Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

shunyadragon · Feb 14, 2004, 07:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
I think we could all agree that we are here. To get along would be possible if we cared.

Does being able to contemplate ones own death have any purpose other than torture?

Are we in HELL?

A life is a story that ends with ones death. The last page would be an interesting read. I always read the last page of a book to see how the protagonist got there - as I read.

I live my life that way too.

I am conscious of "acting" every moment of every day. I have choreographed my life and surroundings in a way that has me very comfortable and self satisfied at the end of my life.

I am sixty and am not afraid of death. I have what I always wanted - a beautiful family that loves and supports each other - a beachfront condo with no mortgages, car payments, or interest on loans.

I have time to do what I want - and have since I was 45.

The play will end with my death - but I plan to do that myself (barring an unforseen truck). Either heroin or insulin - both work well and fast.

When I am not healthy enough to have fun my family knows I will go easy.

That is a successful life to me. I made it happen with will - effort - education - experiance - and the belief in the ability to "create" ones own world by will.

We are all god until we die.

I am a good god who makes great children 5 boys, I girl, 4 grand-children.

I fulfilled the prime directive - with great pleasure.

Gravity has effects - so does this little god.

I have TEN angels so far who surround and protect me. I truly do feel like god when I see them smile with a sparkle in their eyes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes Peter, but what does this have to do with the debate?

bugsbunny04 · Feb 14, 2004, 08:01 pm

The reason people assume that science and the bible can't coexist, is the same reason that people think mary had to be a virgin (no, just a young woman, not already pregnant) and that God is called Jehovah (no, the word is Yahweh), and that the commandment sais thou shalt not kill(no, it sais do no murder) . If you translate from a translation, and screw up doing it from a translation that was already screwed up on, you are going to distort things, including numbers and time relationships. God did not create the heavens and the earth on the first day, he did it in the first eon, the second day he created...? No, the second eon. You get the picture? This is what you get if you translate directly from old hebrew to english, accurately.

Another point: The universe had to have been created by a supreme being. Ever look at the periodic table? Seven periods of elements. 118 elements could exist theoretically (113,115,117 have not actually been manufactured yet to my knowledge but I'm sure some bored bastard is working on it). 92 occure natually. Yeah, you guessed it, 210 is a divisible of seven. Number of f-block families you would have if they were where they arguably should? 14, divisible by seven. Number A groups that have unstable outer energy levels (this means A groups excluding Noble gases, or more to the point, groups whose members are very reactive because of the number of valence electrons) yessiree they sure is seven of them. I'm not mentioning the number seven because of its proported divinity, but because of its repetition. How could something that organized (I'm refering to chemistry in general here) be a random occurance?

Another point: Ever look at properties and states of matter and energy relationships in SI units? Do you really think that such relationships (I'm refering to chemistry in general) could be a random occurance?

Ok, lets talk astronomy. Yeah, I'm sure constellations are a random occurance too. Yeah, right. c= 3.00 x 10^8 m/s for no particular reason? And the H in a star fusing to form He and emitt huge amounts of energy does all this at a controlled rate instead of exploding all at once for no particular reason. Sure it does.

How can a scientist who knows anything about odds not believe in God?

shunyadragon · Feb 15, 2004, 12:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)
The reason people assume that science and the bible can't coexist, is the same reason that people think mary had to be a virgin (no, just a young woman, not already pregnant) and that God is called Jehovah (no, the word is Yahweh), and that the commandment sais thou shalt not kill(no, it sais do no murder) . If you translate from a translation, and screw up doing it from a translation that was already screwed up on, you are going to distort things, including numbers and time relationships. God did not create the heavens and the earth on the first day, he did it in the first eon, the second day he created...? No, the second eon. You get the picture? This is what you get if you translate directly from old hebrew to english, accurately.

Another point: The universe had to have been created by a supreme being. Ever look at the periodic table? Seven periods of elements. 118 elements could exist theoretically (113,115,117 have not actually been manufactured yet to my knowledge but I'm sure some bored bastard is working on it). 92 occure natually. Yeah, you guessed it, 210 is a divisible of seven. Number of f-block families you would have if they were where they arguably should? 14, divisible by seven. Number A groups that have unstable outer energy levels (this means A groups excluding Noble gases, or more to the point, groups whose members are very reactive because of the number of valence electrons) yessiree they sure is seven of them. I'm not mentioning the number seven because of its proported divinity, but because of its repetition. How could something that organized (I'm refering to chemistry in general here) be a random occurance?

Another point: Ever look at properties and states of matter and energy relationships in SI units? Do you really think that such relationships (I'm refering to chemistry in general) could be a random occurance?

Ok, lets talk astronomy. Yeah, I'm sure constellations are a random occurance too. Yeah, right. c= 3.00 x 10^8 m/s for no particular reason? And the H in a star fusing to form He and emitt huge amounts of energy does all this at a controlled rate instead of exploding all at once for no particular reason. Sure it does.

How can a scientist who knows anything about odds not believe in God?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The answer is simple. They can. The agnostic and atheist scientists are very comfortable with an existence that exists without a God or Gods. The underlieing universal laws determine the events in the history of what we know as the universe. They view existence as the natural unfolding of universe(s) based on these laws. The recent Scientific American had a good article on the modern view of multiple universes and the view of the greater existence beyond our universe.

I would ask the same sort of questions of Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and whatever as to why they still believe in the narrow view of salvation, the world and relationships with the divine based on what we know now in the universe? Why can't the different religions and beliefs coexist in a better more harmonious relatinship? The semantics of translation of ancient scripture from all religions presents the same problems. The religions in the past formed around beliefs and knowledge of a much more narrower view of existence. Many people still cling to this narrow view and thus you have divisions and conflicts between the religions and faiths of the world and those that believe in no faith that you describe.

My arguement for a source that there is a God or Gods is the nature of what is the nature of the infinite existence beyond the existence we can perceive as our physical existence. There is also an underlieing spiritual relationship between the religions in history that cannot easily be explained in the absence of a guiding source. This cyclic evolution of humanity can be extrapolated through out what we see as the cyclic evolution of the universe(s).

