Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that this is not going to be well received by the atheists or evolutionists on this boards, but the challenge of this thread is can Christians Cannot Defend What They Claim.
There is no way that the Christian can explain what they believe to be true to the atheist or evolutionist except in a language they will understand: Science
Many will look at this as me trying to debunk evolution, but how can one speak of creation without creation itself debunking evolution? Obviously both cannot be correct. ( I am speaking here only on the creation or evolution of man, nothing more) Evolution within kind/species does happen.
It there evidence for creation? What can science tell us? Atheists and evolutionist tell us that science points to evolution and only evolution. But can evolution explain everything? If not then is not creation just as viable of answer as evolution? And how can we trust the scientist's explanation of things via evolution if they refuse to look at things outside of their worldview?
Dr. Richard Lewontin, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, states: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that*we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes*to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for*we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons,"*New York Review of Books,*January 9, 1997, p. 28).
A professor of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
So with statement like; it is not the science that compels evolutionist to accept a material explanation but their own worldview to adhere to material causes and even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer they are excluded because they are not naturalistic how are we then expected to believe anything they tell us?
Physicist Mark Singham tell us that our kids, because of the trust they have in their professors, today are effectively being brainwashed into believing in evolution.
Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. states:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.
Henry Gee is a British palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist and the senior editor of Nature, the scientific journal
So the question that begs to be answered is does evolution or creation give the best answer to man. Did man evolve from the primordial mud as evolutionists tell us or is man a creature of an intelligent design/er?
According to evolutionists, natural processes somehow caused ordinary chemicals to come together so as to produce DNA and all the machinery needed to read it and manufacture complex proteins.
So lets look at DNA, does it in fact support evolution from the primordial mud or does it better support creation IE design?
Philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994), states
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components*which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.
Is he correct? Has evolutionist views on the origins of life became an impenetrable barrier to science? If evolutionist will only look and try to explain away their own world view ( as previous quotes have shown)then it most certainly has become an impenetrable barrier to science. And if it is an impenetrable barrier to science how can it be said to be scientific?
Are we really ready to believe that what biochemist and some of the brightest minds in the scientific world cannot do with almost unlimited funding, time and experimentation that the primordial mud stew can?
According to The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome.*Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
The belief in the primordial mud hypothesis seems to be on its last legs.
According to 30 simultaneously published high profile research papers in the field of human genomics, which proclaim that the human genome is a irreducibly complex and intelligently designed the long held belief of evolution from the primordial mud is about to go the way of the dodo.
Because of these research papers evolutionist Eugene Koonin stated
We cannot escape considerable scepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.
Thus we can see that the idea of the genome with its multilayered codes, surveillance and repair systems, and four-dimensional exceptional complexity all somehow developed through random, purposeless processes is completely untenable.
Lets look more fully at what the ENCODE project found.
When the Human Genome Project published its first draft of the human genome in 2003, they already knew (or thought they knew) certain things in advance. These included:
• Coding segments (genes that coded for proteins) were a minor component of the total amount of DNA in each cell. It was embarrassing to find that we have only about as many genes as mice (about 25,000) which constitute only about 3% of the entire genome.
• The non-coding sections (i.e. the remaining 97%) were nearly all of unknown function. Many called it ‘junk DNA’; they thought it was the miscopied and mutation-riddled left-overs abandoned by our ancestors over millions of years. Molecular taxonomists routinely use this ‘junk DNA’ as a ‘molecular clock’—a silent record of mutations that have been undisturbed by natural selection for millions of years because it does not do anything.
• Genes were known to be functional segments of DNA (exons) interspersed with non-functional segments (introns) of unknown purpose. When the gene is copied (transcribed into RNA) and then translated into protein the introns are spliced out and the exons are joined up to produce the functional gene.
• Copying (transcription) of the gene began at a specially marked START position, and ended at a special STOP sign.
• Gene switches (the molecules involved are collectively called*transcription factors) were located on the chromosome adjacent to the START end of the gene.
• Transcription proceeds one way, from the START end to the STOP end.
• Genes were scattered throughout the chromosomes, somewhat like beads on a string, although some areas were gene-rich and others gene-poor.
• DNA is a double helix molecule, somewhat like a coiled zipper. Each strand of the DNA zipper is the complement of the other—as on a clothing zipper, one side has a lump that fits into a cavity on the other strand. Only one side of the DNA ‘zipper’ (called the ‘sense’ strand) makes the correct protein sequence. The complementary strand is called the ‘anti-sense’ strand. The sense strand is like an electrical extension cord where the ‘female’ end is safe to leave open until an appliance is attached, but the protruding ‘male’ end is active and for safety’s sake only works when plugged into a ‘female’ socket. Thus, protein production usually only comes from copying the sense strand, not the anti-sense strand. The anti-sense strand provides a template for copying the sense strand in a way that a photographic negative is used to produce a positive print. Some exceptions to this rule were known (i.e. that in some cases anti-sense strands were used to make protein) but no one expected the whole anti-sense strand to be transcribed.
