Enoch2021

The fossilization process.

Everyone keeps getting me confused with Enoob...it's a different spelling!! "Yet, for some reason, coal, diamonds, and dinosaur bones have been shown to contain significant c14 to make their millions year old original belief to be absurd. I'm confused on this stuff too. Did Noah's flood cause this???" Cause the Earth is Young....call me crazy. "I've not embraced all the science thrown at me without some thought or questioning." I've been lied to, either knowingly or unknowingly, by my: Parents, Sunday School Teachers, Priests, Pastors, Grade School/High School/College Professors, Military Commanders, Friends, Extended Family...ect. The Lord bestowed his never ending Grace and Mercy on me and revealed HIS TRUTH to This Wretch. I believe nothing but what the LORD has to say on Matters. If they have initials behind there name, my HogWash Meter goes into Hyperdrive. If it doesn't line up with the WORD then it's as rags to me, Plain and Simple. "I may not agree with what I perceive to be a lack of graciousness" I may have been guilty of that "lack" Once...twice Tops I'm Curt and usually to the point and that rubs people the wrong way. I mean no personal insult whatsoever. But when people come a half-steppin with some 13th Century Alchemy attempting to twist or distort the PLAIN TEACHING in the HOLY BIBLE then we will meet up eventually. I don't know everything and if it's something in the WORD or science that I'm unfamiliar with then I will be still, shut up and listen.....then research it from every conceivable angle till there's not a knub left. If it lines up, I will change my stance....if not well, to the outer darkness it goes. I'm not looking for agreement but Absolute TRUTH...whatever that is, then... so be it. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Praise the LORD!!!

"Are you telling me that all those fossils got there not to mention those in the Ohio valley as a result of a deluge that lasted only a short time? All those sedimentary layers?" yea "The Appalachian mountains are more worn down foremost" "worn down", is that an Industry term? "South America and Africa obviously used to be attached." They're still attached....just remove the water. My Geology isn't that strong and I'd like to forget my Geography Acumen but the "Obvious" attachment is not so obvious to me. "I'm just puzzled by all the extinct life forms in the fossils." Worldwide Flood?.......Maybe?

"Well, I'm not an authority on dating. I went on a couple in high school." Too funny. "Maybe fewer ocean life fossils in the mountains indicating that it was once a seabed." That's a Pre-Supposition. Didn't GOD say that all the Mountains were covered by a pretty good depth during the Flood? "Maybe less contrast between the Rockies and the Appalachians." Not Following "Maybe S. America and Africa would be closer." Why? "Maybe shorter stalactites and stalagmites?" Do we know that the rate of deposition has always been constant or are we assuming again. "Fewer light years between us and distant stars." I've heard some whispers that that may not be as much as a constant as we would believe. It's outside the realm of Empirical/Operational Science like a majority of "so-called" science today. I am not making any claims with it. "Perhaps fewer extinct forms of life." Not following

Hey Grey Wolf, That begs the question, what would a Young Universe look like? And I agree 100% with Shiloh...it's a backdoor attempt to question the Authority of the WORD of GOD and weasel evolution into the mix. To justify it, they wheel out Radiometric Dating....13th Century Alchemy has more going for it. Also, I went searching where this 4.5 Billion Years came from..... The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al. Patterson, C., Tilton, G. and Inghram, M., Science 121:69, 1955. The 4.5 Billion Year Estimate relies heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods. They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation. These values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites. Big sample size, eh? Moreover, later... it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al were found not to be representative of the majority of meteorites.-----Faul, H., Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 75, 1966 THEN, in 1972, Gale et al dropped a LEAD "Isotope" ANVIL on all of the 13th Century Alchemy...... “ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established. “This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition. “It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.” Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972 Appears nobody got Gale et al memo. Moreover.... Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand erupted from 13 May 1954 to 10 March 1955. In 1996, Rock samples were collected and sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the Lab. The Potassium Argon date for the 30 June 1954 flow was 3.5 Million years old!! The rocks were 42 years old!!!!!!!!!!!! Snelling, AA., The cause of anomalous potassium-argon 'ages' for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and inmplications for potassium-argon 'dating', In: Walsh, R.E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 503–525, 1998 Look @ that, My Home Town "No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years. A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years. Question: Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years? Lucy has some splainin to do!

Hello sir, Sorry 1st post in a couple days....have a really sick child. Praise the LORD...it's not just me Of course GOD foreknew the tactics and this verse puts an end to it. It's really quite troubling to see people trying to circumvent or render the WORD of GOD of Null Effect by comparing the Current (Man-Made) Taxonomic Classification System, which changes like the weather, to somehow indict "Kinds". I was on a thread not long ago on another site and a number of posters were ridiculing the WORD because Moses "Mis-Classified" Bats!!! I was dumbfounded by the lack of any remote resemblance of basic critical thinking skills. Looking forward to what GOD has revealed to you on your Journey and may he continue to Bless You. Praise The LORD!!

Nope. Someone really should email them. For Both of you .... Consensus doesn't = Truth and..... Before you send them the memo, can you have them check their Integrity/Career Goals and World View @ the door. Any comments on Dr. Werner's work? Thanks

Evolution was dead long before Dr. Werner came along. Notwithstanding, I've reviewed his material many times... it's quite illuminating. Thanks

Hey wincam, I've listened to numerous people (including some "Big Guns") debate this topic in both print and video numerous times over the past few years. And I'm not trying to take credit for this.... but I have never seen anyone (besides me) make this connection and I posted it on a number of threads: "Kinds": (1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." I PERSONALLY THINK that this is a Slam Dunk and IMHO, GOD knew the exact tactics they were going to employ to ever fudge/blur the lines to validate their story 'evolution". There is no fudging or blurring the lines with this Scripture and is a DIRECT Refutation of darwinian evolution. If you got this connection from another source then disregard

No apologies necessary....and I agree about fuzziness and lack of attention to detail. The only way to directly refute my assertion is to SHOW ONE, "Crystal Clear" ,..... DNA/RNA/Functional Protein Polymerize "Naturally". Just for the record Well not at all. As I mentioned in the other thread, an event being highly unlikely, extremely unlikely even (if that is what this is, I am not sure), does not mean it violates the second the law of thermodynamics. That is why I am thinking the discussion shouldn't include the second law of thermodynamics at all. i suspect it's just distracting from the larger argument you want to make about the extreme unlikelihood of a certain chain of chemical reactions. I just replied to this on the 2LOT thread. 2LOT is just one of 4-5 Mount Everest Summits to overcome and it's not distracting...it's fundamental.

