and researchers that bacteria share genetic material between each other.

If you utilized a fraction of your natural intelligence you wouldn't have to say you didn't know. In your scenario with a "first cell" of course it cannot exchange information with another cell. Silly. Learn the meaning of the word "first."

 

[patrick jane]

The truth of evolution is in the layers of this old earth. YEC is a blind faith which requires persistent denials.

You have no science knowledge and even less Bible knowledge

 

[Tyrathca]

If you utilized a fraction of your natural intelligence you wouldn't have to say you didn't know.

There you go acting like you're the smartest person on the planet again...

In your scenario with a "first cell" of course it cannot exchange information with another cell.

This is the modern form which has been refined over more than a billion years. But thanks for admitting you were wrong and should have read more before posting

Silly.

Yes you were silly to say obviously wrong things which anyone even the slightest bit curious about the subject would know. Did you even TRY to fact check yourself?

Learn the meaning of the word "first."

My response was appropriate to the posts they were quoting, including the one which said "first".

I don't know how the first single cell organism evolved to exchange genetic information. There are published ideas on the subject but they are very hard to test since the originals are long gone. But since you're so lazy here is one potential method - it wasn't a voluntary process by the genetic donor.

Your whole argument is incredulity that a process could have intermediary steps and thus claiming therefore that intermediary steps are impossible. You're implementing a version of god of the gaps - "science doesn't have a perfect explanation of all the steps involved? Therefore god." In reality you're just nudging things earlier and earlier until science eventually does explain the whole process.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Then perhaps you should re-evaluate your interpretations as well. Did you see what started the whole conversation? Here:





His response was that I don't believe in scriptures. Seriously? That is a childish ignorant response. Its the response of someone who thinks that if you don't believe in their spin on the scriptures, well then by golly you're just not a believer. Only as jerk would say that. And if you support that then, as I said, perhaps you should re-evaluate your interpretations as well.

Dear CatholicCrusader,

You are not believing in the Scriptures well enough! It says that God "Created" everything in six days and rested on the seventh. No reason to tamper with that? Right? You don't believe in the Scriptures, like you say you do. We're not putting our own spin on it. It sounds like you are though. There is no evolution! God made everything separately. Apes, chimps, monkeys, and man are ALL SEPARATE beings that He created. There was no evolving of apes or chimps into man. You can give that a rest real fast. He created man in His Own Image. Not in the image of a monkey, but in His own image. There you go not believing in the Scriptures again. You are missing out on something. You have faith in God and faith in Science. You are not alone, but are joined by many who would rather believe man descended from an ape or whatever, instead of what God says in the Bible. How can you all be so inane? I believe 6days hits the spot, whether you think so or not does not matter to me. I do care, but Jesus said if they won't believe you in that house, cast the dust off of your feet to the house. In other words, ignore it. It will receive it's recompense upon it's head when it's time.

We just don't agree, CC. It's no reason to be upset. Just reconsider Him.

In Great Joy, For The Coming Of Our Lord!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

1,422 pages and counting.

I doubt you can spend that much time with someone without a strong personal attachment. Why don't you just shag and get it over with?

Dear Wick Stick,

You can't begin to understand, evidently. I tried to report you, but I don't know how to do it. So, be glad. Anything like this again, and I will report it in another way, which I know will work. We don't shag here. Got it?

Very rude and unholy!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Like Hillary... you have difficulty with the truth. Like Donald, you can't apologize when you are wrong. Like Stripe says...evolutionists are hard of reading.*

Read again what I said... no Jose...read it slower so you can understand. Notice that I was providing a typical evolutionist definition. *I called it a rubbery evolutionist word. *Evolutionists often use rubbery words like 'species', 'speciate' and 'speciation'. When they do use the words ,I will continue saying that rapid speciation fits the Biblical model.*

Jose... you seem to have a memory problem, so I will repeat what you have already been told...