**Pooeypants** · Feb 15, 2004, 05:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)

Another point: The universe had to have been created by a supreme being. Ever look at the periodic table? Seven periods of elements. 118 elements could exist theoretically (113,115,117 have not actually been manufactured yet to my knowledge but I'm sure some bored bastard is working on it). 92 occure natually. Yeah, you guessed it, 210 is a divisible of seven. Number of f-block families you would have if they were where they arguably should? 14, divisible by seven. Number A groups that have unstable outer energy levels (this means A groups excluding Noble gases, or more to the point, groups whose members are very reactive because of the number of valence electrons) yessiree they sure is seven of them. I'm not mentioning the number seven because of its proported divinity, but because of its repetition. How could something that organized (I'm refering to chemistry in general here) be a random occurance?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Let's see, when the universe was formed, initially there were 3 elements, infact lithium it self is only about 1% of all elements. The rest are produced by fusion within a star and the heavier metals are produced when it supernovas.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Another point: Ever look at properties and states of matter and energy relationships in SI units? Do you really think that such relationships (I'm refering to chemistry in general) could be a random occurance?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Please elobarate. And can I just point out we ourselves created the SI units, they don't exist outside of our minds, our obsession with quantisation has lead to it.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Ok, lets talk astronomy. Yeah, I'm sure constellations are a random occurance too. Yeah, right. c= 3.00 x 10^8 m/s for no particular reason? And the H in a star fusing to form He and emitt huge amounts of energy does all this at a controlled rate instead of exploding all at once for no particular reason. Sure it does.

How can a scientist who knows anything about odds not believe in God?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Too much bullsh*t already, we already can sustained controlled fusion for a period of 1 second...you might say so what, but the sun itself is a fusion reactor, it is THE only way to produce enough energy and to last long enough.
Physicists work with observations, facts not fairy tales and invisible sky pixie.

fogus · Feb 15, 2004, 02:56 pm

This was published in the Technical Journal of AiG in their last edition. My deepest apologies for all the spelling mistakes, I didn’t have time to go through it more times to clear up mistakes. The References are hopelessly misspelled; if you wish to have a copy properly spelled or a single proper copy of a reference please e-mail me, and I will be glad to give you a good copy.

The article is on the "nylon bug" evidence proposed by the evolutionists out there.
(I felt a little pressured to post this ASAP)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste

Don Batten

In 1975, Japanese scientists discovered bacteria that could live on the waste products of nylon manufacture as their only source of carbon and nitrogen (1) Two species, Flavobacterium sr. K 172 and Pseudomonas sr. NK87, were identified that degrade nylon compounds.

Much research has flowed from this discovery to elucidate the mechanism for the apparently novel ability of these bacteria. (2) Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. The genes for these enzymes are located on plasmids: (3) Plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in Pseudomonas.

Apologists for materialism latched onto these findings as an example of evolution of new information by random mutations and natural selection, for example, Thwaites in 1985. (4) Thwaites claims have been repeated by many, without updating or critical evaluation, sit1ce.

Is the evidence consistent with random mutations generating the new genes?

Thwaites claimed that the new enzyme arose through a frame shift mutation. He based this on a research paper published the previous year where this was suggested (5) if this were the case. the production of an enzyme would indeed be a fortuitous result, attributable to pure chance. However, there arc good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance. (6)

Evidence against the evolutionary explanation includes:

1. There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposase. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.

2. All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, Ell and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a “late addition” to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.

3. All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacteria chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genes-the chance of this happening is low. I f the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp (7) and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the POAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10/\-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.

4. The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons. (8) This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 10/\12. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type POAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the r antisense strands.

Some statements by Yomo et al. express their consternation:

“These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism fl behind the evolution of these genes s for nylon oligomer degrading enzymes.
“The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids re for nylon oligomer degradation.
“Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to it speculate that some special mechanisms exists in the regions of these genes.”

It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop co dons for each sequence. This would be about, the simplest way that the antisense; strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that l the transposase genes are involved.

Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process. (an accident).

5. The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. (9) This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.

6. The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes. (8)

P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources such as --- toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkenes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively. (2) Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also side on plasmids).

The chromosome of P. aeruginosa as 6.3 million base pairs, which makes one of the largest bacterial genomes sequenced. Being a large genome leans that only a relatively lowmutation rate can be tolerated within the actual chromosome, otherwise error catastrophe would result. There is no way that normal mutations in the chromosome could generate a new enzyme in nine days and hypermutation of the chromosome itself would result in non-viable bacteria. Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome.

Stasis in bacteria

P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872. (10) It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is huge-equivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional change-stasis rules, not progressive evolution. This alone should cast doubt on the evolutionary paradigm. Flavobacterium was first named in 1889 and it likewise still has the same characteristics as originally described.

It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that en- able adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution. (11) Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly Complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation – the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes.

References

1. Kinoshita, S. Kagcyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H.. Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of E-aminocapronoic acid by .4chromobacler guttatus K I 72, Agric Bioi Chcm39(6):1219-1223,]975. Note: ,4 guttatus K 172 syn. Flavobacterium sp. K 172.

2. Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers [review], .Appl. Microbiol Biolechnol.54: 461-466, 2000.

3. A plasmid is an extra-chromosomal loop of DNA in a bacterium. Such loops of DNA, unlike the chromosomal DNA, can be swapped between different species of bacteria An individual bacterium can have several types of plasmid, and multiple copies of each,

4. Thwaites, V.M., New proteins without God's help, Creation/Evolution /1 XVI, 3 pp. 1985.

5. Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence, Proc. Nal. Acad. Sci USA 81:2421-2425, 1984,

6. Truman, R., Protein mutational context dependence: a challenge to neo-Darwinism theory: part I, TJI7 (1): 117-127; Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? TJI5 (3): 115-127.

7. As of the date of writing, no Flavobacterium sp. genome has been sequenced.

8. Yomo, T., Urabe, I. and Okada, H., No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation, Proc. Nal Acad Sci. US/I 89:3780-3784, 1992.

9. Prijambada, 1.0., Negoro, S., Yomo, T. and Urabe, I., Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pselldomo/1a aellgi/1osa PAO through experimental evolution, Appl& Env. Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2022, 1995.

10. Bacterial Nomenclature Up-to-date, Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany. < www.dsmz.de/bactnom/bactname.htm >, 18 September, 2003.

11. Truman, R., The unsuitability of B-cell maturation as an analogy for neo-Darwinian Theory, March 2002; < www.trueorigin.org/b_cell_maturation.asp >, 22 August 2003.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

fogus · Feb 15, 2004, 03:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
fogus

Therefore you only interprete science to fit the bible version of creation and history.

I think I agree with you on this but it depends on what you mean “interpret”. I do not manipulate numbers, or stay ignorant about evolutionary issues. I do believe that no data cannot fit the thousands of years time scale that the Bible suggests.

I didn’t know that AiG was trying to squeeze billions of years into thousands. I don't think that they think this is necessary. They believe in thousands of years, which fits the bibles thousands of years fine (no squeeze necessary).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you base your belief strictly on the bible and do not bring science into the arguement then thousands of years is what the bible says and the debate ends, no problem. You believe the bible is literal and I believe that science provides the best answer for evolution and the history of existence. But if you bring science into the arguement as AIG does then there is grounds for debate and the squeeze is on.