Quote mining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html I'm not interested in whatever laundry list of quotes you dredge up from creationist websites. They are all quote mined which is extremely dishonest. I did not call you lazy, I said even the laziest of searches would lead to the information you "requested". Nor did I say you were dishonest or a false witness...I said quote mining is dishonest and false witness. I believe you just never bothered to verify the veracity or context of those statements which is a very bad thing but certainly not anything malicious on your part. If you scroll up and read where I posted your "quote" from Franklin Harold, the entire quote in context means something totally different. Here are some quote mines from you: "...these scholars are quacks..." "...I'm uneducated, lazy and a fraud..." "...my claims are unwarranted and baseless..." "...I'm lazy..." You DID write those words...would you be happy with me citing that to others? Did I present them in an honest way that represents what you were saying? That is what quote mining is and why it is false witness and so dishonest. Don't do it anymore, and start doing your research before you repeat something you read on AiG or some other such website. Claiming everything is a kind and shrugging when asked to provide a specific example is not very impressive. If you don't have any idea what a "kind" is than you shouldn't be making clams that something is or is not staying it's "own kind". You cannot have it both ways. Speciation is when an organism is not longer able to breed with it's ancestor...i.e. "turning into another creature". "Macro" evolution is merely the compounded effects of "micro" evolution and are not separate processes. While it is true that many evolutionary scientists use the term, I dislike the way they have been distorted by creationists and therefore avoid using those words when talking in a non-scientific context. Your claims about "evolutionists" trying to disprove God ARE unwarranted and baseless because I can disprove them in two seconds...I am a Christian. So are many other people in my field which you would also know if you bothered to do your research. When you constantly misunderstand speciation, atomic theory and the simplest aspects of biology it is reasonable to conclude you don't know what you're talking about. If you respond to me with more mined quotes I will not answer you, you will have to do your own thinking. "I'm not interested in whatever laundry list of quotes you dredge up from creationist websites." You're guessing again. Yes, I figured that. Sort of like an all encompassing ad hominem. Look up Graham's Hierarchy of Argument Techniques and see where ad hominem attacks fall. "They are all quote mined which is extremely dishonest." A Generalized Baseless Unsupported Assertion used as a vehicle to summarily dismiss, eh? Never seen that before. Can you specifically exactly point to one valid example? Are they Just like the Professor Harold Quote? "I did not call you lazy, I said even the laziest of searches would lead to the information you "requested". Nor did I say you were dishonest or a false witness" C'mon "I believe you just never bothered to verify the veracity or context of those statements" You're guessing again. "read where I posted your "quote" from Franklin Harold, the entire quote in context means something totally different." It does not and nothing of the sort and I even pulled the specifics out for you to identify. You obviously didn't read it because it's crystal clear. "Here are some quote mines from you: "...these scholars are quacks..." "...I'm uneducated, lazy and a fraud..." "...my claims are unwarranted and baseless..." "...I'm lazy..." You DID write those words...would you be happy with me citing that to others? You can't be serious. This is really not worth commenting on.... it's a Clumsy Equivocation. "Claiming everything is a kind" Who in the world is doing that? It's another Generalized Baseless Assertion...to then, summarily dismiss all inquiries. "Don't do it anymore" You moved up from baseless conjectures to unsolicited advice? Thanks, you'll forgive me if I just move on. "Speciation is when an organism is not longer able to breed with it's ancestor...i.e. "turning into another creature"." Speciation is just Genetic Variation within KIND--- (Man, Beasts, Birds, Fishes) or a change in Allele Frequency. How in the world are you going to get another creature...New Organs/Organisms without the Information to do so"?? Mutations??----that's "Macro", and you surely aren't getting there with that scenario either. Speciation or "Micro" is, again: 1. "Micro"-evolution/ Change in Allele Frequency: Biblical "KIND" Natural Selection + Genetic Variation = Biblical "Kind", This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS! "Macro" evolution is merely the compounded effects of "micro" evolution and are not separate processes." It is when you superficially look @ just the Terms; However, looking @ the tenets of each with just the slightest of scrutiny, reveals a much different story. Why would you have a World Conference comparing and contrasting "Micro" and "Macro" if they were both the same process? It's incoherent and lacks even the slightest attention to detail to even postulate. The "Micro" and "Macro" equivocation, it's like saying; (2 + 2 =4) is the same as (2 + 16 = 4) if you add Millions/billions of years: 2. This Equation is an Epic Fairytale with NO PROOF (ZERO)..... "Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout".... Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years = darwinian evolution "I dislike the way they have been distorted by creationists" Another Generalized Baseless Unsupported Conjecture. I thought you said Creationists made the terms up? Clearly from the Chicago Conference, this is not the case and their conclusion was also very telling. "Your claims about "evolutionists" trying to disprove God ARE unwarranted and baseless" I think you meant to say: "your SUPPORTED and CITED Claims about evolutionists...", right? "I am a Christian" So this is your Supporting Evidence to directly refute that "evolutionists" are trying to disprove God"?? You wouldn't be Pre-Law by chance? "I am a Christian. So are many other people in my field" Consensus or Numbers don't = TRUTH. What is the Threshold number where something reaches credulity?...or does it vary with subject or concept? "When you constantly misunderstand speciation" Clearly it is YOU who doesn't understand the TERM or process as I have clearly demonstrated. See Above. "If you respond to me with more mined quotes I will not answer you, you will have to do your own thinking." This is the coup de gras. And it's quite shocking that I would even need to post this. We're talking about SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES here not what our favorite colors are or our OPINIONS concerning the game last night. To establish our postulates, we SUPPORT THEM with CITED REFERENCES so as to be able to defend them against logical and academic scrutiny. It's purpose is to limit Conjecture filled Baseless Assertion Parades in an attempt to systematically establish TRUTH. By the mere fact that I would have to explain this, speaks VOLUMES. It doesn't matter what WE THINK it is or our BEST GUESS....it's what you can PROVE! Your BASELESS "Quote Mine Assertion" is a feeble attempt to undermine that process.... Andrew Snelling PhD Geology Evolutionists have often protested ‘unfair’ to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point , and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution. Andrew Snelling PhD; The Revised Quote Book 1990 You also side-stepped a number of issues I brought up in the last reply, roughly: The Definitions of evolution, Direct refutations by the SME's regarding the Medical Field and...... Did man "evolve" from chimps/apes or did GOD make Adam fully formed? Did organisms (single/multicellular) live and die before Adam?