But what happened to what they knew or thought they knew?
Their whole structure of understanding was turned on its head by studying just 1% of the human genome.
Their findings include the following inferences:
• About 93% of the genome is transcribed (not 3%, as expected). Further study with more wide-ranging methods may raise this figure to 100%. Because much energy and coordination is required for transcription this means that probably the whole genome is used by the cell and there is no such thing as ‘junk DNA’.
• Exons are not gene-specific but are modules that can be joined to many different RNA transcripts. One exon (i.e. one part of one gene) can be used in combination with up to 33 different genes located on 14 different chromosomes. This means that one exon can specify one part shared in common by many different proteins.
• There is no ‘beads on a string’ linear arrangement of genes, but rather an interleaved structure of overlapping segments, with typically 5, 7, 9 or more transcripts coming from the one ‘gene’.
• Not just one strand, but*both*strands (sense and anti-sense) of the DNA are fully transcribed.
• Transcription proceeds not just one way but both backwards and forwards.
• Transcription factors can be tens or hundreds of thousands of base-pairs away from the gene that they control, even on different chromosomes.
• There is not just one START site, but many, in each particular gene region.
• There is not just one transcription triggering (switching) system for each region, but many.
The authors conclude:
These results are so astonishing, so shocking, that it is going to take an awful lot more work to untangle what is really going on in cells.
‘An interleaved genomic organization poses important mechanistic challenges for the cell. One involves the [use of] the same DNA molecules for multiple functions. The overlap of functionally important sequence motifs must be resolved in time and space for this organization to work properly. Another challenge is the need to compartmentalize RNA or mask RNAs that could potentially form long double-stranded regions, to prevent RNA-RNA interactions that could prompt apoptosis [programmed cell death].’
Because of these findings those who have been drawing up evolutionary histories for everything are going to have to undo all the years of junk DNA-based historical reconstructions. Thus the argument that man and chimpanzees shared non-functional DNA coding just got thrown out the window.
Lets look at some more recent details from the ENCODE project.
Before we do lets give in small detail the difference between DNA and RNA to help understand some of these findings.
DNA is a very stable molecule ideal for storing information
RNA is a very active (and unstable) molecule and does lots of work in our cells.
To use the stored information on our DNA, our cells copy the information onto RNA*transcripts*that then do the work as instructed by that information.
• Traditional ‘beads-on-a-string’ type genes do form the basis of the protein-producing code, even though much greater complexity has now been uncovered. Genes found in the ENCODE project differ only about 2% from the existing catalogue of known protein-coding genes.
• We reported previously that the transcripts overlap the gene regions, but the overlaps are*huge*compared to the size of the genes. On average, the transcripts are 10 to 50 times the size of the gene region, overlapping on both sides. And as many as 20% of transcripts range up to*more than 100 times*the size of the gene region.
(This would be like photocopying a page in a book and having to get information from 10, 50 or even 100 other pages in order to use the information on that page.)
• The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far*more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in*five*different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in*seven*different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about*50*times more active than the genes.
(So much for all the hypostasis made from junk DNA)
• Transcription activity can best be predicted by just one factor, the way that the DNA is packaged into chromosomes. The DNA is coiled around protein globules called histones, then coiled again into a rope-like structure, then super-coiled in two stages around scaffold proteins to produce the thick chromosomes that we see under the microscope. This suggests that DNA information normally exists in a form similar to a closed book—all the coiling prevents the coded information from coming into contact with the translation machinery. When the cell wants some information it opens a particular page, ‘photocopies’ the information, then closes the book again.
Asifa Akhtar & Susan M. Gasser, The nuclear envelope and transcriptional control,*Nature Reviews Genetics*8:507–517, 2007 show how this is physically accomplished.
The chromosomes in each cell are stored in the membrane-bound nucleus. The nuclear membrane has about 2000 pores in it, through which molecules can be passed in and out. The required chromosome is brought near to one of these nuclear pores.
• The section of DNA to be transcribed is placed in front of the pore.
• The supercoil is unwound to expose the transcription region.
• The histone coils are twisted so as to expose the required copying site.
• The double-helix of the DNA is unzipped to expose the coded information.