Jose...in a previous thread...In fact in the link you give above I explain that 'rapid adaptation' or 'rapid change' are also terms we use to describe the same thing. Read the quote This was the complete quote

Well..... as Stripe has mentioned the word 'speciation' is a rubbery evolutionist word. But generally it means when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population.*This is what was posted before on the topic....
Rapid Adaptation*

"Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.*

"One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.*

"As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.*

"But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

"Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.*
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)*

"Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.*

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:*
Fruit flies grow longer wings...*
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'*
New Scientist 165 wrote:*
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"

"Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...*
... Evolutionists are surprised.*
Science Daily wrote:*
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


"And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.*
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...*
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.*
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!*

"That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.*
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...pid-Adaptation*"

So Jose.... please save this post. Refer to it often. Rapid speciation fits the Biblical model. Remember you can call it adaptation, modification,change or many other words. And remember, if you use the word 'species', I will likely use *it to.*

Now... one more thing. My wife gives me a daily word quota. Its a very low number. I just want you to know that with this one post, i have exceeded my daily allotment of words.*

Dear 6days,

Surely, you have gone through great pains to put this post together. Don't forget!! Post #21334. Write it down and also the Page #1423. You might notice that your Post # has the same numbers as your Page #. Very interesting. Hey, you have done a marvelous job at putting all of your replies into one post. I know it took a lot of doing. I would never do it again, no matter what anyone was claiming against you. Well, just wanted to let you know it is GREATLY APPRECIATED!!

God Bless You & Your Wife, And All Of Your Loved Ones!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

This is ridiculous. I quoted you directly and even linked to the post it came from so anyone could go look and see the entire thing if they wanted, and you're still complaining because I didn't copy and paste all your subsequent wiggling and obfuscation.

I'm done. I've lost all interest in chasing a couple of fundamentally dishonest, slimy creationists around trying to get them to answer simple questions, state clear positions, and own what they've said. Someone else can do it for a while.

Dear Jose,

You just can't handle what 6days is trying to tell you. Rapid 'speciation' is impossible. There is no such word. 6days was just telling you that rapid 'speciation' is known as rapid 'adaptation.' That is acceptable because it is an actual word. Do you know what I'm saying here? He uses your word for your scientific sake, but what he said is that he means rapid 'adaptation' not 'speciation.' And God is in control over every change that is made. He alters things as necessary by changing genomes, DNA, protons, nuclei, etc. He is the Master Chemist and Master Biologist. He can make a man from rocks, as Jesus told us, or He can make man from the dust of the ground, as Moses told us. The book of Genesis was written by Moses, and he wrote word for word what the Lord God told him, as he wrote it down. If Moses can be with God on a mountain and watch Him write the Ten Commandments, don't you think that God can direct Moses with what to say in the first five books of the Bible?? Jesus even cited Moses as the author of the first five books. If it's good enough for Jesus, it's really good enough for me!! You lack something. Knowledge and Faith. Are you an atheist?

Warm Regards,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I have read what researchers say on the topic. (Both evolutionist and creationist researchers)

Information is a non material thing that requires intelligence.

The 'simplest' cell is irreducibly complex containing 'volumes' of information. The more we discover about the genome, the more we see the fingerprint of a Creator. Several years ago, scientists decided to model the genome of one of the simplest bacteria. It turns out though, that the genome is anything but simple. There are many biological robots working within the cell of every known organism. Take a look at the simplified drawing on this site, giving us a slight glimpse at the complexity and organization.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
In order to just PARTIALLY simulate this bacteria..."It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
The article goes on to say.... "On the other hand, the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable...."
Nearly unbelievable... except to those who believe that our God is a God of wonders. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...44025281CC0D493A963544025281CC0D4&FORM=VRDGAR

Science helps confirm an omniscient Creator.

Dear 6days,

What an excellent post you've written here. I could barely stop watching your second link. All of God's Wonders indeed. Awesome!! You are where it's at! I can't help but agree with you easily because what you say is truth. There's no way evolution created all of these majestic things. It definitely points to a God as a Creator. Old Earth, New Earth, does not matter, even though I believe that God created everything in six days. And He rested on the Sabbath, which is actually Saturday {Saturn day}. We can know this because they begged to Pilot to take Jesus off of the cross and put him in a grave before the Sabbath began, which was Friday Evening {until Saturday evening}. We know that the Lord Jesus died on the Cross on Friday, thus Good Friday.