Highly unlikely since you don't even know what a subatomic particle is. No you just didn't know the difference, because if you had you would not have made such an error. The fact that you casually lump all these things together shows me that you are skimming Wikipedia and Google for words to sound scientific. I take science and education very seriously and if you misrepresent your knowledge of physics or biology, I will leap on your errors like a hungry tiger on a steak. Even the very laziest of searches has all the information on this at your finger tips. It took me exactly three seconds to look up evolution + practical applications to find detailed lists and real world applications. We use evolutionary theory at my main job to track viruses and bacterial development, in order to predict needed cures and treatments for pharmaceutical companies. Re-stating your "kinds" belief doesn't make it more true, and as I said previously the term means nothing to biologists. Secondly "evolutionists" are not some hive mind working for some unified cause. Thirdly, evolution is not working towards some goal...sometimes things get more complex and sometimes less. Once again "evolutionists" are not some hive mind working together for a common goal. Scientists come from hundreds of unique cultural and religious backgrounds all over the world. What does Jefferson have to do with this discussion? I can't even see how this is an apt or well constructed metaphor. There is one definition of evolution whether you like it or not and trying to invent others that you can more easily attack won't do anything except denigrate yourself. You also talk about changes in science as if that was a bad thing. It's called changing opinions and views based on new and better data, something good scientist do. Micro/macro are creationists terms that mean nothing to me or any reputable biologist, no more than "kind" does. I gave you not one but two examples of speciation and you chose to ignore them, so I'm not going to waste time trying to find more. It has been observed, sometimes in less than 50 years regardless of your ability to look them up. You also didn't answer my question...what is a "kind"? I want to know an example of a "kind" of animal, not a re-statement of what you think a kind means. The world is full of quacks, science is not immune. None of these people have published any data or research to support their views. Lol speciation is a major component of what evolution is. At least use Google to look up what things mean man. Peppered moths are an example of natural selection. Here is the quote in context: Why do so many young earth creationists engage in extensive quote mining? It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness. And it IS false witness because in order to mine the quote you have to read everything in context first. Is their position so bad they have to engage in this dishonesty? I also resent you claiming "evolutionists" are trying to deny God. I am a lifelong Christian as are several of my colleagues, having got into our fields because we want to ease suffering via medical research. The head of the human genome project is an evangelical Christian, Francis Collins. The idea that we are trying to disprove God is wrongheaded and laughable. "Highly unlikely since you don't even know what a subatomic particle is." You better hold on to this...you'll need it. "No you just didn't know the difference, because if you had you would not have made such an error. The fact that you casually lump all these things together shows me that you are skimming Wikipedia and Google for words to sound scientific." What in the World? Coming to conclusions based on very limited data and intuition (Guesses)? Do you just make stuff up, convince yourself it's true, then try to intimidate and demean anyone in your path? "I take science and education very seriously and if you misrepresent your knowledge of physics or biology, I will leap on your errors like a hungry tiger on a steak." Very heart felt....it literally jumps of the page. "Even the very laziest of searches has all the information on this at your finger tips" Now I'm Lazy too? "evolutionary theory at my main job to track viruses and bacterial development" That's very interesting and a noble job; however, the evolutionary theory part contradicts what these fine gentleman have to say on the issue.... 'In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.' Marc Kirschner, Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School; The Boston Globe October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 Examining the major advances in biological knowledge, one fails to find any real connection between biological history and the experimental designs that have produced today's cornucopia of knowledge of how the great variety of living organisms perform their functions. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science. Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009 The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science. Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory. Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009 "Re-stating your "kinds" belief doesn't make it more true" Well it's not mine....it comes from THE WORD OF GOD. However, GOD doesn't state technically what "KINDS" mean; so, an inference is made comparing Scripture with Scripture.... NOT comparing Scripture with the MAN"S Taxonomic Classification. Having said that, a child can clearly see comparing "Kinds" with the Corinthians Passage... then with Family Groups that it's roughly BALLPARK. "I can't even see how this is an apt or well constructed metaphor." Overall It wasn't a metaphor it was an Analogy... creating a New Standard (Taxonomic Classification) then judging the efficacy and validity of the Old Standard ("Kinds") based on the tenets of the New Standard. Better? "There is one definition of evolution whether you like it or not" ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. ‘The interpretation of evolution is in a state of upheaval: the rapid advancement of Molecular Biology has led into question many of the tenets of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism which, although valuable approaches at the time they were formulated, never fulfilled the criteria demanded by real scientific theories… In the author’s opinion, no real theory of evolution can be formulated at present.’ From the publisher’s advertising of a evolutionary book, Evolution Without Selection, by A. Lima-de Faria, Elsevier Science publishing Co. Inc., New York (NY) USA, 1988 372 pages. Wiki: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It then says: All Life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approx 3.8 billion years ago. Looks like changing "KINDS" to me. Dictionary.com: a Scientific Theory of the Origin of species of plants and animals. Free Dictionary: A theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by Natural Selection. Oxford Concise Science Dictionary: evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." Just One Definition, eh? "trying to invent others that you can more easily attack won't do anything except denigrate yourself." So I'm Uneducated, Lazy and a Fraud. You Accuse me of "skimming wiki and google for scientific sounding words" and now SOMEHOW not only distilling my intent but qualifying it as malicious? Seriously? No Unbridled Conjecture for you I see. Have you read this Site's TOS? "You also talk about changes in science as if that was a bad thing." No, I was talking about changes to "Just So" Stories in a never ending molding to fit a World View Driven Paradigm...to be more precise. "Micro/macro are creationists terms" Really..... Chicago Field Museum of Natural History conference on 'Macroevolution': "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." Roger Lewin, Science(Vol.201(4472):883-887,1980.) So evolutionists have a World Conference on terms Creationists made up? Interesting. *Note the last sentence/conclusion. "The world is full of quacks, science is not immune." Are you saying these Scholars are "quacks?" Based on....? "None of these people have published any data or research to support their views." Are you absolutely sure? If so, does that bring their expertise and knowledge into question? "Lol speciation is what evolution is" If only Speciation is evolution....then I'd be an evolutionist. I think you may have a problem with what the theory of evolution actually is; See: Chicago Conference (Micro/Macro), Kerkut, Wiki, Oxford Concise Science Dictionary, and a myriad of other definitions. "Peppered moths are an example of natural selection." Profound. "Why do so many young earth creationists engage in extensive quote mining" Now I'm a Quote Miner?...add that to the list. Is that where we "Young Earth Creationists" take quotes out of context? See below "It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness." Now a false witness!! Can you tell me please where that quote is out of context, PLEASE? The whole preface to the quote is PURE CONJECTURE, with the QUOTE.... A STATED FACT! Please REREAD IT...."On this Premise one can construct schemes", "We have no better alternative", "modicum of doubt necessarily persists". Does this speculation somehow invalidate or render the actual quote of null effect?? So you're telling me that YOU read the entire context then posted this as PROOF of some Impropriety? Is that tiger roar getting close to a faint meow from a stray kitten @ this point? "I also resent you claiming "evolutionists" are trying to deny God." So my claim is unwarranted and baseless? ..... Michael Ruse PhD (noted evolutionist), Philosophy of Biology Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000 Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity. Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003, p.1524 Cornelius Hunter, PhD BioPhysics Evolution is an organizing idea that inherently relies on ultimate truth claims -- claims that are outside of science. Evolution draws on several scientific disciplines, but evolution itself is not scientific. This it is not a matter of finding a better scientific explanation before evolution is dropped from science; rather, it is a matter of understanding the boundaries of science. When assumptions about God are made before the science begins, the result is not science, no matter how much science follows. Cornelius Hunter PhD BioPhysics, Darwin's God (2001) p.158 Julian Huxley PhD Professor of Zoology Eugenics, Dean Inge writes in one of his essays, is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race; one of the supreme religious duties. In this I entirely agree with him. Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion. Julian Huxley; Man Stands Alone, 1941, p.34 Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini PhD Physics and Professor Cognitive Science University of Arizona Some months ago an American philosopher explained to a highly sophisticated audience in Britain what, in his opinion, was wrong, indeed fatally wrong, with the standard neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution. He made it crystal clear that his criticism was not inspired by creationism, intelligent design or any remotely religious motivation. A senior gentleman in the audience erupted, in indignation: ‘You should not say such things, you should not write such things! The creationists will treasure them and use them against science.’ The lecturer politely asked: ‘Even if they are true?’ To which the instant and vibrant retort was: ‘Especially if they are true!’ with emphasis on the ‘especially’. This stunning exchange exemplifies the religious fervour with which some scholars and laypersons adhere to the Darwinian doctrine. It’s a secular religion, for sure, an atheistic banner under which the white knights of scientific rationality rally in their fight against the forces of darkness. There are countless manifestations of this unwholesome religious Darwinian fervour, more than can be listed here. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini PhD, March 2010 "I am a lifelong Christian as are several of my colleagues" Did man "evolve" from chimps/apes or did GOD make Adam fully formed? Did organisms (single/multicellular) live and die before Adam?