• The DNA is grasped into a loop by the enzymes that do the copying, and this loop is copied onto an RNA transcript. The transcript is then checked for accuracy (and is degraded and recycled if it is faulty). The RNA transcript is then specially tagged for export, and is exported through the pore and carried to wherever it is needed in the cell.
• The ‘book’ of DNA information is then closed by a reversal of the coiling process and movement of the chromosome away from the nuclear pore region.
According to the ENCODE authors the most surprising result is that 95% of the functional transcripts (genic and UTR transcripts with at least one known function) show no sign of selection pressure (i.e. they are not noticeably conserved and are mutating at the average rate).
Because of the findings from ENCODE Darwin's theory that natural selection is the major cause of our evolution is in serious jeopardy as these finding contradict Darwin's theory.
It also looks like cells, not genes, are in control of life which is the direct opposite of what neo-Darwinists have long believed.
So Can a Christian defend what they claim via a scientific explanation? I think we can.
So which is it easier to believe? That man was created by a creator or to believe we somehow evolved from the primordial mud, which scientific study of DNA is now showing to be unsupportable?
Or should we all go with the atheist Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the DNA structure)theory of panspermia.
*In his book*Life Itself,*insists that the probability of life’s chance origin simply defies calculation. Crick says: ‘What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events … . An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle …
So it would seem that because evolution has no way of explaining life other then by a miracle Crick goes to outer space to find his answers in extraterrestrial life who came to earth and left their DNA.
What will come next? first evolution from the primordial mud, then extraterrestrials leaving behind DNA. How much further will people go to try and prove man was not created?
I believe in evolution within kind/species, but the evolution that is taught in the main stream as science or scientific is a Singham stated, nothing more then propaganda to support a belief system that simply cannot be defended by science.
The more we learn about DNA, the more the hypothesis of evolution from primordial mud to man is being shown to be nothing more then a myth designed to undermined creation.
Thus science does support creation far better then it does the hypothesis that man evolved from the primordial mud.
This doesn't sound much at all like your other posts. Is this just a big cut and paste job? If so, from where? Do you even understand all that "you" wrote in the above meandering?
There is a wider net than what is actually named. 'Such as' and 'lawful' are the pointers here. The law decides what was previously illegal (homosexuality) shall become legal and entitled to Rights. The Law has turned against denying equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation.
Equal rights doesn't mean you have the right to access everything and trample on people's 1st amendment rights. All your side has done is muddy up the waters where my side just simply doesn't want to get involved with gay marriage. It has nothing to do with a person's identity and that is what discrimination laws are protecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And the Fundamentalisrts and bigots can't handle it and take refuge in soch piffling arguments such as 'well, the definitions doesn't actuallty mention Gays specifically.." And in fact atheists had little to do with the Gay Cake case and were willing to sit back and let the Law decide. It was actually those with a Doctrinal Dogmatic Hostility towards anything Gay (and Gay marriage was seen as a direct attack on the religious preserve) and it was the religious Fundamentalists (not a jood many of the more Liberal Christians) who 'went Ape' when the people involved went to court about it.
Anytime your side labels us as "bigots" then it just shows that your argument is so flimsy that it must be held together with duck tape and wiring by resorting to labels. Most Christians don't care what people do in their private lives. Just don't bring that immorality into our churches, teach it to our children or force businesses to get involved in it. Yet that's exactly the agenda of the LGBT community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
But what is really happening is that you are playing the "Respect" card (which is merely the thin edge of Blasphemy laws. It says "You should not be allowed to mock at Particular religious beliefs or claims, no matter how ludicrous they are". Unfortunately for you, "Respect" has been shown up for the Fraudulent ploy it is and so you people can only complain loudly about anything we say that you deem insufficiently respectful.
Mockery accomplishes nothing. It may give you some form of self satisfaction to run down Christians, but in the end, you lose. The sad irony is atheist mockery only serves to prove the Bible yet again in Matthew 10:22.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I am sorry to break some bad New Year News to you Jeff, but we are not going to be bullied and browbeaten into being respectful about walking snakes, Talking donkeys of Shekel -swallowing fish, and it is not going to get any better in 2018. But if you can't stomach it Jeff, here's the Good News. The Forum door is not locked.
Do you need a megaphone for your Independence Day speech? The only thing missing there is saying "we will not go quietly into the night". Funny, the only bullying I see here is your camp. We are always put on the defensive here in an incredibly unfair arena. Would love to see how you far on a Christian board with a dozen Christians ripping into your argument at once. At least I stand for the truth and call out the crap when I see it. Can I get an Amen?