AIG definitely trys to use scientific data to provide proof for the biblical version of the history of existence. The recent article on the problem of the speed of light, time and the vast distances between the galaxies and stars is an important example. AIG used concepts like 'time dilation' and 'event horizon' to argue that the vast distances and the billions of years of time required to explain what we observe in the universe is not billions of years and great distances between objects in space, but thousands of years and much shorter distances between the stars and galaxies, and much slower rotation speeds of the galaxies. This is a squeeze of unbelievable dimensions, based on the known concepts of physics and all sciences. It is a hoplessly useless arguement and manipulation of data in an incomprehensible way. You may not manipulat data, but you often quote AIG who use more blue smoke and mirrors than the circus.

You asked in a previous post if science recognizes and has records of their mistakes, failures and things like unresolved problems. Yes and the list is long. Einstein himself lamented over his misconceptions and mistakes that plagued his work. There are many records of of failures and mistakes of the past. The Piltdown man and other false information from fossils used in the past is well documented and recognized. Recently an important paleontologist in Japan and geologist in India acknowledged that they falsified evidence after other research uncovered inconsistencies in their work. This is the way of science. We fully acknowledge our mistakes and the system is designed to uncover these problems over time, like the instance of the false evidence presented by the Japanese and Indian scientists.

When the Smithsonain Institute realized that they had perchased a bogus fossil of a primative bird/dinosaur they admited it.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If scientists are the only people who have to know about the frauds then I agree with you, they do. But the masses only hear about the latest discovery that now “proves” evolution to the highest degree. The frauds are never published along side the latest article on evolution in my paper, nor have I herd any people talk about all the past false claims by evolutionists on Canada’s national science program: Quirks & Quarks. I subscribe to the Scientific American and have not found any apologies by evolutionists there either. This has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, all I am saying is that the false claims are handled by AiG is more honorable than the way the media and the scientific community reports to the masses.

Where was the bogus fossil purchase announced? You won’t find that in the newspaper, or in a high school text book under the (nonexistent) title of “abandoned fossils” or “false evolutionary claims” etc.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 15, 2004, 03:23 pm

point 1: Fair enough, until you you look at how organized atoms are. The odds are a number greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches in the world squared:1, or something like that, that something so organized could be a natural occurance.

point 2:Correction, I was reffering to physics, not neccessarily just chemistry, sorry for the typo.

Energy = Kg x (9.00 x 10^16), always, just by random occurance, everytime? Sure cheif. I tried calculating the odds of that on a TI-83PS and it couldn't handle it, but mabey if I tried it on that computer that carried Pi out the 10^-4, I might be able to figure it out.

More EM stats: (wave length) x (frequency) = (3.00 x 10^8) ( by the way, is there a way to put greek letters on here, anybody looking at this thread who understands what either of us is saying probably could interpret lambda, nu, alpha, beta, gamma, ect., ?), always, just by random occurance. Why can't some of them travel faster or slower?

Lets go to matter in the gas state. The relationship of temperature and volume with a constant preassure (see Charles's Law) as well as preassure and volume at a constant temperature (see Boyle's Law) Note that this is only really and truly consisten in SI units, but works pretty well in the others too with a margin of error that is not really worth mentioning since we are not talking quantum physics or nano technology or anything else that small for that matter.

Point 3: Yeah, we can sustain fusion for one second, in a lab, with precision controls. Sol has been burning up there for millions of years without blowing up all at once, and this is, according to you, a random occurance? Yeah, you expect it to go nova, eventually. If the universe were as random as people who don't believe in any God require it to be, it would have gone nova a long time ago.

A new point: ever notice, in our geological record, we don't see interim species? Sure, we see species that look in between. But do you not see places where the jump from one to another that some of our peers in natural history somewhat proposterous?

Ponder: At first, there were simple thing, this continued for a long time and then WAM! a whole new bunch of organisms suddenly start appearing in a very systematic fashion, tehn they stick around for a few years and the WAM! some more show up. See the trend? If you replace the word day with an average of the number of years between these areas that evolutionists consider periods of rapid adaptation, in an acurate translation of Old Hebrew genesis, and then replace "God created" in front of with "suddenly evolved" behind the various things God is supposed to have created on specific days, it would not be exactly but would be extremely close to what is taught in Earth Science classes across America.

So the argument is not that the earth is only 6000 years old and God created the earth in 6 days vs. we evolved over millions of years. That is completely rediculous. Anyone making the first argument needs some of that Li you mentioned. And the second argument is actually disproved by the gological record that lies under our feet, just as the first one is.

The real argument is this: Did This extremely intricate universe get created by random occurance and then new species show up suddenly, systematically, and ever so often by some sort of radical mutation that by every means we have to study today we can't figure out why the mutations were not more harmful than helpful; Or did a supreme being create the universe and work on it over a period of millions of years as he saw fit, adding species when he saw fit, until he thought it was completed and then added a driver (homo sapiens) (kind of like when I build a project hot rod).

Some how, I think the latter makes more since, but free speech is being able to tell someone else that there exercise of it bradishes there idiocy.

bmaestro · Feb 15, 2004, 04:32 pm

First off, speciation has been observed, as have those "in between" organisms. For example, some sparrow in the southern US. I don't remember details, but its happened.

Second, the reason that we don't see those "in between" organism in the fossil record is because when a fossil is found, it is put into a category. Theres enough natural variation WITHIN species, that the line that divides one species from another is kind of fuzzy. Its just the human way of doing things to want to categorize things, and say that some fossil is either this species or that species. It's a human construct, not a lack of fossils of in between species. If we didn't categorize things, we may be able to place fossils along a continuum, which is the truth, but we loose a lot of scientific efficiency if we don't categorize.

As for the physics side of things, I think that the concept of 14 billion years is far beyond what we can imagine. I think that a lot of the universe was created by random chance over vast amounts of time, based on the nature of the most fundamental particles. However, these particles, and the laws they opperate by blow my mind. This is why a lot of physicists have some sort of beleif in some devine organizing thing...

bugsbunny04 · Feb 15, 2004, 04:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)
...However, these particles, and the laws they opperate by blow my mind. This is why a lot of physicists have some sort of beleif in some devine organizing thing...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yeah doc, and I'm one of them. By the way, the term generally accepted by both sides is "Supreme being", though I am really partial to the term "omnipotent being"

**Pooeypants** · Feb 15, 2004, 05:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)
point 1: Fair enough, until you you look at how organized atoms are. The odds are a number greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches in the world squared:1, or something like that, that something so organized could be a natural occurance.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
As a scientist, if that is the only option left, that it happened through probability, then we must accept that. We base our work on observations directly or indirectly, and until we have evidence of some divine being organising matter in this universe, I have every right to assume this universe came about naturally etc.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 15, 2004, 06:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)