No apologies necessary....and I agree about fuzziness and lack of attention to detail. The only way to directly refute my assertion is to SHOW ONE, "Crystal Clear" ,..... DNA/RNA/Functional Protein Polymerize "Naturally". Just for the record

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise. Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now. "Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise." Irrelevant?? We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) . Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant? "Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now." There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors). Lets try it this way... In this sentence: I Love Ice Cream. Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation: I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled? Even if it's 'bad' genetic material, the fact that mutations, transcription errors, viruses, etc, can proliferate it is all that is needed to start to model how the statistics of genetic material in the population might start to change, and that is fundamentally what evolution is about. Sir, It's not only that deleterious Mutations (your "bad" genetic material) overwhelm the miniscule "Beneficial" Mutations by orders of magnitude; the INFORMATION decreases and is degenerate; thus, the name MUTATIONS. It appears the evolution train is humming; unfortunately (for evolutionists), it's heading the wrong direction. May I quote (sorry, not your favorite) ..... 'This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-darwinian theory. The bottom line is that darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') The ones that cause horrible mutations aren't able to compete and disappear in the population. The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate. "The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate." '....4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' (Emphasis Mine) John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') I can't see why that would necessarily follow. I can see why this might be so in many cases, but if you have an isolated new introduction of novel genetic material, through whatever mechanism, why would it be necessarily the case that that is always linked with a 'bad' causing gene? And even if that is so, perhaps the good one is good enough to proliferate anyway, and later become independent, etc. I'm no Geneticist but I think I have somewhat of an understanding why and it goes back to the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained concept discussed earlier. From my understanding... to keep it simple, You have the Protein Coding Regions but the majority of DNA consists of the Instructions (Meta Information). Sort of like making a cake you have 2 parts: The list of Ingredients, and the Instructions. You need corresponding Mutations of each @ the same time.... which is preposterous. Just like the Hox Family and the Fruit Fly's et al.....they get legs/antenna/wings coming out of their foreheads, eye-sockets ect but all were non-functioning....no corresponding Mutation of the META INFORMATION (Instructions). "new introduction of novel genetic material," ahh, are you referring to Conjugation (there are a couple other mechanisms) in Bacteria...where genes are transferred? Bear in mind, this is still Genetic Variation within Kind or the shuffling of Pre-existing Information @ the end of the day. How so? Simply, there are No changes to the BACTERIA BioSphere. In other words, no bacteria is gonna grow a pair of Flippers even by mutation (spelling errors)....it's not apart of the menu. Also Remember....the META INFORMATION (Instructions) would also need an EXACT MUTATION to compliment or else....you're gonna have yourself a football bat. Sickle Cell Anemia is probably the most studied and is pushed as a "Beneficial" Mutation. It's what I would call a "Conditional Beneficial" Mutation (This is just a term I made up This is a classic Loss of Information scenario....because they lost the ability to make normal functioning hemoglobin. Sure, it helps with protecting against Malaria; however, they just raised their risk 1000 fold of: Stroke, ACS, Pulmonary Hypertension, Organ Damage....Kidneys, Liver, Spleen. Blindness, Skin Ulcers, and a number of other ailments. This particular Mutation is very Interesting in that you would think the Immune System would be the target to combat this.... but it happened in Hemoglobin. IMHO, this smacks of a "ALL Hands On Deck" @ whatever the cost scenario....just thinking out loud. Wanted to keep this somewhat short...not feeling like a detailed mechanistic look this morning If you can have maladaption arising from mutations, transcription errors, ERVs and all that, then it stands to reason you could have, at least in principle, adaptive changes. The Hox genes I think are actually a good example of this. A minor alteration causes a large change in morphology. If anything that shows me just how evolution works, how genetic changes, even just one, can cause differences that count. "The Hox genes I think are actually a good example of this." Mutations are a nightmare scenario as evidenced with the Hox Family specifically and in general. "A minor alteration causes a large change in morphology." Dude they had legs growing out of their eyes!! Also in support of Dr. Sanford's Postulate of Mutations with Natural Selection and Degeneration is this..... 'The authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage.' Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007 This also echoes in Scripture as the "Bondage Of Decay" and a reference to our favorite subject 2LOT Don't know if mentioned this to you before, and I can't prove this.... just an inference, a speculation if I may, is the Evening (Erev in Hebrew) and Morning (Boker in Hebrew) in Genesis may speak to reductions in Entropy. Why?: 1. An Evening and a Morning is not 24 hours 2. There is no evening and morning on the 7th day...what was GOD doing the first 6 days but not on the 7th....decreasing Entropy!! 3. Could these words have come to mean evening and morning but had different meanings in the beginning...that's off the reservation but can't Rule it out. I think after the Fall, 2LOT was firmly established as a constant...."Bondage of Decay". Just thinking out loud again Yeah, most mutations don't work out well. But, the fact that they can translate fairly quickly into large scale morphological changes is a good indication that evolution could run. There isn't some categorical difference between 'good' and 'bad' changes to genetic material is why, that's purely contextual. Some changes may help an organism survive and spread that same genetic material, others don't. It turns out, most won't. But if you get some that won't, and you have a very large population, and lots of time, then it's not really a stretch to think there could be some changes that end up being beneficial in that specific manner in some sense. I think it would be helpful to translate 'entropy' into something tangible and specific here. It's a statistic of a system, like temperature or pressure. The same reason that there can be local decreases of entropy is the same reason a system could resist thermal equilibrium, the pressure could increase, or anything else like that, if there is something else influencing the system physically. I think God could do this, of course, but I don't know if I'd think about it as "God is keeping entropy low" so much as think about it primarily in terms of the physical processes that God is influencing, and how, which result in that. Yes well I categorically disagree with your whole first paragraph LOL shocker!! "I think it would be helpful to translate 'entropy' into something tangible" Here's my thoughts on it: Entropy is measure of disorder. IMHO, 2LOT is not something you discover after 300 years with a scientific calculator in your attic with a nasty case of Rickets and really bad coffee breath. It's what we observe and are exposed to all the days of this life...it's all over us, we see it and experience it everyday.