Equal rights doesn't mean you have the right to access everything and trample on people's 1st amendment rights. All your side has done is muddy up the waters where my side just simply doesn't want to get involved with gay marriage. It has nothing to do with a person's identity and that is what discrimination laws are protecting.
Then don'y get involved. Quit refusing sevices to Gay people that you provide for others, and then these cases won't happen, you won't lose and you won't look like bigots. You should be thankful as you can jump on that act al righteous and pretend that proves your entire case. Come off Jeff.
Quote:
]Anytime your side labels us as "bigots" then it just shows that your argument is so flimsy that it must be held together with duck tape and wiring by resorting to labels. Most Christians don't care what people do in their private lives. Just don't bring that immorality into our churches, teach it to our children or force businesses to get involved in it. Yet that's exactly the agenda of the LGBT community.
Don't make me laugh, Jeff, You preach about Your 1st Amendment rights, but, then " don't bring that immorality into our churches, teach it to our children or force businesses to get involved in it." is no more than discrimination against a minority, ostensibly on 'moral grounds' (none of your business) but in fact of religious dogmatic grounds -and by no means all of the, Just those like you Jeff, and to 'Bigot' I'm considering adding 'hypocrite'.
Quote:
Mockery accomplishes nothing. It may give you some form of self satisfaction to run down Christians, but in the end, you lose. The sad irony is atheist mockery only serves to prove the Bible yet again in Matthew 10:22.
The day I take seriously someone who said there was a moving star, graves opening and was responsible mora than anyone else for anti Semitism, can object to my mocking tone, but that you refer to that clumsy tale -teller, Matthew as some kinsd of Authoirty deserves nothing but mockery.
Quote:
Do you need a megaphone for your Independence Day speech? The only thing missing there is saying "we will not go quietly into the night". Funny, the only bullying I see here is your camp. We are always put on the defensive here in an incredibly unfair arena. Would love to see how you far on a Christian board with a dozen Christians ripping into your argument at once. At least I stand for the truth and call out the crap when I see it. Can I get an Amen?
You have a nice line in mockery yourself old son. No we will not go quietly anywhere. And the fact that we wining our arguments and you can't get your own way is 'bullying' to you.
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-04-2018 at 04:55 PM..
Reason: Fixed typo in quote tag
All your side has done is muddy up the waters where my side just simply doesn't want to get involved with gay marriage.
Just don't bring that immorality into our churches, teach it to our children or force businesses to get involved in it. Yet that's exactly the agenda of the LGBT community.
We are always put on the defensive here in an incredibly unfair arena. Would love to see how you far on a Christian board with a dozen Christians ripping into your argument at once. At least I stand for the truth and call out the crap when I see it. Can I get an Amen?
See Jeff, this is where I have a problem. 'Your side' calls it immorality - but that is like saying that having red hair is immoral. We have been through all this before.
Equal rights doesn't mean you have the right to access everything and trample on people's 1st amendment rights. All your side has done is muddy up the waters where my side just simply doesn't want to get involved with gay marriage. It has nothing to do with a person's identity and that is what discrimination laws are protecting.
Anytime your side labels us as "bigots" then it just shows that your argument is so flimsy that it must be held together with duck tape and wiring by resorting to labels. Most Christians don't care what people do in their private lives. Just don't bring that immorality into our churches, teach it to our children or force businesses to get involved in it. Yet that's exactly the agenda of the LGBT community.
Mockery accomplishes nothing. It may give you some form of self satisfaction to run down Christians, but in the end, you lose. The sad irony is atheist mockery only serves to prove the Bible yet again in Matthew 10:22.
Do you need a megaphone for your Independence Day speech? The only thing missing there is saying "we will not go quietly into the night". Funny, the only bullying I see here is your camp. We are always put on the defensive here in an incredibly unfair arena. Would love to see how you far on a Christian board with a dozen Christians ripping into your argument at once. At least I stand for the truth and call out the crap when I see it. Can I get an Amen?
Please keep up the good work. With every long post of yours my will is resolved all the more to oppose Christians who speak outside of their own homes and churches and who try to influence government policy. What you are accomplishing on this forum is exactly the opposite of what you think you're accomplishing. Please do continue. You're actually one of the two best spokespeople on this sub-forum for atheism.
The core of Christian belief rests on the claim that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. This claim appears to be ridiculous to the point of being silly. If Christians really have unimpeachable evidence to support such an apparently ridiculous claim then they should be delighted to present it at every opportunity. And if an open examination of the presented evidence causes the "evidence" to fall completely apart, then perhaps it is Christians that should begin giving serious thought to what it is they think they believe.
.
First of all, according to Scripture, God sent the pre-human heavenly Jesus to Earth as a ransom for us.