As a scientist, if that is the only option left, that it happened through probability, then we must accept that. We base our work on observations directly or indirectly, and until we have evidence of some divine being organising matter in this universe, I have every right to assume this universe came about naturally etc.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yessiree, ya sure do. I have every right to consider the odds of all this being a random occurance being completely incalculable with a current system of numbers as evidence of such a being. Put another way, your dealing with almost the number of decimal places in an irrational number times 10:1. Not neccessarily infinity, but not a number that we could not possibly represent without conjuring up some type of new notation, or at least not without using something that is ignored in honers level high school courses. On that note, I do have a proposal, at least for a symbol, but I'm not entirely certain how it would be applied.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 15, 2004, 07:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)

Yessiree, ya sure do. I have every right to consider the odds of all this being a random occurance being completely incalculable with a current system of numbers as evidence of such a being. Put another way, your dealing with almost the number of decimal places in an irrational number times 10:1. Not neccessarily infinity, but not a number that we could not possibly represent without conjuring up some type of new notation, or at least not without using something that is ignored in honers level high school courses. On that note, I do have a proposal, at least for a symbol, but I'm not entirely certain how it would be applied.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Last I heard if you want to predict the precisely what happens in the universe you'd need a CPU that can handle 10^70 plus x,y,z variables for position and velocity etc. I think that number is big enough already.
One concept I'm willing to accept is that if these "random" occurences didn't happen thus that matter was organised in search a way hence we came to be, then we wouldn't be asking these cosmological questions today. But multiverses are just as unprovable as God so I'll just leave it at that.

fogus · Feb 15, 2004, 07:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
fogus
Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.

This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise.

I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with rapid decay is that it is not a legitamate theory or a view of the nature of the history of the magnetic field because it is only based on recent measurements of the fluctuations in the magnetic field. The 'Creation Science' advocates simply latched onto it because it showed a rapid change. Unfortunately there is not enough direct long term 'direct measurements' that would fit the requirements of the 'Creation Science' advocates to confirm the 'young or old earth' view. But if you correlate these direct measurements with the 'indirect measurements' which the geologists use the data definitely fits the cyclic pattern of changes in the magnetic field over millions of years. How can a few years data concerning the changes in the strength of the electric field be used to draw any conclusions of the long term fate of the electric field?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Quite correct, however the measurements taken on earth do not contradict either theory, over a longer time span we might be able to learn more. However to convince people of the facility of the dynamo theory we would need millions of years of data. I agree with you that several years is not enough, and I never expected that these sorts of things would convince anyone. If there was a way of taking a closer look at the way the magnetic field works, either in a lab this would be much more conclusive.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure how a few years data would make geologists uneasy. I am a geologist and a few years data on anything couldn't make me uneasy.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Same as above. I agree. You say a “few” years is 150 years. I don't think that 150 is “few” but I don't think that 150 is enough to come to a definite conclusion through pure observation of the earths magnetic field. However I should like to talk to a geologist about when we can expect the next reversal and when we can expect the field to begin to change its rate of decay, or increase in power.

“The first thing that we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength is decaying. Over the past 150 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker.”

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What dating methods show the earth is far younger?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

helium in atmosphere
helium in ground
build up of c 14
natural plutonium
oil leaks
oil pressure
uranium in sea
sodium in sea
sediment in sea
rotation of spiral galaxies
potassium in the sea
internal hear of Io
titans methane loss
peat bog growth
oldest living plants
earths magnetic field
meteor dust
decay of comets

(Just to name a few) I have been looking for a full list, and I will let you know, first thing, when I get one.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preconcieved notions? There isn't any evidence for a world flood. Where do you get that much water?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If I told you I believed in a global flood for scientific reasons right now you would think I was wrong before I told you any of the science. This is what I mean when I say preconceived notions, and I assume that Dr. Wile meant that to.

Evidences for the global flood

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...faq/geology.asp

About the all the water

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...ook/flood12.asp

shunyadragon · Feb 15, 2004, 09:57 pm

Quote:

fogus

Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.

This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise.

I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite correct, however the measurements taken on earth do not contradict either theory, over a longer time span we might be able to learn more. However to convince people of the facility of the dynamo theory we would need millions of years of data. I agree with you that several years is not enough, and I never expected that these sorts of things would convince anyone. If there was a way of taking a closer look at the way the magnetic field works, either in a lab this would be much more conclusive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you say 'quite correct', but later you say 150 years is enough to support rapid decay. Your being inconsistent. The reality 150 years is not enough data to show either case, because you have nothing to compare it to based on direct observations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fogus
The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure how a few years data would make geologists uneasy. I am a geologist and a few years data on anything couldn't make me uneasy.

Same as above. I agree. You say a “few” years is 150 years. I don't think that 150 is “few” but I don't think that 150 is enough to come to a definite conclusion through pure observation of the earths magnetic field. However I should like to talk to a geologist about when we can expect the next reversal and when we can expect the field to begin to change its rate of decay, or increase in power.

“The first thing that we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength is decaying. Over the past 150 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker.[quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

150 years is definitely a few years in terms of either view. It does not show over time that the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker because we have nothing to compare it to in terms of the 'direct observation'. Scientists have the indirect observations to compare the data to. If your going to present this as an arguement you have to come up with more direct data to compare this to to be valid.
-

Quote:

Originally Posted by
I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What dating methods show the earth is far younger?

None of these examples qualify as long term dating methods. I have seen them quoted before. Some of the more obvious bogus ones I will respond to here. Others I will give more details later. For most dating methods to be valid the elements have to be trapped with their isotopes in a rock or organic material in a way to prevent or limit exchange with the environment to show decay rates. The examples sited below mostly do not meet this criteria.

helium in atmosphere, helium in ground 'General statements about helium in the air and ground say nothing about dating a long earth history.

build up of c 14. 'Carbon 14 is not used to support a long history earth. It is only used for recent dating and correlated with stratigraphy. Some of the best data correlates C14 data with annual seasonal cyclic layers in lake sediments that have a continuous deposition sequence of thousands of years. The changes in C 14 and the related isotopes are taken into consideration in modern uses of this dating method.'

natural plutonium
oil leaks
oil pressure

uranium in sea, sodium in sea, sediment in sea, potassium in the sea
Elements in the sea cannot be used in dating methods because they are in constant change in equilibrium with the environment. Elements have to traped with their isotopes to be used in dating methods.

rotation of spiral galaxies The speed of rotation and the vast distances support a long history. I answered the bogus arguement provided by AIG before. They used time dilation and event horizon to provide a terribly weak and hopeless arguement for squeezing billions of years of time at the speed of light into a few thousand.

internal hear of Io
titans methane loss Short term observation, meaningless.

peat bog growth. peat bog growth? Are you comparing this to literally hundreds of coal deposites in between thousands of feet of cyclic deposites of sandstone, shale and limestones? These deposites show individual river systems, lakes and other features we see in places like the Congo and the Amazon. This is bogus beyond belief.

oldest living plants. The seasonal growth rings of the world's oldest plants correlate well with the seasonal layers in lake and sea sediments which cover a much longer time in history and provide good evidence for a long history of the earth.

earths magnetic field. Already answered that one. 150 years is not enough data to show anything unless you can come up with other data to compare it to.
meteor dust
decay of comets

(Just to name a few) I have been looking for a full list, and I will let you know, first thing, when I get one.

