jerryR34

haha...we have a winner...Enoch is constantly positing false dichotomies on evolutonary theory, thought I'd throw one back at him to see what it's like. Nice catch.

========================================================================== Because HE said so. HE could have done it in a Planck Time, but that's not the Issue....it's What HE SAID HE DID. The Difference is What HE said HE did. As mentioned above it speaks to.....Do You Trust HIS WORD or NOT? How do you know? Did He mention Planck Time in Genesis? Did he reveal that measure of time to us or are you making stuff up? You did not answer my question Enoch..Could God not do it instantly or is Genesis allegory?

Humans are not capable of not committing sin. So, what are the criteria for giving yourself to Christ but still sinning? Anyone here who says a gay person should not get into the kingdom needs to cast the first stone – there is but one judge, he was sinless, and he is judging you as well…

Why would it take God 6 days? Couldn't he have snapped his fingers and had it done instantaneously? In the grand scheme of things there is no difference beteween instantly and 6 days? Either God couldn't do it instantly or Genesis is allegory for our benefit.

The number comes from DNA-DNA Hybridization. Human to Human DNA uncoils and separates at a given temperature. DNA from two species can be combined, then when heat is applied they will also separate, but not at the same temperature. Chimp and Human DNA separates at 98% of the temp that human to human DNA separates. As I mentioned a few posts ago, this mothod is now giving way to sequencing, but my point was more about meta data than data. It is absurd to say that we share the same dna just because of temperature separations..... What does the sequencing show? 90+% We share DNA, just not as much, with all organisms. DNA is just a combination of chemicals - and yes, it does not mean we are related.

The number comes from DNA-DNA Hybridization. Human to Human DNA uncoils and separates at a given temperature. DNA from two species can be combined, then when heat is applied they will also separate, but not at the same temperature. Chimp and Human DNA separates at 98% of the temp that human to human DNA separates. As I mentioned a few posts ago, this mothod is now giving way to sequencing, but my point was more about meta data than data.

Thanks for the kind words kwik...I'm glad you saw that as humor (as intended) and not being flippant - I often overestimate my sense-of-humor . So, I'm splitting hairs a little here, but the 98% number comes form DNA-DNA Hybridization. That said, sequencing is becoming the more preferred way of determining the degree of genetic similarity between species. One of the criticisms of DNA-DNA Hybridization is that it overstates the value the more closely related the species are. Notice I was able to talk about the science without disparaging either evolution or creationism. We're losing potential Christians at an unprecedented rate because many are not able to have this discussion without judgement (cough, cough Enoch2021). ============================================================================================================ Never heard of this. See if I'm in the Ballpark.....you probably read some Dick Dawkins book that had this little Insignificant, And Antiquated detail ....(unless you're stuck in the 80's with the Bangles) and then started a Whole Non-Sequitur Topic to somehow reveal an "alleged" Science Acumen?? Sound about right? Do you think that anyone that read your OP and subsequent posts......DIDN'T KNOW THAT or WASN'T FULLY AWARE OF THIS FACT? I'm almost speechless. The Coup De Gras. A "Cherry on Top" Conjured Baseless Assertion. Can you give us some numbers.....we want to see "The Unprecedented RATE" and the "Potential" Christians? Names please? So now you want to equivocate "Judgement" Jerry. Let me put it to you again, this way..... If anyone comes out here with some HALF-BAKED NONSENSE attempting to UNDERMINE THE PLAIN WORD OF GOD you will get stopped in your TRACKS, MOST ASSUREDLY!!!! Are you hearing me Jerry?? You can call it anything you like. Thanks you answered my queries better than you could ever know. thanks.

It's actually much worse than that.... They only have 1/10000000000 of the Board and the darts are Grapefruits. So they just return to the "a priori" adherence to a fairytale train they just got off.... prior to their 13 Century Alchemy tests they perform that they call "science" so as to provide a "Pseudo-Validity Tow the Company Line" smokescreen that they know most assuredly will not be scrutinized by Joe Coffee and Betty Bread-Maker. Rinse Repeat Rinse Repeat IMHO: Ah yes, the Company Line I owe my soul the the Company Line; I loaded 16 tons of # 9 monkey, & the strawboss said, "It's good that your our flunky." Academic freedom & freedom of speech are lacking, at least before tenure. This is such a great post because "flunky' rhymes with "monkey". Silly scientist should be poets, and then everything would make sense and be so much easier...

Thanks for the kind words kwik...I'm glad you saw that as humor (as intended) and not being flippant - I often overestimate my sense-of-humor . So, I'm splitting hairs a little here, but the 98% number comes form DNA-DNA Hybridization. That said, sequencing is becoming the more preferred way of determining the degree of genetic similarity between species. One of the criticisms of DNA-DNA Hybridization is that it overstates the value the more closely related the species are. Notice I was able to talk about the science without disparaging either evolution or creationism. We're losing potential Christians at an unprecedented rate because many are not able to have this discussion without judgement (cough, cough Enoch2021).