So, when God resurrected the dead Jesus out of the grave (Acts 2:27,31-32) then Jesus got his pre-human spirit body back.
Jesus' physical body was Not resurrected back to life. Jesus re-gained his heavenly pre-human spirit body.
After God resurrected Jesus, then Jesus appeared in 'different materialized bodies' before ascending to heaven.
So, No, a corpse (Jesus' physical body) definitely did Not come back to life. That is a silly idea Not supported by Scripture.
Please keep up the good work. With every long post of yours my will is resolved all the more to oppose Christians who speak outside of their own homes and churches and who try to influence government policy........
Amen.
If I may take the liberty to say that there were No first-century Christians who tired to influence government policy.
Jesus and his followers were always neutral in political affairs. They did Not take sides even in the issues of the day between the Jews verses the Romans. Genuine ' wheat ' Christians only back Jesus as King of God's kingdom of Daniel 2:44. They like Jesus (Luke 4:43) put their trust in God's kingdom government as the solution to mankind's problems.
I know that this is not going to be well received by the atheists or evolutionists on this boards, but the challenge of this thread is can Christians Cannot Defend What They Claim.
There is no way that the Christian can explain what they believe to be true to the atheist or evolutionist except in a language they will understand: Science
Many will look at this as me trying to debunk evolution, but how can one speak of creation without creation itself debunking evolution? Obviously both cannot be correct. ( I am speaking here only on the creation or evolution of man, nothing more) Evolution within kind/species does happen.
It there evidence for creation? What can science tell us? Atheists and evolutionist tell us that science points to evolution and only evolution. But can evolution explain everything? If not then is not creation just as viable of answer as evolution? And how can we trust the scientist's explanation of things via evolution if they refuse to look at things outside of their worldview?
Dr. Richard Lewontin, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, states: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that*we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes*to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for*we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons,"*New York Review of Books,*January 9, 1997, p. 28).
A professor of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
So with statement like; it is not the science that compels evolutionist to accept a material explanation but their own worldview to adhere to material causes and even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer they are excluded because they are not naturalistic how are we then expected to believe anything they tell us?
Physicist Mark Singham tell us that our kids, because of the trust they have in their professors, today are effectively being brainwashed into believing in evolution.
Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. states:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.
Henry Gee is a British palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist and the senior editor of Nature, the scientific journal
So the question that begs to be answered is does evolution or creation give the best answer to man. Did man evolve from the primordial mud as evolutionists tell us or is man a creature of an intelligent design/er?
According to evolutionists, natural processes somehow caused ordinary chemicals to come together so as to produce DNA and all the machinery needed to read it and manufacture complex proteins.
So lets look at DNA, does it in fact support evolution from the primordial mud or does it better support creation IE design?
Philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994), states
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components*which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.
Is he correct? Has evolutionist views on the origins of life became an impenetrable barrier to science? If evolutionist will only look and try to explain away their own world view ( as previous quotes have shown)then it most certainly has become an impenetrable barrier to science. And if it is an impenetrable barrier to science how can it be said to be scientific?
Are we really ready to believe that what biochemist and some of the brightest minds in the scientific world cannot do with almost unlimited funding, time and experimentation that the primordial mud stew can?
According to The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome.*Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
The belief in the primordial mud hypothesis seems to be on its last legs.
According to 30 simultaneously published high profile research papers in the field of human genomics, which proclaim that the human genome is a irreducibly complex and intelligently designed the long held belief of evolution from the primordial mud is about to go the way of the dodo.
Because of these research papers evolutionist Eugene Koonin stated
We cannot escape considerable scepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.
Thus we can see that the idea of the genome with its multilayered codes, surveillance and repair systems, and four-dimensional exceptional complexity all somehow developed through random, purposeless processes is completely untenable.
Lets look more fully at what the ENCODE project found.
When the Human Genome Project published its first draft of the human genome in 2003, they already knew (or thought they knew) certain things in advance. These included:
• Coding segments (genes that coded for proteins) were a minor component of the total amount of DNA in each cell. It was embarrassing to find that we have only about as many genes as mice (about 25,000) which constitute only about 3% of the entire genome.
• The non-coding sections (i.e. the remaining 97%) were nearly all of unknown function. Many called it ‘junk DNA’; they thought it was the miscopied and mutation-riddled left-overs abandoned by our ancestors over millions of years. Molecular taxonomists routinely use this ‘junk DNA’ as a ‘molecular clock’—a silent record of mutations that have been undisturbed by natural selection for millions of years because it does not do anything.