The other stuff about the bogus flood evidence I will respond to next. The articles from AIG do not come up with enough water nor do they present any good stratigraphic evidence for a world flood.

The bottom of the sea is mostly volcanic and far from a source of sediments, but the limestone deposits and coral reefs in the sea like in the Gulf of Mexico region and the Pacific Islands support without question a long hisory of the earth.

The thousands of feet of limestone deposite with vast coral reefs is one of the best stratigraphic evidence for a long earth history that cannot be explained in any way by a flood or a short history of the earth.

percivale · Feb 16, 2004, 08:06 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)
How can a scientist who knows anything about odds not believe in God?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Because, in an infinite system, any probability, no matter how small, must occur. It's simple, really.

percivale

shunyadragon · Feb 16, 2004, 07:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
fogus

Evidences for the global flood

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...faq/geology.asp

About the all the water

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...ook/flood12.asp<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I read one of the articles on the AIG site concerning limestones and the arguement of fast versus slow deposition. They put a lot of emphasis on the Red Wall Limestone in the Grand Canyon, which is only one of hundreds of limestones of the world.

Bait and switch. It answers the arguement from Geologists saying that the limestone reefs require millions of years to form with, 'there are not any limestone reefs in the Red Wall Limestone', which is true. But there are many reefs ancient and modern (in the Pacific and Atlantic) far thicker and older than is possible to explain by the young earth theory. I want to see your, AIG's, or any 'Creation Science' advocate answer to these deposits not the Red Wall Limestone in the Grand Canyon.

Feb 14, 2004, 07:34 pm	#241 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) I think we could all agree that we are here. To get along would be possible if we cared. Does being able to contemplate ones own death have any purpose other than torture? Are we in HELL? A life is a story that ends with ones death. The last page would be an interesting read. I always read the last page of a book to see how the protagonist got there - as I read. I live my life that way too. I am conscious of "acting" every moment of every day. I have choreographed my life and surroundings in a way that has me very comfortable and self satisfied at the end of my life. I am sixty and am not afraid of death. I have what I always wanted - a beautiful family that loves and supports each other - a beachfront condo with no mortgages, car payments, or interest on loans. I have time to do what I want - and have since I was 45. The play will end with my death - but I plan to do that myself (barring an unforseen truck). Either heroin or insulin - both work well and fast. When I am not healthy enough to have fun my family knows I will go easy. That is a successful life to me. I made it happen with will - effort - education - experiance - and the belief in the ability to "create" ones own world by will. We are all god until we die. I am a good god who makes great children 5 boys, I girl, 4 grand-children. I fulfilled the prime directive - with great pleasure. Gravity has effects - so does this little god. I have TEN angels so far who surround and protect me. I truly do feel like god when I see them smile with a sparkle in their eyes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes Peter, but what does this have to do with the debate? The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 14, 2004, 08:01 pm	#242 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	The reason people assume that science and the bible can't coexist, is the same reason that people think mary had to be a virgin (no, just a young woman, not already pregnant) and that God is called Jehovah (no, the word is Yahweh), and that the commandment sais thou shalt not kill(no, it sais do no murder) . If you translate from a translation, and screw up doing it from a translation that was already screwed up on, you are going to distort things, including numbers and time relationships. God did not create the heavens and the earth on the first day, he did it in the first eon, the second day he created...? No, the second eon. You get the picture? This is what you get if you translate directly from old hebrew to english, accurately. Another point: The universe had to have been created by a supreme being. Ever look at the periodic table? Seven periods of elements. 118 elements could exist theoretically (113,115,117 have not actually been manufactured yet to my knowledge but I'm sure some bored bastard is working on it). 92 occure natually. Yeah, you guessed it, 210 is a divisible of seven. Number of f-block families you would have if they were where they arguably should? 14, divisible by seven. Number A groups that have unstable outer energy levels (this means A groups excluding Noble gases, or more to the point, groups whose members are very reactive because of the number of valence electrons) yessiree they sure is seven of them. I'm not mentioning the number seven because of its proported divinity, but because of its repetition. How could something that organized (I'm refering to chemistry in general here) be a random occurance? Another point: Ever look at properties and states of matter and energy relationships in SI units? Do you really think that such relationships (I'm refering to chemistry in general) could be a random occurance? Ok, lets talk astronomy. Yeah, I'm sure constellations are a random occurance too. Yeah, right. c= 3.00 x 10^8 m/s for no particular reason? And the H in a star fusing to form He and emitt huge amounts of energy does all this at a controlled rate instead of exploding all at once for no particular reason. Sure it does. How can a scientist who knows anything about odds not believe in God? Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 15, 2004, 12:59 am	#243 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,) The reason people assume that science and the bible can't coexist, is the same reason that people think mary had to be a virgin (no, just a young woman, not already pregnant) and that God is called Jehovah (no, the word is Yahweh), and that the commandment sais thou shalt not kill(no, it sais do no murder) . If you translate from a translation, and screw up doing it from a translation that was already screwed up on, you are going to distort things, including numbers and time relationships. God did not create the heavens and the earth on the first day, he did it in the first eon, the second day he created...? No, the second eon. You get the picture? This is what you get if you translate directly from old hebrew to english, accurately. Another point: The universe had to have been created by a supreme being. Ever look at the periodic table? Seven periods of elements. 118 elements could exist theoretically (113,115,117 have not actually been manufactured yet to my knowledge but I'm sure some bored bastard is working on it). 92 occure natually. Yeah, you guessed it, 210 is a divisible of seven. Number of f-block families you would have if they were where they arguably should? 14, divisible by seven. Number A groups that have unstable outer energy levels (this means A groups excluding Noble gases, or more to the point, groups whose members are very reactive because of the number of valence electrons) yessiree they sure is seven of them. I'm not mentioning the number seven because of its proported divinity, but because of its repetition. How could something that organized (I'm refering to chemistry in general here) be a random occurance? Another point: Ever look at properties and states of matter and energy relationships in SI units? Do you really think that such relationships (I'm refering to chemistry in general) could be a random occurance? Ok, lets talk astronomy. Yeah, I'm sure constellations are a random occurance too. Yeah, right. c= 3.00 x 10^8 m/s for no particular reason? And the H in a star fusing to form He and emitt huge amounts of energy does all this at a controlled rate instead of exploding all at once for no particular reason. Sure it does. How can a scientist who knows anything about odds not believe in God?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The answer is simple. They can. The agnostic and atheist scientists are very comfortable with an existence that exists without a God or Gods. The underlieing universal laws determine the events in the history of what we know as the universe. They view existence as the natural unfolding of universe(s) based on these laws. The recent Scientific American had a good article on the modern view of multiple universes and the view of the greater existence beyond our universe. I would ask the same sort of questions of Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and whatever as to why they still believe in the narrow view of salvation, the world and relationships with the divine based on what we know now in the universe? Why can't the different religions and beliefs coexist in a better more harmonious relatinship? The semantics of translation of ancient scripture from all religions presents the same problems. The religions in the past formed around beliefs and knowledge of a much more narrower view of existence. Many people still cling to this narrow view and thus you have divisions and conflicts between the religions and faiths of the world and those that believe in no faith that you describe. My arguement for a source that there is a God or Gods is the nature of what is the nature of the infinite existence beyond the existence we can perceive as our physical existence. There is also an underlieing spiritual relationship between the religions in history that cannot easily be explained in the absence of a guiding source. This cyclic evolution of humanity can be extrapolated through out what we see as the cyclic evolution of the universe(s). The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 15, 2004, 05:42 am	#244 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,) Another point: The universe had to have been created by a supreme being. Ever look at the periodic table? Seven periods of elements. 118 elements could exist theoretically (113,115,117 have not actually been manufactured yet to my knowledge but I'm sure some bored bastard is working on it). 92 occure natually. Yeah, you guessed it, 210 is a divisible of seven. Number of f-block families you would have if they were where they arguably should? 14, divisible by seven. Number A groups that have unstable outer energy levels (this means A groups excluding Noble gases, or more to the point, groups whose members are very reactive because of the number of valence electrons) yessiree they sure is seven of them. I'm not mentioning the number seven because of its proported divinity, but because of its repetition. How could something that organized (I'm refering to chemistry in general here) be a random occurance? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let's see, when the universe was formed, initially there were 3 elements, infact lithium it self is only about 1% of all elements. The rest are produced by fusion within a star and the heavier metals are produced when it supernovas. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Another point: Ever look at properties and states of matter and energy relationships in SI units? Do you really think that such relationships (I'm refering to chemistry in general) could be a random occurance? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Please elobarate. And can I just point out we ourselves created the SI units, they don't exist outside of our minds, our obsession with quantisation has lead to it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Ok, lets talk astronomy. Yeah, I'm sure constellations are a random occurance too. Yeah, right. c= 3.00 x 10^8 m/s for no particular reason? And the H in a star fusing to form He and emitt huge amounts of energy does all this at a controlled rate instead of exploding all at once for no particular reason. Sure it does. How can a scientist who knows anything about odds not believe in God?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Too much bullsht already, we already can sustained controlled fusion for a period of 1 second...you might say so what, but the sun itself is a fusion reactor, it is THE only way to produce enough energy and to last long enough. Physicists work with observations, facts not fairy tales and invisible sky pixie. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can* capture someone killed the year before