Well, if they wanted Jesus' body before the Sabbath began, that would be Friday at sundown until Saturday at sundown. The only reason us Christians think that the Sabbath is on Sunday was because that was what Constantinople decreed. He just did not understand at that time, and he was quite wrong. So all of these years, we Christians have worked on Saturday, and take Sunday off. So we work on Saturday, the Sabbath. Not good. We unknowingly break one of the Ten Commandments, Do not work on the Sabbath {Saturday}. I know some of you may be disillusioned about this, but it's the Truth. We break God's Law every Saturday. Sunday {Sun Day} is just the first day of the week. Then Monday {Moon Day} is the 2nd day of the week. The Jews have it right and they observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday until sundown on Saturday. Get with it people. We're breaking God's Law and it makes Him ache. It's such a shame at what King Constantinople did. God grieves that we Christians aren't smarter and have been deceived. You know how and who, don't you? It is not of God that we do this. It's Satan's fault. What a shame! Us Christians sin every weekend. And we worry about someone being gay or committing adultery, or fornication. I will say that it's not quite as bad, but we are still breaking one of the Ten Commandments every week. Okay, I will go for now.

May God Open Everyone's Eyes A Bit More,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

I have read what researchers say on the topic. (Both evolutionist and creationist researchers)

Then you should easily provide proper references? Except of course you won't.

Information is a non material thing that requires intelligence.

Citation needed. Particularly because the definition of information is highly variable based on its context and information in particle physics has no such requirement.

The 'simplest' cell is irreducibly complex containing 'volumes' of information.

Your incredulity is not evidence of irreducible complexity. Especially given how poorly your fellow creationists predict what is irreducible.

Also WHICH cell is irreducible? There's a lot of variety among cells and what they contain.

Several years ago, scientists decided to model the genome of one of the simplest bacteria. It turns out though, that the genome is anything but simple.

As we should expect from something which has been evolved over a billion years and trillions of generations.

In order to just PARTIALLY simulate this bacteria..."It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
The article goes on to say.... "On the other hand, the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable...."

So? The modem cell is an impressive product of evolution. That you take the loose and sensationalising language of a journalism article as representative of the scientific consensus is... concerning. You do realize it is difficult for our computers to model multiple molecules in general so the article isn't all that surprising or revelatory.

Is weathers complexity to computers evidence of anything? (even our best supercomputers struggle with even a fraction of it)

Science helps confirm an omniscient Creator.

Funny how scientists don't agree with you... even the Christian ones. But who needs facts when we have 6days uneducated poorly researched opinion and incredulity?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Then you should easily provide proper references? Except of course you won't.

False. Check the citations i have provided previously in TOL. The majority are links to secular evolutionists.

Information is a non material thing that requires intelligence.

Citation needed.

You don't need a citation... you just need to use your head.
Example: A STOP sign is information. But the info is not in the material of red and white paint. There is no information in paint. Therw is info because intelligence designed letters and words that have meaning. Intelligence sent and recieved the info.
Another example: There is no info in dimples in a piece of paper. However if intelligence designs a language (braille) where there is a sender and reciever....voila!*

The 'simplest' cell is irreducibly complex containing 'volumes' of information.

Your incredulity is not evidence of irreducible complexity.

Haha... but it was the incredility of the evolutionists that I referenced. *They described it as unbelievable.*

Also WHICH cell is irreducible? There's a lot of variety among cells and what they contain.

The 'simplest' cell. Or, you can go deeper finding irreducible compexity at many things within all cella such as ATP synthase motors.*

Several years ago, scientists decided to model the genome of one of the simplest bacteria. It turns out though, that the genome is anything but simple.

As we should expect ...

Actually, the evolutionists in the article called it "unbelievable".*
But, it is what we would expect from a super intelligent designer.*

from something which has been evolved over a billion years and trillions of generations.

Your interpretation is based on a blind belief system.
Even if we accept your belief of a billion years, and accept your interpretation of the fossil record we find sophisticated complexity even in earliest fossil record (containing soft bodied organisms)... that complexity surprises evolutionists. They resort to unscientific explanations to shoehorn data to fit their beliefs. (Ex..'it must have evolved in a geological blink of an eye')

Science helps confirm an omniscient Creator.

Funny how scientists don't agree with you...even the Christian ones.**

Funny how some, while atheists come to agree that the evidence points to a "super intelligence".
Ty... to make your statement honest, you could have said 'Most scientist don't agree'. That would likely be true. Fortunately though, science is not about popular opinion. Science does help confirm an omniscient Creator.

 

[Rosenritter]

There you go acting like you're the smartest person on the planet again...
This is the modern form which has been refined over more than a billion years. But thanks for admitting you were wrong and should have read more before posting
Yes you were silly to say obviously wrong things which anyone even the slightest bit curious about the subject would know. Did you even TRY to fact check yourself?
My response was appropriate to the posts they were quoting, including the one which said "first".