• Genes were known to be functional segments of DNA (exons) interspersed with non-functional segments (introns) of unknown purpose. When the gene is copied (transcribed into RNA) and then translated into protein the introns are spliced out and the exons are joined up to produce the functional gene.
• Copying (transcription) of the gene began at a specially marked START position, and ended at a special STOP sign.
• Gene switches (the molecules involved are collectively called*transcription factors) were located on the chromosome adjacent to the START end of the gene.
• Transcription proceeds one way, from the START end to the STOP end.
• Genes were scattered throughout the chromosomes, somewhat like beads on a string, although some areas were gene-rich and others gene-poor.
• DNA is a double helix molecule, somewhat like a coiled zipper. Each strand of the DNA zipper is the complement of the other—as on a clothing zipper, one side has a lump that fits into a cavity on the other strand. Only one side of the DNA ‘zipper’ (called the ‘sense’ strand) makes the correct protein sequence. The complementary strand is called the ‘anti-sense’ strand. The sense strand is like an electrical extension cord where the ‘female’ end is safe to leave open until an appliance is attached, but the protruding ‘male’ end is active and for safety’s sake only works when plugged into a ‘female’ socket. Thus, protein production usually only comes from copying the sense strand, not the anti-sense strand. The anti-sense strand provides a template for copying the sense strand in a way that a photographic negative is used to produce a positive print. Some exceptions to this rule were known (i.e. that in some cases anti-sense strands were used to make protein) but no one expected the whole anti-sense strand to be transcribed.
But what happened to what they knew or thought they knew?
Their whole structure of understanding was turned on its head by studying just 1% of the human genome.
Their findings include the following inferences:
• About 93% of the genome is transcribed (not 3%, as expected). Further study with more wide-ranging methods may raise this figure to 100%. Because much energy and coordination is required for transcription this means that probably the whole genome is used by the cell and there is no such thing as ‘junk DNA’.
• Exons are not gene-specific but are modules that can be joined to many different RNA transcripts. One exon (i.e. one part of one gene) can be used in combination with up to 33 different genes located on 14 different chromosomes. This means that one exon can specify one part shared in common by many different proteins.
• There is no ‘beads on a string’ linear arrangement of genes, but rather an interleaved structure of overlapping segments, with typically 5, 7, 9 or more transcripts coming from the one ‘gene’.
• Not just one strand, but*both*strands (sense and anti-sense) of the DNA are fully transcribed.
• Transcription proceeds not just one way but both backwards and forwards.
• Transcription factors can be tens or hundreds of thousands of base-pairs away from the gene that they control, even on different chromosomes.
• There is not just one START site, but many, in each particular gene region.
• There is not just one transcription triggering (switching) system for each region, but many.
The authors conclude:
These results are so astonishing, so shocking, that it is going to take an awful lot more work to untangle what is really going on in cells.
‘An interleaved genomic organization poses important mechanistic challenges for the cell. One involves the [use of] the same DNA molecules for multiple functions. The overlap of functionally important sequence motifs must be resolved in time and space for this organization to work properly. Another challenge is the need to compartmentalize RNA or mask RNAs that could potentially form long double-stranded regions, to prevent RNA-RNA interactions that could prompt apoptosis [programmed cell death].’
Because of these findings those who have been drawing up evolutionary histories for everything are going to have to undo all the years of junk DNA-based historical reconstructions. Thus the argument that man and chimpanzees shared non-functional DNA coding just got thrown out the window.
Lets look at some more recent details from the ENCODE project.
Before we do lets give in small detail the difference between DNA and RNA to help understand some of these findings.
DNA is a very stable molecule ideal for storing information
RNA is a very active (and unstable) molecule and does lots of work in our cells.
To use the stored information on our DNA, our cells copy the information onto RNA*transcripts*that then do the work as instructed by that information.
• Traditional ‘beads-on-a-string’ type genes do form the basis of the protein-producing code, even though much greater complexity has now been uncovered. Genes found in the ENCODE project differ only about 2% from the existing catalogue of known protein-coding genes.
• We reported previously that the transcripts overlap the gene regions, but the overlaps are*huge*compared to the size of the genes. On average, the transcripts are 10 to 50 times the size of the gene region, overlapping on both sides. And as many as 20% of transcripts range up to*more than 100 times*the size of the gene region.
(This would be like photocopying a page in a book and having to get information from 10, 50 or even 100 other pages in order to use the information on that page.)
• The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far*more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in*five*different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in*seven*different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about*50*times more active than the genes.