Feb 15, 2004, 02:56 pm	#245 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	This was published in the Technical Journal of AiG in their last edition. My deepest apologies for all the spelling mistakes, I didn’t have time to go through it more times to clear up mistakes. The References are hopelessly misspelled; if you wish to have a copy properly spelled or a single proper copy of a reference please e-mail me, and I will be glad to give you a good copy. The article is on the "nylon bug" evidence proposed by the evolutionists out there. (I felt a little pressured to post this ASAP) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste Don Batten In 1975, Japanese scientists discovered bacteria that could live on the waste products of nylon manufacture as their only source of carbon and nitrogen (1) Two species, Flavobacterium sr. K 172 and Pseudomonas sr. NK87, were identified that degrade nylon compounds. Much research has flowed from this discovery to elucidate the mechanism for the apparently novel ability of these bacteria. (2) Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. The genes for these enzymes are located on plasmids: (3) Plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in Pseudomonas. Apologists for materialism latched onto these findings as an example of evolution of new information by random mutations and natural selection, for example, Thwaites in 1985. (4) Thwaites claims have been repeated by many, without updating or critical evaluation, sit1ce. Is the evidence consistent with random mutations generating the new genes? Thwaites claimed that the new enzyme arose through a frame shift mutation. He based this on a research paper published the previous year where this was suggested (5) if this were the case. the production of an enzyme would indeed be a fortuitous result, attributable to pure chance. However, there arc good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance. (6) Evidence against the evolutionary explanation includes: 1. There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposase. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress. 2. All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, Ell and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a “late addition” to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained. 3. All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacteria chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genes-the chance of this happening is low. I f the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp (7) and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the POAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10/\-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible. 4. The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons. (8) This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 10/\12. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type POAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the r antisense strands. Some statements by Yomo et al. express their consternation: “These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism fl behind the evolution of these genes s for nylon oligomer degrading enzymes. “The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids re for nylon oligomer degradation. “Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to it speculate that some special mechanisms exists in the regions of these genes.” It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop co dons for each sequence. This would be about, the simplest way that the antisense; strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that l the transposase genes are involved. Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process. (an accident). 5. The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. (9) This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection. 6. The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes. (8) P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources such as --- toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkenes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively. (2) Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also side on plasmids). The chromosome of P. aeruginosa as 6.3 million base pairs, which makes one of the largest bacterial genomes sequenced. Being a large genome leans that only a relatively lowmutation rate can be tolerated within the actual chromosome, otherwise error catastrophe would result. There is no way that normal mutations in the chromosome could generate a new enzyme in nine days and hypermutation of the chromosome itself would result in non-viable bacteria. Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome. Stasis in bacteria P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872. (10) It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is huge-equivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional change-stasis rules, not progressive evolution. This alone should cast doubt on the evolutionary paradigm. Flavobacterium was first named in 1889 and it likewise still has the same characteristics as originally described. It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that en- able adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution. (11) Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly Complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation – the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes. References 1. Kinoshita, S. Kagcyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H.. Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of E-aminocapronoic acid by .4chromobacler guttatus K I 72, Agric Bioi Chcm39(6):1219-1223,]975. Note: ,4 guttatus K 172 syn. Flavobacterium sp. K 172. 2. Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers [review], .Appl. Microbiol Biolechnol.54: 461-466, 2000. 3. A plasmid is an extra-chromosomal loop of DNA in a bacterium. Such loops of DNA, unlike the chromosomal DNA, can be swapped between different species of bacteria An individual bacterium can have several types of plasmid, and multiple copies of each, 4. Thwaites, V.M., New proteins without God's help, Creation/Evolution /1 XVI, 3 pp. 1985. 5. Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence, Proc. Nal. Acad. Sci USA 81:2421-2425, 1984, 6. Truman, R., Protein mutational context dependence: a challenge to neo-Darwinism theory: part I, TJI7 (1): 117-127; Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? TJI5 (3): 115-127. 7. As of the date of writing, no Flavobacterium sp. genome has been sequenced. 8. Yomo, T., Urabe, I. and Okada, H., No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation, Proc. Nal Acad Sci. US/I 89:3780-3784, 1992. 9. Prijambada, 1.0., Negoro, S., Yomo, T. and Urabe, I., Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pselldomo/1a aellgi/1osa PAO through experimental evolution, Appl& Env. Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2022, 1995. 10. Bacterial Nomenclature Up-to-date, Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany. < www.dsmz.de/bactnom/bactname.htm >, 18 September, 2003. 11. Truman, R., The unsuitability of B-cell maturation as an analogy for neo-Darwinian Theory, March 2002; < www.trueorigin.org/b_cell_maturation.asp >, 22 August 2003. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ~Fogus

