Signature in the cell

[Stuu]

God's statement (Ge 1:1). God said he created. Believe him (Jn 3:12).

Don't worry about actually reading what I write. Just ignore it and carry on as if in monologue.

Only God can make something ex nihilo (out of nothing). Learn about making wine and suspending the First Law of Thermodynamics. :cheers:

See:

Life of Jesus Volume 1: Jesus Tests and Builds Faith Pt 2b (right click, open) by Darrell Ferguson



[Edited Sermon Notes Evolution: Fact or Fiction by Adrian Rogers] Did God make man or did man make God? Is man the special creation of almightily God or is God a figment of man’s imagination? 1 Ti 6:20

Evolution: Nothing + time + chance = everything. :dizzy: It's a fairy tale for adults. :hammer:

Why I reject the theory of evolution:

1. For logical reasons

a. Well-trained scientists do not believe

b. Not founded on observation

c. Wholly unsupported by facts

2. Evolutionists do not have answers for:

a. The origin of life

b. Fixity of the species

c. The fossil record

d. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

e. Certain properties that exist which have nothing to do with "survival of the fittest"

2. Moral reasons

a. People are an accident

b. The depraved have believed

3. Theological reasons

a. No first parents

b. No paradise

c. No fall

c. Atonement collapses

Full text: Edited sermon notes Evolution: Fact or Fiction by Adrian Rogers

"When a scientists says he believes the Bible--that doesn't give me anymore more faith in the Bible that gives me more faith in the scientist." ~ Adrian Rogers

Get back to us when you can disprove evolution by natural selection, won't you.

You know, by actually showing us evidence instead of copying and pasting creationist canards that, despite their lack of sophistication are still apparently too difficult for you to write down as original thoughts of your own. Can you appreciate how far it is from the level of cognition you are displaying here to the depth of analysis required to understand and criticise evolution credibly?

Apparently not.

Stuart

 

[serpentdove]

Don't worry about actually reading what I write. Just ignore it and carry on as if in monologue.

Ge 1:1 isn't going anywhere. Start there. :thumb:

"If Genesis 3 is a myth then John 3 is a farce. You must be born again." ~ Adrian Rogers

 

[DavisBJ]

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

SD, when you find that two professionals are making opposing claims in a technical field, how do you decide which one is most likely to be correct? Specifically, Henry Morris, in the article you link to, makes some claims about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There are other scientists who have directly addressed the ideas that Dr. Morris brings up, and say he is wrong. How to decide?

 

[serpentdove]

"SD, when you find that two professionals are making opposing claims in a technical field, how do you decide which one is most likely to be correct?"

I keep reading.

"Specifically, Henry Morris, in the article you link to, makes some claims about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There are other scientists who have directly addressed the ideas that Dr. Morris brings up, and say he is wrong. How to decide?"

Morris has gone home to be with the Lord. His son, John, continues his work. I've have a nice picture with him by the way.

In general, things break down. You can buy a nice car but it you don't care for it, it will look terrible eventually. Adrian Rogers said: "If you disagree with the Second Law of Thermodynamics take a look at your son's room."

What specifically do you disagree with in the article? Creation science is ongoing. Ps 104:24

 

[DavisBJ]

In general, things break down. You can buy a nice car but it you don't care for it, it will look terrible eventually.

The Second Law isn’t an “in general” law. It either holds, or it doesn’t. Are there physical things that become more organized over time? (Ever watched a baby grow?)

Adrian Rogers said: "If you disagree with the Second Law of Thermodynamics take a look at your son's room."

What specifically do you disagree with in the article?

Frank Lambert, Professor of Physics, has a number of articles showing that Adrian Rogers is a babbling fool when it comes to expounding on things he has no understanding of.

Creation science is ongoing. Ps 104:24

Ongoing, yes. But sterile. The scriptures and divine underpinnings that creation science relies on have been around for more than two millennia – centuries before science was recognized as a discipline for learning about the physical world. Care to list the advances in our understanding of the world that came from creation science, and how many advances resulted from secular science?

 

[serpentdove]

Are there physical things that become more organized over time?

You cannot get people from pond scum. :dizzy:

"Adrian Rogers is a babbling fool..."

:yawn: Ad hominem. He was a fine servant of the Lord.