(So much for all the hypostasis made from junk DNA)
• Transcription activity can best be predicted by just one factor, the way that the DNA is packaged into chromosomes. The DNA is coiled around protein globules called histones, then coiled again into a rope-like structure, then super-coiled in two stages around scaffold proteins to produce the thick chromosomes that we see under the microscope. This suggests that DNA information normally exists in a form similar to a closed book—all the coiling prevents the coded information from coming into contact with the translation machinery. When the cell wants some information it opens a particular page, ‘photocopies’ the information, then closes the book again.
Asifa Akhtar & Susan M. Gasser, The nuclear envelope and transcriptional control,*Nature Reviews Genetics*8:507–517, 2007 show how this is physically accomplished.
The chromosomes in each cell are stored in the membrane-bound nucleus. The nuclear membrane has about 2000 pores in it, through which molecules can be passed in and out. The required chromosome is brought near to one of these nuclear pores.
• The section of DNA to be transcribed is placed in front of the pore.
• The supercoil is unwound to expose the transcription region.
• The histone coils are twisted so as to expose the required copying site.
• The double-helix of the DNA is unzipped to expose the coded information.
• The DNA is grasped into a loop by the enzymes that do the copying, and this loop is copied onto an RNA transcript. The transcript is then checked for accuracy (and is degraded and recycled if it is faulty). The RNA transcript is then specially tagged for export, and is exported through the pore and carried to wherever it is needed in the cell.
• The ‘book’ of DNA information is then closed by a reversal of the coiling process and movement of the chromosome away from the nuclear pore region.
According to the ENCODE authors the most surprising result is that 95% of the functional transcripts (genic and UTR transcripts with at least one known function) show no sign of selection pressure (i.e. they are not noticeably conserved and are mutating at the average rate).
Because of the findings from ENCODE Darwin's theory that natural selection is the major cause of our evolution is in serious jeopardy as these finding contradict Darwin's theory.
It also looks like cells, not genes, are in control of life which is the direct opposite of what neo-Darwinists have long believed.
So Can a Christian defend what they claim via a scientific explanation? I think we can.
So which is it easier to believe? That man was created by a creator or to believe we somehow evolved from the primordial mud, which scientific study of DNA is now showing to be unsupportable?
Or should we all go with the atheist Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the DNA structure)theory of panspermia.
*In his book*Life Itself,*insists that the probability of life’s chance origin simply defies calculation. Crick says: ‘What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events … . An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle …
So it would seem that because evolution has no way of explaining life other then by a miracle Crick goes to outer space to find his answers in extraterrestrial life who came to earth and left their DNA.
What will come next? first evolution from the primordial mud, then extraterrestrials leaving behind DNA. How much further will people go to try and prove man was not created?
I believe in evolution within kind/species, but the evolution that is taught in the main stream as science or scientific is a Singham stated, nothing more then propaganda to support a belief system that simply cannot be defended by science.
The more we learn about DNA, the more the hypothesis of evolution from primordial mud to man is being shown to be nothing more then a myth designed to undermined creation.
Thus science does support creation far better then it does the hypothesis that man evolved from the primordial mud.
Well, mate, you are beaten before you start, because debunking evolution does NOT validate Creation. Creationists only think it does because they believe Creation on Faith and think the argument is 'Creation is the default -theory and unless Evolution can prove it is true, it stands".
That is not the way it works. Without some decent evidence you have to support the faith -claim. And that is not good enough.
That said, what arguments did you provide to debunk evolution. Well I see the distinct evidence of cut and paste from Creationist websites, but that's ok. We all cut and paste, even if it's from the Bible. So first presenting science as somehow biased against Creation because it is not a materialist explanation. This is no more biased that forensic evidence in a murder trial not admitting supernatural explanations. In other words, Creation can only be credited if there is some decent evidence for it, and science is the best (indeed only) method of validating such efforts. Creation has tried, and failed. This means it is debunked as a default explanation and evolution is the only one with supportive evidence - of which there is a great deal. Panspermia, for example is a possible explanation that can't be disproven, but there is no more evidence for it than for Creation.
I'm sorry if you buy that remark of Prof Mark Singham (who, if not being quotemined, must be some kind of anti -evolutionist) that teaching kids in the science -class what in in accordance with the evidence, rather than some religious fairy -tale tale without a shred of scientific support, is Indoctrination, but in a science class, you teach science, not ancient legends.
Henry Gee was that fellow who was taken out of context and that led to a 88 page effort to get a Creationist to accept what he actually said, which was that the popular line from blob to Bob with identifiable 'missing links' (ancestors) along the line is a "Fairy Tale". It is because the reality is less clear cut and missing links show evolutionary trends, not specific ancestors. But the fellow simply refused to listen. Don't make the same mistake.