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise. Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now. "Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise." Irrelevant?? We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) . Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant? "Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now." There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors). Lets try it this way... In this sentence: I Love Ice Cream. Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation: I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled? Even if it's 'bad' genetic material, the fact that mutations, transcription errors, viruses, etc, can proliferate it is all that is needed to start to model how the statistics of genetic material in the population might start to change, and that is fundamentally what evolution is about. Sir, It's not only that deleterious Mutations (your "bad" genetic material) overwhelm the miniscule "Beneficial" Mutations by orders of magnitude; the INFORMATION decreases and is degenerate; thus, the name MUTATIONS. It appears the evolution train is humming; unfortunately (for evolutionists), it's heading the wrong direction. May I quote (sorry, not your favorite) ..... 'This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-darwinian theory. The bottom line is that darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') The ones that cause horrible mutations aren't able to compete and disappear in the population. The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate. "The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate." '....4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' (Emphasis Mine) John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') I can't see why that would necessarily follow. I can see why this might be so in many cases, but if you have an isolated new introduction of novel genetic material, through whatever mechanism, why would it be necessarily the case that that is always linked with a 'bad' causing gene? And even if that is so, perhaps the good one is good enough to proliferate anyway, and later become independent, etc. I'm no Geneticist but I think I have somewhat of an understanding why and it goes back to the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained concept discussed earlier. From my understanding... to keep it simple, You have the Protein Coding Regions but the majority of DNA consists of the Instructions (Meta Information). Sort of like making a cake you have 2 parts: The list of Ingredients, and the Instructions. You need corresponding Mutations of each @ the same time.... which is preposterous. Just like the Hox Family and the Fruit Fly's et al.....they get legs/antenna/wings coming out of their foreheads, eye-sockets ect but all were non-functioning....no corresponding Mutation of the META INFORMATION (Instructions). "new introduction of novel genetic material," ahh, are you referring to Conjugation (there are a couple other mechanisms) in Bacteria...where genes are transferred? Bear in mind, this is still Genetic Variation within Kind or the shuffling of Pre-existing Information @ the end of the day. How so? Simply, there are No changes to the BACTERIA BioSphere. In other words, no bacteria is gonna grow a pair of Flippers even by mutation (spelling errors)....it's not apart of the menu. Also Remember....the META INFORMATION (Instructions) would also need an EXACT MUTATION to compliment or else....you're gonna have yourself a football bat. Sickle Cell Anemia is probably the most studied and is pushed as a "Beneficial" Mutation. It's what I would call a "Conditional Beneficial" Mutation (This is just a term I made up This is a classic Loss of Information scenario....because they lost the ability to make normal functioning hemoglobin. Sure, it helps with protecting against Malaria; however, they just raised their risk 1000 fold of: Stroke, ACS, Pulmonary Hypertension, Organ Damage....Kidneys, Liver, Spleen. Blindness, Skin Ulcers, and a number of other ailments. This particular Mutation is very Interesting in that you would think the Immune System would be the target to combat this.... but it happened in Hemoglobin. IMHO, this smacks of a "ALL Hands On Deck" @ whatever the cost scenario....just thinking out loud. Wanted to keep this somewhat short...not feeling like a detailed mechanistic look this morning If you can have maladaption arising from mutations, transcription errors, ERVs and all that, then it stands to reason you could have, at least in principle, adaptive changes. The Hox genes I think are actually a good example of this. A minor alteration causes a large change in morphology. If anything that shows me just how evolution works, how genetic changes, even just one, can cause differences that count. "The Hox genes I think are actually a good example of this." Mutations are a nightmare scenario as evidenced with the Hox Family specifically and in general. "A minor alteration causes a large change in morphology." Dude they had legs growing out of their eyes!! Also in support of Dr. Sanford's Postulate of Mutations with Natural Selection and Degeneration is this..... 'The authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage.' Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007 This also echoes in Scripture as the "Bondage Of Decay" and a reference to our favorite subject 2LOT Don't know if mentioned this to you before, and I can't prove this.... just an inference, a speculation if I may, is the Evening (Erev in Hebrew) and Morning (Boker in Hebrew) in Genesis may speak to reductions in Entropy. Why?: 1. An Evening and a Morning is not 24 hours 2. There is no evening and morning on the 7th day...what was GOD doing the first 6 days but not on the 7th....decreasing Entropy!! 3. Could these words have come to mean evening and morning but had different meanings in the beginning...that's off the reservation but can't Rule it out. I think after the Fall, 2LOT was firmly established as a constant...."Bondage of Decay". Just thinking out loud again