 

[DavisBJ]

You cannot get people from pond scum. :dizzy:

You are ducking the question. Adrian Rogers makes claims about the Second Law. One of those claims is that things do not get more organized. I gave a trivial example where something does increase its organization. Do you have the integrity to respond to the specific example I gave disproving Adrian’s claim?

:yawn: Ad hominem. He was a fine servant of the Lord.

I said nothing about his religion. I did say that he was way off base in the claims he made about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[serpentdove]

[Baby] I gave a trivial example where something does increase its organization.

Are you trying to take credit for what God formed? Jer 1:5

I said nothing about his religion. I did say that he [Rogers] was way off base in the claims he made about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

He said rooms get messy. :AMR:

 

[DavisBJ]

Are you trying to take credit for what God formed? Jer 1:5

He said rooms get messy. :AMR:

I hadn’t realized you were really just an alter-ego for Seydlitz. Or are you secretly desirous of becoming his 3rd plural wife? Just won’t give a direct answer to what was asked, will you?

You said that when faced with conflicting opinions, you keep reading. I presume you have read the material from Adrian and from Henry Morris. Now live up to what you said and read the material from Frank Lambert.

But for now, since you are unwilling or incapable of answering my questions directly, I am comfortable letting this demonstration of your perfidy carry its own message as it stands.

 

[serpentdove]

...[Y]ou are unwilling or incapable of answering my questions directly...

Your best example was formed by God (Jer 1:5) and dies (Ge 2:17; Eze 18:4). lain: You cannot get molecules to man evolution. :dizzy:

"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." full text: Is There Really a God?

By one man, Adam, sin entered the world (Ge 3:6,7; Ro 5:12). Christ was manifested to take away sin (Jn 1:29; 1 Jn 3:5).

 

[Lighthouse]

You are claiming it is arrogance because there might be other explanations. So you have the burden of proof of your claim, I can't prove a negative.

This is really basic stuff, Lighthouse. Are you up to the conversation?

Stuart

I never asked you to prove a negative, idiot. You really are stupid.

I asked you to prove that Dawkins has the best explanation.

 

[DavisBJ]

Your best example was formed by God (Jer 1:5) and dies (Ge 2:17; Eze 18:4).

Makes no difference. I realize you are not a scientist. I wish Henry Morris, and Adrian were here to fend for themselves. All I can do is ask you the same direct questions I would put to them. I will keep them simple, yet technically correct.

From the Henry Morris article that you linked to:

no exception to the law of increasing entropy has ever been observed …​

and

the entropy principle applies as much to open systems as to closed systems.​

Now the questions:

1) Is a growing child is an open system? That means is energy and/or matter permitted to flow into or out of the system (the child)?

2) Is a growing child a) increasing or b) decreasing in entropy? If decreasing, then the physical structure of the growing child is increasing in either a) useable energy content, or equivalently, b) overall organization of the molecules that comprise the body.

If the entropy of the child is decreasing, and it is an open system, then according to Morris the Second Law is being violated. Nowhere does Morris exempt living things from the Second Law (nor does any secular physicist or biologist that I know of).

But does that mean I think the Second Law is in fact being violated in the growth of a child? No, not at all. Henry Morris’ understanding of it is shallow enough that he constructed a parody of what it really says, especially as regards open systems.

[ lain: You cannot get molecules to man evolution. :dizzy:

A modicum of honesty on your part would keep you from throwing in silly comments like that, when the subject is very pointedly whether or not Morris’ and Adrian’s claims about the Second Law are valid.

"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." full text: Is There Really a God?

Why are you trying to change the subject? Entropy, remember, not information. Stand up and defend what your apologists said about the Second Law, or admit you can’t do it.

 

[Stuu]

I never asked you to prove a negative, idiot. You really are stupid.

Charmed, I'm sure.

I asked you to prove that Dawkins has the best explanation.

You are asking me to prove that no better explanation exists. That would be attempting to prove a negative.

Not me that's stupid.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

I wish Henry Morris, and Adrian were here to fend for themselves.

I don't think we really wish that, do we? Both were rank liars.

Stuart

 

[The Barbarian]

Ad hominem. He was a fine servant of the Lord.

Whose religion told him that blacks are spiritually and intellectually inferior to others. That's not the lord you want to be serving.