I don't know how the first single cell organism evolved to exchange genetic information. There are published ideas on the subject but they are very hard to test since the originals are long gone. But since you're so lazy here is one potential method - it wasn't a voluntary process by the genetic donor.

Your whole argument is incredulity that a process could have intermediary steps and thus claiming therefore that intermediary steps are impossible. You're implementing a version of god of the gaps - "science doesn't have a perfect explanation of all the steps involved? Therefore god." In reality you're just nudging things earlier and earlier until science eventually does explain the whole process.

Your arrogance is shameless. You should have been rejoicing that I was willing to even grant you such a thing as a "first cell" for purposes of discussion. Since you don't appreciate it, why don't you explain a "first cell" for us?

 

[Tyrathca]

False. Check the citations i have provided previously in TOL. The majority are links to secular evolutionists.

The search function on this forum makes it hard to dig those up but if I recall correctly it involved you quoting people who would not agree with your interpretation of what they said.

You don't need a citation... you just need to use your head.

Again this is why it is hard to take your opinion on science seriously. You don't give real citations, you don't give definitions you use, and you in the very next sentence don't use any science.

A STOP sign is information. But the info is not in the material of red and white paint. There is no information in paint.

And this is why you need definitions. A physicist could say there is a lot of information in paint. Even I can say that, the red paint tells me the chemical composition of all the molecules in the paint.

All you are really saying is there is not any information relative to the context in just paint.

Therw is info because intelligence designed letters and words that have meaning. Intelligence sent and recieved the info.

You are making the assumption that everything you call information is intelligently designed and then seemingly defining it as such.

The only definition for information you have given so far is that it comes from intelligence. You are defining yourself as right, using linguistics and your biased assumptions not logic or science.

Another example: There is no info in dimples in a piece of paper. However if intelligence designs a language (braille) where there is a sender and reciever....voila!*

Again this depends on your definition of information. You could say there is information in the dimples just not information relevant to the context of the human touching it.

If you define information as intelligently designed then off course type conclusion will be that information is intelligently designed though. You'll have a challenge though proving anything not made by humans contains any information (unless you don't stick with one definition, which you are known to do)

Haha... but it was the incredility of the evolutionists that I referenced. *They described it as unbelievable.*

Again, that you are taking a journalism article with all of us sensationalist language as representative of science is... troubling. Oh and they said NEARLY unbelievable anyway, not that it matters given this is a piece of JOURNALISM.

Do you really not see what you are doing here though? You've latched on to a single sentence, and an emotive response at that, made by someone who obviously disagrees by you and ignored everything else they have said or think. Why? The most obvious explanation for that behaviour is you think that one sentence agrees with you whilst everything else they said does not. In other words - huge confirmation bias.

The 'simplest' cell. Or, you can go deeper finding irreducible compexity at many things within all cella such as ATP synthase motors.*

And what is the 'simplest cell'? Is this a real cell represented by an actual organism or is it a concept?

As for ATP synthase do you actually want to debate that? Because playing creationist whack-a-mole where you just move on to the next claim and the next without defending one gets old fast. Given the scientific knowledge you have shown over the years here I highly doubt you actually understand much about the subject so I'll wait for you to make an argument for how you know it is irreducibly complex and not just that we don't know how it evolved (the latter argument is dull and pointless as it relies on you being automatically right if I say I don't know. Which is a dumb argument)

Even if we accept your belief of a billion years, and accept your interpretation of the fossil record we find sophisticated complexity even in earliest fossil record (containing soft bodied organisms)

Given life had a long period of evolution prior to this as single cells and smaller colonies some degree of complexity is expected. The speed of diversity is impressive but given they were the first to develop into this large niche it is not unexplainable. Do you actually what to debate that the cambrian explosion is impossible?

Science does help confirm an omniscient Creator.

Yeesh. You're like a broken record, it's as if you think saying it enough times makes it true.

You (creationists) don't have the scientific community agreeing, you have an extremely small fringe of people with scientific background, you don't have any substantial (if any) research, you don't have data or predictions to test, you have added nothing to scientific knowledge in over a century, you rely on quote mines from journalism articles rather others real data and research, you rely on the false assumption that if evolutionists are wrong or don't know then you must automatically be right ... Where is your science hiding?



Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

 

[Tyrathca]

Your arrogance is shameless.

Why thankyou

You should have been rejoicing that I was willing to even grant you such a thing as a "first cell" for purposes of discussion.

I should rejoice that you are actually engaging me in a debate in one of the most simplest ways? Wow.

What you have done is so common in online debates including here between other atheists and theists that your bragging of your magnanimousity in granting it says a lot about you.

Since you don't appreciate it, why don't you explain a "first cell" for us?

Nope because I don't know. I could look some stuff up for you but it's mostly speculation which is hard to test since we don't know what the initial conditions life arose in were. Multiple could work but we wouldn't necessarily know which happened. Besides surely you could find out yourself what the most favoured ideas for the first cell are within the scientific community.

If you're trying to create a list of things Tyrathca, biologists or scientists in general don't know then it is going to be a long and ever growing one. But as unsatisfying "I don't know" can be it in no way says an explanation is impossible (that requires an argument / evidence on your part). After all if science knew everything it would stop.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

The search function on this forum makes it hard to dig those up but if I recall correctly it involved you quoting people who would not agree with your interpretation of what they said.

Wait..... Your argument was that I won't provide citations. Now, you recall I have provided citations!
So, the new goalposts are that the opinions of my 'hostile witness' don't agree with me? Correct!

Even I can say that, the red paint tells me the chemical composition of all the molecules in the paint.

You could say that.....but then you would appear silly. The paint is telling you nothing. As an intelligent being you can examine materials, and glean info. But the materials, (red paint in this instance) is not sending or receiving information.
BTW... You repeated a few times that "you need definitions". I didn't think you would have trouble with a fairly simple word like 'information'...But here are a few definitions for you.
1. knowledge communicated or received
2. knowledge gained through study
3. the act or fact of informing

All you are really saying is there is not any information relative to the context in just paint.

No, you are trying to create a strawman. What I said was "Information is a non material thing that requires intelligence."
I have given examples...I have given definitions.
But here is another example. Your computer contains all types of information that you programmed in over the last few years. How much heavier is your computer now because of the info? Answer.... Information is a non material thing...and requires intelligence.

Again, that you are taking a journalism article with all of us sensationalist language as representative of science is...troubling.

Ha..... So sorry you are troubled.
Tyrathca...... You are having trouble with goalposts. You told me that my whole argument was incredulity.* I showed you that the incredulity was from the evolutionist author of the article. Also note in the article the incredulity from the lead scientist.

And what is the 'simplest cell'? Is this a real cell represented by an actual organism or is it a concept?

We were talking about Mycoplasma genitalium with 525 genes.* Evolutionist* 'explanations' are an utter failure at imagining even one gene creating itself. A protein has hundreds of component parts, involving mechanisms of coding, transcription, and translation. And the protein is produced by a gene with thousands of component parts...and each of these parts has meaning* and is interacting with the other parts. And the gene is just a microcosm of irreducible complexity within a whole 'city' of* complexity ...all within the 'simple' cell.

As for ATP synthase do you actually want to debate that?

Sure.

*Given life had a long period of evolution prior to this as single cells and smaller colonies some degree of complexity is expected. The speed of diversity is impressive but given they were the first to develop into this large niche it is not unexplainable. Do you actually what to debate that the cambrian explosion is impossible?

Sure.

You (creationists) don't have the scientific community agreeing, you have an extremely small fringe of people with scientific background, you don't have any substantial (if any) research, you don't have data or predictions to test, you have added nothing to scientific knowledge in over a century, you rely on quote mines from journalism articles rather others real data and research, you rely on the false assumption that if evolutionists are wrong or don't know then you must automatically be right ... Where is your science hiding?

Wow... You sure packed a whole lot of your false ideas into that one long sentence.
Tyrathca... Did you know that evolutionists and creationists both examine the same set of data. They often even make the same predictions. (For example in genetics, similar genes often perform similar functions in different creatures)*Did you know that common ancestry beliefs have never lead to a single new technology.... nor a single advancement in medicine? Did you know that common ancestry beliefs have hindered science? (Beliefs in junk DNA, pseudogenes, useless organs).
Where is your science hiding? * It would seem you confuse your beliefs with science.