Um...I don't know how to put it any simpler? You lack even basic knowledge of the aforementioned subjects. I didn't "fail" to mention them...The nucleus and proton ARE sub-atomic particles. See my answer to the above question. (I put a wide number of fields under these heading for sake of brevity) - Medical research - Wildlife farming and management - Statistics - Engineering Since you already deny the reality of evolution, you certainly will not accept any of the predictions based on it. If you have even a high school level of understanding on the subject you would know the answer to this. Over time organisms will change according to environmental pressures. There is no such thing as a "kind" and the word has no meaning whatsoever in biology. Creationists use this word because evolution on smaller scales have been documented and can no longer be denied. Creationists therefore decided to claim animals can change as long as they don't go past some undefined magic barrier. So you tell me...what exactly is a "kind"? See my above answer. There is only one theory of evolution. While there might be discussions and debates about the exact mechanization in which evolution occurs, there are no reputable biologists on earth who denies the theory. Speciation in plants and animals have been observed and documented. The Faeroe Island house mouse (And in only 250 years!) and the Goatsbeard flower are two that jump from memory, (and a Google confirmation). We have also observed smaller changes in moths and insects that were isolated from their parent gene pool. "Um...I don't know how to put it any simpler? You lack even basic knowledge of the aforementioned subjects." That's a Generalized Unsupported Conjecture. I may just surprise you "I didn't "fail" to mention them...The nucleus and proton ARE sub-atomic particles. See my answer to the above question." Very well, I mis-termed specifically what I was alluding to...I am fallible I should have said other Elementary Particles (Fermions, Quarks, Leptons, Bosons) "(I put a wide number of fields under these heading for sake of brevity)" - Medical research - Wildlife farming and management - Statistics - Engineering" Those are just Terms/Titles, I thought I asked for examples with each....? Please, give one for Medical Research...for Brevity. "If you have even a high school level of understanding on the subject you would know the answer to this. Over time organisms will change according to environmental pressures." A little condescending and presumptuous don't you think? So it's just organisms change...over time? Like a bacteria changing into something other than a bacteria? Is this mainly through Natural Selection or other mechanisms? So are evolutionists moving away from abiogenesis? It's funny, all these "Changes" seem to be a LOSS of Information...How do you get New Structures, Organs, and Organisms by losing Information? "There is no such thing as a "kind" and the word has no meaning whatsoever in biology." Of course not, the Taxonomic Classification System is a Man-Made Construct developed 6000 years after GOD established "KIND". And since evolutionists attempt to explain away GOD with these classifications with "so-called" PROOFS, they use the classifications especially "Species/Speciation" (more on this below). Shouldn't the measuring stick, to disprove or explain away GOD, be HIS Standard and not one contrived by Man that changes like the weather? This is tantamount to accusing Thomas Jefferson of Tax Evasion when income tax wasn't instituted until 1913. "Creationists use this word because evolution on smaller scales have been documented and can no longer be denied. Creationists therefore decided to claim animals can change as long as they don't go past some undefined magic barrier. So you tell me...what exactly is a "kind"?" Be sure WHAT your definition of evolution is. Because to discredit the Bible, you have to show change from Family Taxonomic Group or higher. To be clear.... Biblical "Kind" was coined 6000 years before the term "Species" and are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT TERMS. Biblical "Kind"-- is defined from (IMHO): (1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." Clearly this most closely resembles the Family Group, No? Doesn't appear to be MAGIC. "Species"-- A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. How many current definitions are there and how many changes have occurred with this definition; say, the past 50 years? This equation is a Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, and is a Scientific FACT: 1. "Micro"-evolution: Biblical "KIND" Natural Selection + Genetic Variation = Biblical "Kind". This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS. This Equation is an Epic Fairytale with NO PROOF (ZERO). 2. "Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout".... Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years = darwinian evolution If evolution is TRUE, then please show 1 PROOF of this. You must show a Family Taxonomic Group or higher change to prove evolution and discredit the Biblical Account. And please, don't say because #1 is True then Ipso Facto #2 is True. These two are in completely different Universes and the only similarity... is that each equation starts with a "Natural Selection"....which by the way, was first Identified and Documented 27 years before origin of species by Edward Blyth (Creationist). It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or in an attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM! “Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution. The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy. "there are no reputable biologists on earth who denies the theory." ‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Harold, Franklin M. (evolutionist) Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. others: Raymond G. Bohlin PhD Molecular and Cell Biology Kenneth B Cumming PhD Biology Carl B. Fliermans PhD Microbiology Authur Jones PhD Biology Ariel A Roth PhD Biology Timothy G Standish PhD Biology Henry Zuill PhD Biology Just a few....I'd imagine these scholars are all disreputable? "Speciation in plants and animals have been observed and documented." Speciation is not in question, See response above. "changes in moths" These wouldn't happen to be Peppered Moths?