 

[Lighthouse]

Charmed, I'm sure.

You are asking me to prove that no better explanation exists. That would be attempting to prove a negative.

Not me that's stupid.

Stuart

Actually I am only asking you to prove that Dawkin's explanation is better than all other available ones. But if you can't do that then you shouldn't make the claim that his is the best.

 

[Stuu]

Actually I am only asking you to prove that Dawkin's explanation is better than all other available ones. But if you can't do that then you shouldn't make the claim that his is the best.

OK, since that trivial aspect of it appears to be causing you some cognitive problems, I'll retract the claim that he has the best explanation (which cannot be proved, only disproved as I explained) and propose that in fact he has the only statement that amounts to any kind of explanation.

Disproving that would require an alternative statement that has at least as much explanatory power as Dawkins's one about the spontaneous nature of the chemical processes and incremental changes that led to cells, which is based on some good scientific modeling even if it is not based on actual evidence from the first cells, which is understandably going to be virtually impossible to find and distinguish.

Do you have an alternative explanation that disproves my claim? Otherwise I stand by it and only have to demonstrate that it IS an explanatory claim, and state the obvious that no one else has put forward an equivalent alternative. That is how science works, you cannot prove anything, you can only disprove.

Stuart

 

[Lighthouse]

OK, since that trivial aspect of it appears to be causing you some cognitive problems, I'll retract the claim that he has the best explanation (which cannot be proved, only disproved as I explained) and propose that in fact he has the only statement that amounts to any kind of explanation.

Disproving that would require an alternative statement that has at least as much explanatory power as Dawkins's one about the spontaneous nature of the chemical processes and incremental changes that led to cells, which is based on some good scientific modeling even if it is not based on actual evidence from the first cells, which is understandably going to be virtually impossible to find and distinguish.

Do you have an alternative explanation that disproves my claim? Otherwise I stand by it and only have to demonstrate that it IS an explanatory claim, and state the obvious that no one else has put forward an equivalent alternative. That is how science works, you cannot prove anything, you can only disprove.

Stuart

Actually the only claim you can make that can be substantiated about this is that no one else has given an explanation that you find as equally satisfactory.

 

[lucaspa]

It's really mind boggling to imagine that this is going on right now inside our bodies.

Signature in the cell

Meyers claims that the "information" involved in the genetic code and directed protein synthesis was directly manufactured by God. He is mistaken.

The "information" comes from chemistry and natural selection. Ironically, it is Meyers' ID colleague William Dembski that irrefutably shows that natural selection creates information.

 

[lucaspa]

I asked you to prove that Dawkins has the best explanation.

Dawkins has nothing to do with this, so let's leave him out as a boogeyman.

Information arises from chemistry in that not all chemical reactions are equally possible. Nor is the formation of all proteins equally possible. There is internal ordering in proteins made by abiogenic processes (chemistry): http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Life arises fron non-living chemicals by chemistry. It has been done. The reactions are so easy and common that you can make living cells in your own kitchen or backyard.

Now, once the first cells exist, then comes the "genetic code", which is actually shorthand for "directed protein synthesis". This, in turn, is shorthand for having the sequence of bases in RNA/DNA specify the sequence of amino acids in proteins. This comes about thru a combination of chemistry and natural selection. Once you have RNA, then Darwinian evolution is the process to get to directed protein synthesis. Some articles dealing with the subject in detail (and explaining how Meyers is wrong) are:

1. Alberti, S The origin of the genetic code and protein synthesis. J. Mol. Evol. 45: 352-358, 1997.
1. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful. http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Poole_et_al_1998.pdf
2. P S Schimmel and R Alexander, All you need is RNA. Science 281:658-659, Jul. 31, 1998. Describes research showing that RNA in ribosomes sufficient to make proteins. Intermediate step in going from abiogenesis to genetic code.
3. http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030139 Paper showing evolution of stable proteins.
4. Margaret E. Saks, Jeffrey R. Sampson, John Abelson Evolution of a transfer RNA gene through a point mutation in the anticodon. Science, 279, Number 5357 Issue of 13 March 1998, pp. 1665 - 1670
5. David H. Ardell and Guy Sella No accident: genetic codes freeze in error-correcting patterns of the standard genetic codePhil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002 357, 1625-1642
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/357/1427/1625.long