Feb 15, 2004, 03:09 pm	#246 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by fogus Therefore you only interprete science to fit the bible version of creation and history. I think I agree with you on this but it depends on what you mean “interpret”. I do not manipulate numbers, or stay ignorant about evolutionary issues. I do believe that no data cannot fit the thousands of years time scale that the Bible suggests. I didn’t know that AiG was trying to squeeze billions of years into thousands. I don't think that they think this is necessary. They believe in thousands of years, which fits the bibles thousands of years fine (no squeeze necessary). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you base your belief strictly on the bible and do not bring science into the arguement then thousands of years is what the bible says and the debate ends, no problem. You believe the bible is literal and I believe that science provides the best answer for evolution and the history of existence. But if you bring science into the arguement as AIG does then there is grounds for debate and the squeeze is on. AIG definitely trys to use scientific data to provide proof for the biblical version of the history of existence. The recent article on the problem of the speed of light, time and the vast distances between the galaxies and stars is an important example. AIG used concepts like 'time dilation' and 'event horizon' to argue that the vast distances and the billions of years of time required to explain what we observe in the universe is not billions of years and great distances between objects in space, but thousands of years and much shorter distances between the stars and galaxies, and much slower rotation speeds of the galaxies. This is a squeeze of unbelievable dimensions, based on the known concepts of physics and all sciences. It is a hoplessly useless arguement and manipulation of data in an incomprehensible way. You may not manipulat data, but you often quote AIG who use more blue smoke and mirrors than the circus. You asked in a previous post if science recognizes and has records of their mistakes, failures and things like unresolved problems. Yes and the list is long. Einstein himself lamented over his misconceptions and mistakes that plagued his work. There are many records of of failures and mistakes of the past. The Piltdown man and other false information from fossils used in the past is well documented and recognized. Recently an important paleontologist in Japan and geologist in India acknowledged that they falsified evidence after other research uncovered inconsistencies in their work. This is the way of science. We fully acknowledge our mistakes and the system is designed to uncover these problems over time, like the instance of the false evidence presented by the Japanese and Indian scientists. When the Smithsonain Institute realized that they had perchased a bogus fossil of a primative bird/dinosaur they admited it. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If scientists are the only people who have to know about the frauds then I agree with you, they do. But the masses only hear about the latest discovery that now “proves” evolution to the highest degree. The frauds are never published along side the latest article on evolution in my paper, nor have I herd any people talk about all the past false claims by evolutionists on Canada’s national science program: Quirks & Quarks. I subscribe to the Scientific American and have not found any apologies by evolutionists there either. This has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, all I am saying is that the false claims are handled by AiG is more honorable than the way the media and the scientific community reports to the masses. Where was the bogus fossil purchase announced? You won’t find that in the newspaper, or in a high school text book under the (nonexistent) title of “abandoned fossils” or “false evolutionary claims” etc. ~Fogus

Feb 15, 2004, 03:23 pm	#247 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	point 1: Fair enough, until you you look at how organized atoms are. The odds are a number greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches in the world squared:1, or something like that, that something so organized could be a natural occurance. point 2:Correction, I was reffering to physics, not neccessarily just chemistry, sorry for the typo. Energy = Kg x (9.00 x 10^16), always, just by random occurance, everytime? Sure cheif. I tried calculating the odds of that on a TI-83PS and it couldn't handle it, but mabey if I tried it on that computer that carried Pi out the 10^-4, I might be able to figure it out. More EM stats: (wave length) x (frequency) = (3.00 x 10^8) ( by the way, is there a way to put greek letters on here, anybody looking at this thread who understands what either of us is saying probably could interpret lambda, nu, alpha, beta, gamma, ect., ?), always, just by random occurance. Why can't some of them travel faster or slower? Lets go to matter in the gas state. The relationship of temperature and volume with a constant preassure (see Charles's Law) as well as preassure and volume at a constant temperature (see Boyle's Law) Note that this is only really and truly consisten in SI units, but works pretty well in the others too with a margin of error that is not really worth mentioning since we are not talking quantum physics or nano technology or anything else that small for that matter. Point 3: Yeah, we can sustain fusion for one second, in a lab, with precision controls. Sol has been burning up there for millions of years without blowing up all at once, and this is, according to you, a random occurance? Yeah, you expect it to go nova, eventually. If the universe were as random as people who don't believe in any God require it to be, it would have gone nova a long time ago. A new point: ever notice, in our geological record, we don't see interim species? Sure, we see species that look in between. But do you not see places where the jump from one to another that some of our peers in natural history somewhat proposterous? Ponder: At first, there were simple thing, this continued for a long time and then WAM! a whole new bunch of organisms suddenly start appearing in a very systematic fashion, tehn they stick around for a few years and the WAM! some more show up. See the trend? If you replace the word day with an average of the number of years between these areas that evolutionists consider periods of rapid adaptation, in an acurate translation of Old Hebrew genesis, and then replace "God created" in front of with "suddenly evolved" behind the various things God is supposed to have created on specific days, it would not be exactly but would be extremely close to what is taught in Earth Science classes across America. So the argument is not that the earth is only 6000 years old and God created the earth in 6 days vs. we evolved over millions of years. That is completely rediculous. Anyone making the first argument needs some of that Li you mentioned. And the second argument is actually disproved by the gological record that lies under our feet, just as the first one is. The real argument is this: Did This extremely intricate universe get created by random occurance and then new species show up suddenly, systematically, and ever so often by some sort of radical mutation that by every means we have to study today we can't figure out why the mutations were not more harmful than helpful; Or did a supreme being create the universe and work on it over a period of millions of years as he saw fit, adding species when he saw fit, until he thought it was completed and then added a driver (homo sapiens) (kind of like when I build a project hot rod). Some how, I think the latter makes more since, but free speech is being able to tell someone else that there exercise of it bradishes there idiocy. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 15, 2004, 04:32 pm	#248 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	First off, speciation has been observed, as have those "in between" organisms. For example, some sparrow in the southern US. I don't remember details, but its happened. Second, the reason that we don't see those "in between" organism in the fossil record is because when a fossil is found, it is put into a category. Theres enough natural variation WITHIN species, that the line that divides one species from another is kind of fuzzy. Its just the human way of doing things to want to categorize things, and say that some fossil is either this species or that species. It's a human construct, not a lack of fossils of in between species. If we didn't categorize things, we may be able to place fossils along a continuum, which is the truth, but we loose a lot of scientific efficiency if we don't categorize. As for the physics side of things, I think that the concept of 14 billion years is far beyond what we can imagine. I think that a lot of the universe was created by random chance over vast amounts of time, based on the nature of the most fundamental particles. However, these particles, and the laws they opperate by blow my mind. This is why a lot of physicists have some sort of beleif in some devine organizing thing...