 

[Tyrathca]

Wait..... Your argument was that I won't provide citations. Now, you recall I have provided citations!
So, the new goalposts are that the opinions of my 'hostile witness' don't agree with me? Correct!

Quotes mines are citations..... We are officially at a new low.

You could say that.....but then you would appear silly.

The only one appearing silly is you by calling practically all physicists silly. You are apparently completely oblivious to the fundamental concept of physics known as physical information. It is so fundamental that it is the speed limit of the universe, objects can appear to actually travel faster than the speed of light but information cannot and that information and entropy are talking about the same thing sometimes (it is this later concept when generalised to information in the form of data from which much of our information technology is based upon - i.e. Shannon information)

Here is the wiki page on the subject but it's not really very clear especially to non-physicists.
This video by a panel of physicists is better I think, it's long but you don't need to watch all of it, if you want a really short highlight of the idea in a few sentences go to 11:00. if you watch more you'll see how there are many different ways to conceptualise information and what it refers to.

The paint is telling you nothing.

That depends entirely on what definition of information you use. The paint can either contain a vast amount of information or it can contain none depending on which definiton/conceptualisation of information you are using at the time.

As an intelligent being you can examine materials, and glean info. But the materials, (red paint in this instance) is not sending or receiving information.

Ummmm... thats exactly what the materials are doing. If they don't transmit information then how could you know anything about them? We produce data (which can also confusingly be just called information) from our intellectual examination of the information we receive and we can apply many of the same mathematics about information to that data.

BTW... You repeated a few times that "you need definitions". I didn't think you would have trouble with a fairly simple word like 'information'...But here are a few definitions for you.
1. knowledge communicated or received
2. knowledge gained through study
3. the act or fact of informing

The concept of information is hardly simple and I'm going to assume you got those definitions from a dictionary anyway. If your doctors are arguing over what condition you have do you really want them using a dictionary as their reference? If not then why do you expect a discussion about physics to use one?

Tyrathca...... You are having trouble with goalposts. You told me that my whole argument was incredulity.* I showed you that the incredulity was from the evolutionist author of the article. Also note in the article the incredulity from the lead scientist.

But the scientist wasn't incredulous, he believed it obviously since he published it. It was just colourful way of saying how amazing/interesting/surprising it was. You could probably have the same language coming from someone who studied weather.

We were talking about Mycoplasma genitalium with 525 genes.

on what basis are you calling this the simplest cell? Is it the amount of genetic information? You realise that this cell is not thought to represent the ancient simple cell, it is just as evolved as everything else, it's just gone for being really really efficient instead of other niches.

* Evolutionist* 'explanations' are an utter failure at imagining even one gene creating itself. A protein has hundreds of component parts, involving mechanisms of coding, transcription, and translation. And the protein is produced by a gene with thousands of component parts...and each of these parts has meaning* and is interacting with the other parts. And the gene is just a microcosm of irreducible complexity within a whole 'city' of* complexity ...all within the 'simple' cell.

Yes the modern cell is very complex. You still haven't explained how you can tell that it (or anything else for that matter) is irreducibly complex.

Sure.
Sure.

Then I await your argument for why they are irreducibly complex and impossible respectively

Wow... You sure packed a whole lot of your false ideas into that one long sentence.
Tyrathca... Did you know that evolutionists and creationists both examine the same set of data. They often even make the same predictions. (For example in genetics, similar genes often perform similar functions in different creatures)*Did you know that common ancestry beliefs have never lead to a single new technology.... nor a single advancement in medicine?

Common ancestry is how we came to the conclusion that certain animals were good for models for human physiology and testing which we only later were able to test for with genetics and other analysis of our biochemistry.

Besides technology alone isn't a good judge of a sciences validity, predictions are. Case in point the Higgs Boson hasn't led to any technologies and is unlikely to lead to any in the foreseeable future.

Did you know that common ancestry beliefs have hindered science? (Beliefs in junk DNA, pseudogenes, useless organs).

The belief in the uselessness of organs and junk DNA was because we couldn't find a use for them not because of common ancestry. Doctors not biologists are why your appendix was called useless, because they could cut them out without any hassles so often.

 

[6days]

Quotes mines are citations.

Perhaps you think so.

.You are apparently completely oblivious to the fundamental concept of physics known as physical information. It.....generalised to information in the form of data from which much of our information technology is based upon - i.e. Shannon information)

Shannon info basically is basically just the statistical attribute, or a method by which we can quantify information. The information, or the intelligence is not in the material itself. Shannon info does not consider purpose and meaning of information.

That depends entirely on what definition of information you use. The paint can either contain a vast amount of information or it can contain none depending on which definiton/conceptualisation of information you are using at the time.

You asked for definitions...I provided a few. But in any case, information is a non material entity. You can arrange the paint to convey a message, which is your intelligence. You can analyze the properties of the paint; again, which is your intelligence.

The concept of information is hardly simple and I'm going to assume you got those definitions from a dictionary anyway....

Yes...simple definitions. We can go down rabbit trails discussing many definitions, many levels, theories, law, arguments etc. But, if you are arguing from an atheist worldview, then your argument absolutely must boil down to a religious type of materialism; essentially that mass and energy can self organize and create info.
My argument is also from my biased worldview... that information is evidence of intelligence.

But the scientist wasn't incredulous, he believed it obviously since he published it. It was just colourful way of saying how amazing/interesting/surprising it was.

The lead scientist claimed the amount of data in this 'simple' cell was completely fascinating. I agree.

You realise that this cell is not thought to represent the ancient simple cell, it is just as evolved as everything else...

You realize you are sharing your beliefs about the past now. We were discussing evidence in the present.

Then I await your argument for why they are irreducibly complex and impossible respectively

Ultimately, evolutionists believe that given enough time, and enough chances, the impossible becomes possible. You have a belief about the past, that ATP synthase motors self assembled. However, this motor does show evidence of design, and irreducible complexity. You need all the parts together for the motor to function; and, there are many parts. For ex.... (and this is "completely fascinating") F1-ATPase motor is just a sub unit of the 'larger' ATP synthase motor, but this sub unit has 9 components.
In #386 of 'Nature' Article titled "Direct observation of the rotation of F1-ATPase" by Noji Hiroyuki

Common ancestry is how we came to the conclusion that certain animals were good for models for human physiology and testing which we only later were able to test for with genetics and other analysis of our biochemistry.

Common designer actually is a better fit to your statement.

The belief in the uselessness of organs and junk DNA was because we couldn't find a use for them not because of common ancestry.

No....those beliefs were due to common ancestry. It was those beliefs that prevented many from searching for the purpose and design. And, that lack of knowlege lead evolutionists to proclaim useful parts as biological remnants, junk, flotsam, poor design etc. Fortunately, science has turned those evolutionary beliefs on its ears.

 

[Tyrathca]

Perhaps you think so.

Shannon info basically is basically just the statistical attribute, or a method by which we can quantify information. The information, or the intelligence is not in the material itself. Shannon info does not consider purpose and meaning of information.
You asked for definitions...I provided a few. But in any case, information is a non material entity. You can arrange the paint to convey a message, which is your intelligence. You can analyze the properties of the paint; again, which is your intelligence.
Yes...simple definitions. We can go down rabbit trails discussing many definitions, many levels, theories, law, arguments etc. But, if you are arguing from an atheist worldview, then your argument absolutely must boil down to a religious type of materialism; essentially that mass and energy can self organize and create info.
My argument is also from my biased worldview... that information is evidence of intelligence.

6days if you are just going to ignore modern physics I'm not sure how we can continue to have a conversation about it. You were given some good information about information (excuse the pun ) and rather than actually address it you've simply restated your earlier conclusions.

You can't define your conclusions into existence.

Ultimately, evolutionists believe that given enough time, and enough chances, the impossible becomes possible. You have a belief about the past, that ATP synthase motors self assembled. However, this motor does show evidence of design, and irreducible complexity. You need all the parts together for the motor to function; and, there are many parts. For ex.... (and this is "completely fascinating") F1-ATPase motor is just a sub unit of the 'larger' ATP synthase motor, but this sub unit has 9 components.
In #386 of 'Nature' Article titled "Direct observation of the rotation of F1-ATPase" by Noji Hiroyuki

I'm still waiting for an actual argument for how you know they are irreducibly complex. All you've done here is say it's irreducibly complex with more words with some irrelevant fluff you don't tie into your argument.

Common designer actually is a better fit to your statement.

No a common designer would imply that almost everything should be about equally likely to be a good model regardless of the appearance of the fossil record.

No....those beliefs were due to common ancestry. It was those beliefs that prevented many from searching for the purpose and design. And, that lack of knowlege lead evolutionists to proclaim useful parts as biological remnants, junk, flotsam, poor design etc. Fortunately, science has turned those evolutionary beliefs on its ears.

Nyet. Doctors (particularly surgeons) were quite clearly from the available research the ones who said the appendix was useless because all their appendicectomies did fine post-op.

And the junk DNA problem was a because no one could figure out what the DNA did, common ancestry had nothing to do with saying it had no use. And it was ultimately evolutionists who figured out its uses because the idea that such large chunks of DNA were not selected out (because of inefficiency) was unsatisfying. Where were the creationists and their research? Why weren't you guys first to publish that Junk DNA had a function?


Science got something wrong and self corrected, no thanks to creationists. What exactly is revelatory about that?

 

[6days]

6days if you are just going to ignore modern physics I'm not sure how we can continue to have a conversation about it.

Tyrathca, if you are just going to continue to ignore modern biology, I'm not sure how we can continue to have a conversation about it.

Actually, we were not discussing physics, nor biology. We were debating the definition of information....and if information is evidence of intelligence.

You can't define your conclusions into existence.

I defined with definitions. You didn't like the definitions because they were from a dictionary.

I'm still waiting for an actual argument for how you know they are irreducibly complex.

I provided a definition and an example. I even provided an argument for you. You could argue that, this complex sophisticated motor had self assembled. (That seems to be the best argument evolutionists have to offer)

Common designer actually is a better fit to your statement.

No a common designer would imply that almost everything should be about equally likely to be a good model regardless of the appearance of the fossil record.

Well, we could debate that...but its not only moving the goalposts but you are trying to move the whole football field.
Reminder of what your argument was: "Common ancestry is how we came to the conclusion that certain animals were good for models for human physiology and testing which we only later were able to test for with genetics and other analysis of our biochemistry."
(That's your belief. My belief is that a common designer is the best explanation)

No....those beliefs were due to common ancestry. It was those beliefs that prevented many from searching for the purpose and design. And, that lack of knowlege lead evolutionists to proclaim useful parts as biological remnants, junk, flotsam, poor design etc. Fortunately, science has turned those evolutionary beliefs on its ears.

Nyet. Doctors (particularly surgeons) were quite clearly from the available research the ones who said the appendix was useless because all their appendicectomies did fine post-op.

We disagree...A evolutionary prediction from Darwin is that we would have organs "imperfect, and (in) useless condition". It was because of that belief that many researchers didn't bother looking for functionality, purpose and design.
Geneticist John Sanford talks about how evolution hurts science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-H4X2b7x7Q

And the junk DNA problem was a because no one could figure out what the DNA did...

That wasn't the problem. The problem was that non coding DNA, was mostly ignored because of evolutionary beliefs. As one professor said, ignoring introns / 'junk DNA' could be "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (John Mattick of University of Queensland)

In fact, some atheists seem to demand that we have 'junk' DNA, (And seem angry with suggestions that non coding DNA has purpose). "If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong." https://world.wng.org/2014/08/junk_dna_and_darwinian_blind_spots Funny YES!

Why were so many evolutionists angry with ENCODE for saying that non coding DNA had function?* Simple answer... 'junk' DNA was the foundation of the evolutionist argument, that our genome was not the result of an Intelligent Creator.

common ancestry had nothing to do with saying it ('junk' DNA)*had no use.

Surely you don't believe that?? Of course evolutionism had everything to do with it. After all..... It was a prediction of Darwin. And, as shown by quote from atheist above.....he is almost begging for our DNA to be filled with biological garbage.

And it was ultimately evolutionists who figured out its uses because the idea that such large chunks of DNA were not selected out (because of inefficiency) was unsatisfying. Where were the creationists and their research? Why weren't you guys first to publish that Junk DNA had a function?

You are making a couple false assumptions. Creationist scientists have long said that the non-coding DNA may have function / purpose/ design that has not yet been discovered. They were correct.
Also... it was*science which helped determine evolutionary beliefs about pseudogenes and*junk DNA was false. (Both evolutionists and creationists). A minority of scientists had been pushing for many years for more research on our non coding DNA.

Science got something wrong and self corrected, no thanks to creationists.

Nope..... Science did not get it wrong..... Evolutionists had it wrong. Fortunately science corrected