So, as this topic was formed from a comment/question I made in another thread, I have another question to further narrow the scope. One can go to almost any fossil rich strata (there are exceptions like folded strata), and view the geologic column - i.e. see more primative organisms lower with them getting more similar to current species as you get to higher strata. One could easily deduce that older fossils were laid down first, so species changed over time. If one did not have any concept of any creation myths, how would this be proof of any God, specifically, how could one infer the Christian God and Christ from this natural information or any natural information if one did not know of them previously. This kind of evidence is what would be needed to prove God scientifically. Anyone have anything? Again, try to come to it from a perspective that you do not know anything about God.

True. I suppose we could also say the same about those who are strict adherents to the teachings of Darwin. By the way, hi. Hi. Yeah, we are all human...

Very interesting OP. It seems to me that if one is married to the idea of a literal Genesis, they should not comment on science as science does not do well with presupposition. As you mentioned (or at least that's my interpretation), it ends up boiling down to faith and supernatural when the tale conflicts with known science/logic. Seems to me, it's not always the "final...attack", but the first response.

For me personally it's COLOSSALLY Self-Evident; however, some may need a little more meat. Well, when you use words like that, and in BOLD even, then it's obvious we don't need scientific evidence.

I was assigned "Nonbeliever" by the admins/mods, and have been chastised by them for commenting on it - I think they assign that and "Seeker". I guess asking hard questions gets one labled, but as I mentioned I don't take the interweb personally. My question elicited the expected responses, although I was really hoping that someone would answer it clinically. It is a simple, observable lab experiment, but any association with evolution brings the Faith vs. Science attitude to the fore. BTW, I do not believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Unicorns, Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, and Sasquatch.

I agree...I was not asking for evidence of anything, just a simple explanation a measurment of chemical bonding...how could that start an argument?

You don't offend me at all, you seem to be a very caring person. Actually, I never get offended by anyting on the web, even when it is directed at me. My little question gave me a lot of insight into a few of the folks here. Science is not about emotion and insult. If that is how one approaches it, they do not get what science is all about. Science is a process to observe natural phenomena, not a philosophy or anti-philosophy. I guess, also, I kind of wanted to confirm the title of this sub-forum..."Faith vs. Science".

I have no issue with you ignoring me. You put out 3-4 paragraphs of pseudo-science interspersed with snarky comments, while I recommend books on the subjects we discuss. Sorry, your prideful, arrogant comments do not add value to me.

A few questions ago, it was "20" questions with "know" [sic] answers...you are quite the story teller. As you have said multiple times...whatever helps you sleep at night. Now, how about a simple answer to the original question. Are you capable?

Sorry, but your snarky comments above drip with pride and arrogance.

Information always helps - thanks. I love science, but it seems difficult to discuss with creationists when something as simple as the question I initially put forward seems to rile them up. My hope was that someone would put forward the laboratory method for coming up with that number without commentary, or put forward the method and separately comment. I was doing my own experiment, and sadly, up to this point, got the results I expected here. You had part of the answer in one of your earlier posts, but it seemed to be lost in a lot of, for lack of a better word right now…snarky comments. Anyway…you always make for interesting reading even those times I couldn’t disagree with you more.

Could you give some names so I can read their work? Thanks Jerry do you have a Computer and Internet Access? GOOGLE the "oft" Ad Hominem'ed sites and look up "Staff" or "About Us". Check their Bio's if needed and off you go... Will do, just thought you could name a couple off the top of your head. You always seem to come out guns-blazing even on the most inocuous questions...AIG here I come...

Could you give some names so I can read their work? Thanks

The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins.[1][2] RNA stores genetic information like DNA, and catalyzes chemical reactions like an enzyme protein. It may, therefore, have played a major step in the evolution of cellular life.[3] The RNA world would have eventually been replaced by the DNA, RNA and protein world of today, likely through an intermediate stage of ribonucleoprotein enzymes such as the ribosome and ribozymes, since proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities would only have come about after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization.[4] DNA is thought to have taken over the role of data storage due to its increased stability, while proteins, through a greater variety of monomers (amino acids), replaced RNA's role in specialized biocatalysis. The RNA world hypothesis is supported by the observation that many of the most critical components of cells (those that evolve the slowest) are composed mostly or entirely of RNA. Also, many critical cofactors (ATP, Acetyl-CoA, NADH, etc.) are either nucleotides or substances clearly related to them. This would mean that the RNA and nucleotide cofactors in modern cells are an evolutionary remnant of an RNA-based enzymatic system that preceded the protein-based one seen in all extant life. ^ Jump up to: a b c Zimmer, Carl (September 12, 2013). "A Far-Flung Possibility for the Origin of Life". New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c Webb, Richard (August 29, 2013). "Primordial broth of life was a dry Martian cup-a-soup". New Scientist. Retrieved September 13, 2013. Jump up ^ This does not necessarily mean that the first life was RNA-based. For example, Thomas Čech proposes that multiple self-replicating molecular systems preceded RNA. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Cech, T.R. (2011). The RNA Worlds in Context. Source: Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0215. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011 Feb 16. pii: cshperspect.a006742v1. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a006742. [Epub ahead of print]

My point? I asked a simple science question. Could have been answered in about 3 words, but since some feel some perceived threat from this science, we get bombastic posts like this: This is only necessary if science threatens your faith.

agree 100%