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise. Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now. "Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise." Irrelevant?? We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) . Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant? "Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now." There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors). Lets try it this way... In this sentence: I Love Ice Cream. Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation: I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled? Even if it's 'bad' genetic material, the fact that mutations, transcription errors, viruses, etc, can proliferate it is all that is needed to start to model how the statistics of genetic material in the population might start to change, and that is fundamentally what evolution is about. Sir, It's not only that deleterious Mutations (your "bad" genetic material) overwhelm the miniscule "Beneficial" Mutations by orders of magnitude; the INFORMATION decreases and is degenerate; thus, the name MUTATIONS. It appears the evolution train is humming; unfortunately (for evolutionists), it's heading the wrong direction. May I quote (sorry, not your favorite) ..... 'This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-darwinian theory. The bottom line is that darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') The ones that cause horrible mutations aren't able to compete and disappear in the population. The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate. "The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate." '....4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' (Emphasis Mine) John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') I can't see why that would necessarily follow. I can see why this might be so in many cases, but if you have an isolated new introduction of novel genetic material, through whatever mechanism, why would it be necessarily the case that that is always linked with a 'bad' causing gene? And even if that is so, perhaps the good one is good enough to proliferate anyway, and later become independent, etc. I'm no Geneticist but I think I have somewhat of an understanding why and it goes back to the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained concept discussed earlier. From my understanding... to keep it simple, You have the Protein Coding Regions but the majority of DNA consists of the Instructions (Meta Information). Sort of like making a cake you have 2 parts: The list of Ingredients, and the Instructions. You need corresponding Mutations of each @ the same time.... which is preposterous. Just like the Hox Family and the Fruit Fly's et al.....they get legs/antenna/wings coming out of their foreheads, eye-sockets ect but all were non-functioning....no corresponding Mutation of the META INFORMATION (Instructions). "new introduction of novel genetic material," ahh, are you referring to Conjugation (there are a couple other mechanisms) in Bacteria...where genes are transferred? Bear in mind, this is still Genetic Variation within Kind or the shuffling of Pre-existing Information @ the end of the day. How so? Simply, there are No changes to the BACTERIA BioSphere. In other words, no bacteria is gonna grow a pair of Flippers even by mutation (spelling errors)....it's not apart of the menu. Also Remember....the META INFORMATION (Instructions) would also need an EXACT MUTATION to compliment or else....you're gonna have yourself a football bat. Sickle Cell Anemia is probably the most studied and is pushed as a "Beneficial" Mutation. It's what I would call a "Conditional Beneficial" Mutation (This is just a term I made up This is a classic Loss of Information scenario....because they lost the ability to make normal functioning hemoglobin. Sure, it helps with protecting against Malaria; however, they just raised their risk 1000 fold of: Stroke, ACS, Pulmonary Hypertension, Organ Damage....Kidneys, Liver, Spleen. Blindness, Skin Ulcers, and a number of other ailments. This particular Mutation is very Interesting in that you would think the Immune System would be the target to combat this.... but it happened in Hemoglobin. IMHO, this smacks of a "ALL Hands On Deck" @ whatever the cost scenario....just thinking out loud. Wanted to keep this somewhat short...not feeling like a detailed mechanistic look this morning

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise. Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now. "Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise." Irrelevant?? We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) . Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant? "Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now." There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors). Lets try it this way... In this sentence: I Love Ice Cream. Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation: I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled? Even if it's 'bad' genetic material, the fact that mutations, transcription errors, viruses, etc, can proliferate it is all that is needed to start to model how the statistics of genetic material in the population might start to change, and that is fundamentally what evolution is about. Sir, It's not only that deleterious Mutations (your "bad" genetic material) overwhelm the miniscule "Beneficial" Mutations by orders of magnitude; the INFORMATION decreases and is degenerate; thus, the name MUTATIONS. It appears the evolution train is humming; unfortunately (for evolutionists), it's heading the wrong direction. May I quote (sorry, not your favorite) ..... 'This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-darwinian theory. The bottom line is that darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') The ones that cause horrible mutations aren't able to compete and disappear in the population. The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate. "The very rare ones that are potentially beneficial are much more likely to survive and even proliferate." '....4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' (Emphasis Mine) John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

My mistake

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise. Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now. "Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise." Irrelevant?? We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) . Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant? "Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now." There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors). Lets try it this way... In this sentence: I Love Ice Cream. Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation: I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled? Even if it's 'bad' genetic material, the fact that mutations, transcription errors, viruses, etc, can proliferate it is all that is needed to start to model how the statistics of genetic material in the population might start to change, and that is fundamentally what evolution is about. Sir, It's not only that deleterious Mutations (your "bad" genetic material) overwhelm the miniscule "Beneficial" Mutations by orders of magnitude; the INFORMATION decreases and is degenerate; thus, the name MUTATIONS. It appears the evolution train is humming; unfortunately (for evolutionists), it's heading the wrong direction. May I quote (sorry, not your favorite) ..... 'This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-darwinian theory. The bottom line is that darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

"We're getting nowhere" Where would you like to go? Usually when people get easily frustrated it's often a result of lacking support for assertions. "if you can't say something nice about someone...." Why would you say something other than "Nice About" me...and imply there is nothing nice? You don't even know me It usually takes evolutionists 2-3 days to really dislike me for no reason. From the substance of my posts, I have surely not proffered anything insulting, personally or otherwise. I have offered my thoughts on various subjects and either CITED support for them or offered a measured reasoned rebuttal (IMHO). Just searching for the TRUTH and trying to be a Berean with all I hear and read. Nothing personal.

"Evolution and cosmology and other "disciplines" work in reverse." Well that's not Science or more specifically, Empirical/Operational Science. More in the realm of Forensic and Historical Science. "this Creator was behind the formation of the first biological molecules" Lets save this for another time "But I have no proof or evidence to offer. It is a statement of faith." Yes, but it's not Blind Faith. Again...Back to the 2 Choices. Along with Whole Counsel of GOD Including all 1800 or so Prophecies and Jesus Christ in the Flesh. Pretty Powerful IMHO. Merry Christmas to you and yours sir For a person who claims to love biology, physics and genetics you display little knowledge of their foundations. - An atom contains a nucleus, electrons, protons and neutrons. Electrons are negatively charged, protons are positively charged. - A molecule is two atoms that are chemically bound together. Since the theory of evolution is used in a variety of fields and has predictive capability, it goes a bit beyond a masquerade. I have personally created strains of bacteria and bred several fruit fly variations based on the theory of evolution. No reputable biologist in the world denies evolution is a reality. You also fail to understand the scientific method: Start with a question Conduct Research Formulate a hypothesis Test Your Hypothesis via experimentation Analyze data and draw your conclusions Publish your results "For a person who claims to love biology, physics and genetics you display little knowledge of their foundations." Interesting....how so? "An atom contains...." "A molecule is...." Thank You. You failed to mention Sub-Atomic Particles?....or, were you just being gracious in lieu of my (In Your Opinion)...suspect scientific acumen? "Since the theory of evolution is used in a variety of fields" Which fields specifically?.... and can you provide one example of "used" from each field? "predictive capability" For instance? "Since the theory of evolution" Can you please define the theory of evolution? ....this may clear up some confusion. Is it this?.... ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. "I have personally created strains of bacteria" Did you start out with bacteria? When you concluded, were they still bacteria? If so, the changes that you observed are specifically termed "Genetic Variation" and they are "within Kind"....No New Information was added. It's an example of "Micro" evolution....unfortunate term and is the genesis of much confusion IMHO. "several fruit fly variations" Are they still fruit fly's? See above bacteria scenario. "No reputable biologist in the world denies evolution is a reality." That would depend on the definition of evolution. "You also fail to understand the scientific method: step one: Start with a question" But behind that question or the genesis of the question there must be an OBSERVATION...so as to "Start with a question," No? Which was my whole point from the previous post.

"Evolution and cosmology and other "disciplines" work in reverse." Well that's not Science or more specifically, Empirical/Operational Science. More in the realm of Forensic and Historical Science. "this Creator was behind the formation of the first biological molecules" Lets save this for another time "But I have no proof or evidence to offer. It is a statement of faith." Yes, but it's not Blind Faith. Again...Back to the 2 Choices. Along with Whole Counsel of GOD Including all 1800 or so Prophecies and Jesus Christ in the Flesh. Pretty Powerful IMHO. Merry Christmas to you and yours sir

Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise. Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now. "Irrelevant. I want to know specifically if new genomic material can arise." Irrelevant?? We're talking about MUTATIONS and NEW INFORMATION...This is a real life example in action (OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE) . Can you show me what part of this is irrelevant? "Yes, the large majority of new genetic material isn't going to be helpful. I've stated that in these threads several times now." There's clearly no New Genetic Material @ all...just already existing material (Code) that's Jumbled (Spelling Errors). Lets try it this way... In this sentence: I Love Ice Cream. Now if I give you the same letters but it says this, via Mutation: I Leov Iec Cmea...is there any New Information or is it just the same Information Jumbled?

This quote requires more context to be understandable. Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions. There is no argument here. Yes. Most mutations are not helpful. That's a trivially known fact here. How in the world do you pull the individual quotes out of a reply as you did and place them in one reply? LOL For now, I'll just place yours in Green. "But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information" This is clearly not the case. See: John Sanford. ...."The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’ "Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions" Sir, that's why they're CITED. And this default Quote Mining.... it's sure better than having an Unsupported Conjecture free for all. Have you ever written a Science Research Paper or any research paper for that matter? Now obviously, using this medium, It would be quite impractical to say the least to provide a detailed rebuttal to each of your assertions. So what I do is have quotes or snippets from the books/articles that I've read that directly refute or support claims. Case in point, if you would like to discover the absolute IMPOSSIBLE concept of MUTATIONS with New Information or evolution....Think on this for a moment then Pull up the CITED Reference just below it "Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let’s suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty." John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') Montañez, G.; Marks R.; Fernandez, J. & Sanford, J. (2013). Multiple overlapping genetic codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation, In: Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 139-167). I'm fully familiar with how to write scientific papers. I'm not interested in half baked ideas that run via snippets of quotes from larger arguments. That is not something I am interested in. If you want to pick one idea, and give me a *full argument*, it can be the full line of reasoning one of these guys goes through, fine, that might be interesting. But this sort of exchange, random out of context quotes, is not useful to me in the least. You have determined it's impossible for new genetic structures to come about via mutation, transcription error, or other sources (a hint here, viruses?)? because on the face of it that claim is absurd. "But this sort of exchange, random out of context quotes" That's a baseless assertion sir, Out of Context.....exactly where? Random...I don't think so. These are all on point and exactly dealing with the subject matter @ hand from Subject Matter Experts. "You have determined it's impossible for new genetic structures to come about via mutation" No, I haven't.... the experts on the specific matter have, as I've clearly shown. Its like a software program.... you're not getting Windows 98 no matter how many spelling errors (Mutations) you get out of Turbo Tax. The code is not apart of the menu. For example.... “The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.” Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p. 134 However, they have been successful with mutations of the Homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals and insects (Drosophila above) with radiation and poisons. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. But with all of these structures there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. Most Importantly, the extra appendages are NON-FUNCTIONING (No intra-muscular tissue, Nerve tissue, ect). Which is quite illuminating when looking @ the Polyfunctional - Polyconstrained aspect of DNA that Dr. Sanford was alluding to. "or other sources (a hint here, viruses?)" What is the specific issue? "because on the face of it that claim is absurd." Based on.....?