Then what, Yet again we get avoidance of Evolution (origin of species - not origins of Life) and you argue against the 'evolution' of DNA because of complexity. Sorry, but Biochemicals on a molecular level are complex and on subatomic level work mechanically, which is all that is claimed for DNA. The heavy hints that there is some kind of intelligent computer code in DNA has been exploited to delude people into thinking that this particular Complexity is evidence of a designer. It isn't, and and is no more a code than copper -sulphate molecules operating to produce a crystal requires a computer code.
Complexity and the basis of life -the ability to self -replicate - is all that you need, and, even if Creation could come up with a better explanation than "Poof..Goddunnit" it would still only be just a theory that could indeed be taught as an alternative - But there is no other counter explanation than "Poof...Goddunit" and that does not debunk evolution or validate Creation and does NOT deserve a place in the science -class.
I know - the believers think that if they can just convince people that the natural origin is "Impossible' then Goddunnit will be the default. The argument from complexity is indeed Brainwashing, and moreover, they misrepresent, cheat and lie. Our kids deserve better.
One such cheat is to leap on Crick's supposed statistical impossibility. But as he appears to admit, there is no parameter for calculating how possible it is. So it seems that he is playing the Incredulity card in order to make a case for panspermia. But as the Creationists have observed, that life from outer space has to have come from somewhere. Sure - some other place where it evolved, perhaps. Panspermia really gets us nowhere.
I don't need to go into the lengthy discussion of unexplained puzzles about the Genome. This is unanswered questions about evolution, not any way of debunking it.
So effectively after big hints of a scientific Bias conspiracy, some argument from incredulity and some cheating by quotemining evolutionists to make it look like they doubted that evolution had any evidence, we get the mud puddle struck by lightning canard. Is it any different from being made from a handful of dust struck by divine lightning? But the evidence strongly suggests, doesn't it, that Life evolved in the sea. After all it was all sea -critters through the Pre cambrian and Cambrian until after the sea insects and fish of the Silurian and Devonian we got into land in the Carboniferous period.
Thus must argue against the Genesis account and thus Creation has to have been done in the sea. But why? And why the long development? If it was true, then it ought to have been done on land and in one go, just as Genesis says. The evidence is ALL against that.
Finally you say you accept evolution within species. I ought to ask why you can't accept evolution beyond species, but I already can guess the answer. Because God supposedly created all "Kinds" as they are and Evolution can only change them within 'Kinds" After all Eohippus the size of a dog and with Paws, to the Horse is only "within species" isn't it?
The debunker of that is the Whale and indeed other sea -living mammals - and even those who still have to get onto land, not having solved the birthing problem, just as Plesiosaurs couldn't, back in the Jurassic and the Ichthyosaurs did.
But that aside, the fossil evidence of the cetans back to an amphibious form (with a fossil -supported evolution of the nostril to form a blow -hole) and back to a land creature, with a feature of the skull linking them all, PLUS the evident hand -bones of the front flippers of Cetans and of course the vestigial hind limbs still found in modern whales, debunks the idea that evolution has to stop at where a critter looks so different that you have to give it a new species -name.
"Kinds' even if it made any real sense, is not fixed. It changed in the Miocence cetans, and it changed for many (but not all) other evolutionary lines.
The evidence for evolution of species is compelling.
The Creationist arguments are confined to trying to debunk this, with an objection to "Macro' evolution that is a stupid lie really. That an aircraft can fly across America but not to Japan because of some Divine barrier, that despite clear evidence that it happened is stupid, and the claim of a genetic barrier is a lie (1).
Reverting to the origins of Life, which try to say a natural origin is impossible because they can't get their heads around it (or they say they can't) and I won't rehearse all the accusation and dirty tricks. but just say "where is the scientific evidence for Creation?" you know; so do I: there is none.
Now you still have the Trump card to play, old son "Well I'm not convinced! I still believe Creation is the best answer". You may not play it, but if you do, ok. Denial of the evidence and reverting to Faith. But that doesn't alter the fact that Evolution has won the debate, and Creation has nothing.
(1) specifically the lie that evolution is about interbreeding between species - which they know doesn't happen and can only lead to infertile interbreeds - so they make a big deal of how impossible it is that evolution could work that way. But the lie is that evolution does not work that way and they know it. It is not about interbreeding between species but the 'micro' changes becoming so marked that the critter look really quite different from its' ancestor.
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-05-2018 at 04:25 AM..
Reason: Fixed opening quote tag.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Well I'm not convinced! I still believe Creation is the best answer". You may not play it, but if you do, ok. Denial of the evidence and reverting to Faith. But that doesn't alter the fact that Evolution has won the debate, and Creation has nothing.