Feb 15, 2004, 04:46 pm	#249 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) ...However, these particles, and the laws they opperate by blow my mind. This is why a lot of physicists have some sort of beleif in some devine organizing thing...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yeah doc, and I'm one of them. By the way, the term generally accepted by both sides is "Supreme being", though I am really partial to the term "omnipotent being" Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 15, 2004, 05:24 pm	#250 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,) point 1: Fair enough, until you you look at how organized atoms are. The odds are a number greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches in the world squared:1, or something like that, that something so organized could be a natural occurance. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> As a scientist, if that is the only option left, that it happened through probability, then we must accept that. We base our work on observations directly or indirectly, and until we have evidence of some divine being organising matter in this universe, I have every right to assume this universe came about naturally etc. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 15, 2004, 06:43 pm	#251 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) As a scientist, if that is the only option left, that it happened through probability, then we must accept that. We base our work on observations directly or indirectly, and until we have evidence of some divine being organising matter in this universe, I have every right to assume this universe came about naturally etc. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yessiree, ya sure do. I have every right to consider the odds of all this being a random occurance being completely incalculable with a current system of numbers as evidence of such a being. Put another way, your dealing with almost the number of decimal places in an irrational number times 10:1. Not neccessarily infinity, but not a number that we could not possibly represent without conjuring up some type of new notation, or at least not without using something that is ignored in honers level high school courses. On that note, I do have a proposal, at least for a symbol, but I'm not entirely certain how it would be applied. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 15, 2004, 07:25 pm	#252 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,) Yessiree, ya sure do. I have every right to consider the odds of all this being a random occurance being completely incalculable with a current system of numbers as evidence of such a being. Put another way, your dealing with almost the number of decimal places in an irrational number times 10:1. Not neccessarily infinity, but not a number that we could not possibly represent without conjuring up some type of new notation, or at least not without using something that is ignored in honers level high school courses. On that note, I do have a proposal, at least for a symbol, but I'm not entirely certain how it would be applied.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Last I heard if you want to predict the precisely what happens in the universe you'd need a CPU that can handle 10^70 plus x,y,z variables for position and velocity etc. I think that number is big enough already. One concept I'm willing to accept is that if these "random" occurences didn't happen thus that matter was organised in search a way hence we came to be, then we wouldn't be asking these cosmological questions today. But multiverses are just as unprovable as God so I'll just leave it at that. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 15, 2004, 07:31 pm	#253 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by fogus Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory. This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise. I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem with rapid decay is that it is not a legitamate theory or a view of the nature of the history of the magnetic field because it is only based on recent measurements of the fluctuations in the magnetic field. The 'Creation Science' advocates simply latched onto it because it showed a rapid change. Unfortunately there is not enough direct long term 'direct measurements' that would fit the requirements of the 'Creation Science' advocates to confirm the 'young or old earth' view. But if you correlate these direct measurements with the 'indirect measurements' which the geologists use the data definitely fits the cyclic pattern of changes in the magnetic field over millions of years. How can a few years data concerning the changes in the strength of the electric field be used to draw any conclusions of the long term fate of the electric field? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Quite correct, however the measurements taken on earth do not contradict either theory, over a longer time span we might be able to learn more. However to convince people of the facility of the dynamo theory we would need millions of years of data. I agree with you that several years is not enough, and I never expected that these sorts of things would convince anyone. If there was a way of taking a closer look at the way the magnetic field works, either in a lab this would be much more conclusive. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not sure how a few years data would make geologists uneasy. I am a geologist and a few years data on anything couldn't make me uneasy. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Same as above. I agree. You say a “few” years is 150 years. I don't think that 150 is “few” but I don't think that 150 is enough to come to a definite conclusion through pure observation of the earths magnetic field. However I should like to talk to a geologist about when we can expect the next reversal and when we can expect the field to begin to change its rate of decay, or increase in power. “The first thing that we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength is decaying. Over the past 150 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker.” </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What dating methods show the earth is far younger? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> helium in atmosphere helium in ground build up of c 14 natural plutonium oil leaks oil pressure uranium in sea sodium in sea sediment in sea rotation of spiral galaxies potassium in the sea internal hear of Io titans methane loss peat bog growth oldest living plants earths magnetic field meteor dust decay of comets (Just to name a few) I have been looking for a full list, and I will let you know, first thing, when I get one. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Preconcieved notions? There isn't any evidence for a world flood. Where do you get that much water? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If I told you I believed in a global flood for scientific reasons right now you would think I was wrong before I told you any of the science. This is what I mean when I say preconceived notions, and I assume that Dr. Wile meant that to. Evidences for the global flood http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...faq/geology.asp About the all the water http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...ook/flood12.asp ~Fogus

Feb 16, 2004, 08:06 am	#255 (permalink) (top)
percivale Sedimentary Rock Posts: 17	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,) How can a scientist who knows anything about odds not believe in God?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Because, in an infinite system, any probability, no matter how small, must occur. It's simple, really. percivale <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:purple'>It is better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you are not. ...Andre Gide</span></span>

Feb 16, 2004, 07:46 pm	#256 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by fogus Evidences for the global flood http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...faq/geology.asp About the all the water http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...ook/flood12.asp<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I read one of the articles on the AIG site concerning limestones and the arguement of fast versus slow deposition. They put a lot of emphasis on the Red Wall Limestone in the Grand Canyon, which is only one of hundreds of limestones of the world. Bait and switch. It answers the arguement from Geologists saying that the limestone reefs require millions of years to form with, 'there are not any limestone reefs in the Red Wall Limestone', which is true. But there are many reefs ancient and modern (in the Pacific and Atlantic) far thicker and older than is possible to explain by the young earth theory. I want to see your, AIG's, or any 'Creation Science' advocate answer to these deposits not the Red Wall Limestone in the Grand Canyon. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .