<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

Then tell me, what is the property of genetic code that allows one
mutation to occur at a time, but would prevent the gradual
accumulation of mututations?

the fruit fly experimentation put to the grave the Mutated Moster theory
of evolution. Its successor, punctuated equilibrium is less believable
than that.

In article <2bbuuv83igdc324aslmu056vm0e0c0q0fv@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:22:30 GMT,

In article <o9teuvosvaq19a5qd2cbq02c0l3a0rs4jc@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:28:24 GMT,

In article <1rcutvc8um0jqou98etq19388acbpdjhlc@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:39:11 GMT,

In article <hdditv00ljvdtdocaokd61vqvm6j14rml5@4ax.com>, Alberich
<Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:25:15 GMT,

Science in none of its arenas tells me that there is no God.

Which part of the religious/scientific belief that tomatoe

plants and

giraffes having a common ancestor but not a common Creator tells

you that

there is a God?

Science doesn't address the question at all. Why can't you

understand

this?

Religion addresses who we are, where we came from, why are we

here, where

are we going?

God says we are His children, we are here to learn and to begin

to enter

His Kindgom.

I agree, but we are already in His Kindgom.

Are you kidding me? You quote yourself, and then disagree with
yourself??? Sit down and make sure of what you believe before you
start posting again, okay?

I did, we are already in His Kindgom, but there is much to learn beyond
the earnst deposit of the age of Pentacost.

Romans 8:19* For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
manifestation of the sons of God.

2Corinthians 1:22* Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the
Spirit in our hearts.

2 Corinthians 5:5* Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is
God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

Fine, but are we about to "begin to enter His Kingdom," or are we
"already in His Kingdom?" Which is it?

Both at different levels. Children are in His Kindgom with a Passover
understanding, young men at a Pentacost understanding, and His sons with a
tabranacles understanding. Peter had a pentacost understanding, Paul a
tabranacles understanding. Peter finally 'got it'.

Jerimiah 5:24 Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD
our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season:
he reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive. 23* But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Evolution says by religious implication we are evolved by

accident and/or

chance from animals, we have no specific purpose, eat, drink and

be merry

for tommorrow we die.

No it doesn't. It merely gives the mechanism by which we are here.

And Creation provides another.

And the two are not mutually exclusive.

Which 'scientific' text includes both hypothesis, one that tomatoe plants
and giraffes share a common God created ancestor and the other that they
only share a common Creator?

None, for scientists are smart enough to know that science does not
attempt to try to answer the questions of religion; if only
fundamentalist theologians were smart enough to realize that religion
does not answer the questions of science, things would be much easier.

But in pontificating that men are evolved from apes, and that intelligent
design is defined arbitrarily as non-scientific, 'scientists' have entered
the realm of 'religion' disguised as science.

What set that in motion--if anything--is not explored by evolution.

It used to be in 'science' books before circa 1970, but the fairy tale of
the magical primordial pool where non living material started to live was
such a knee slapper, it had to be separated for the balance of the theory
to have any viability. Evolution has no way to come to grips with
abiogenesis other than fairy tales of statistically impossible sheer
speculation, and is the embarrased step child of evolution by design.

And religion has nothing on evolution to discredit it, other than
pointing out how the theory has been changed in the past to become
more robust. Gee, that's a terrible thing, that the theory itself
takes into account new evidence. Maybe--and I'm just speculating
here--that's what makes it SCIENTIFIC!!!

And science has nothing on creation to discredit it, other than
pointing out how the theory has been changed in the past to become
more robust. Gee, that's a terrible thing, that the theory itself
takes into account new evidence. Maybe--and I'm just speculating
here--that's what makes it SCIENTIFIC!!!

I'm still perfectly willing to see *any* scientific evidence that
supports the creation theory.

Any evidentuary conclusion that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common
ancestor supports the equally valid conclusion that they have a common
Creator, but not necessarily a common ancestor.

Nor is it, for that matter, discussed in Genesis. There is no
discussion as to *how* God created man...

True, but it is a revelation and the basis of scientific hypothesis, which
is an equally valid alternative to the evolution ones that tomatoe plants
and giraffes have a common ancestor, but not a common Creator.

That doesn't make a bit of sense! Are you addressing my point that
Genesis doesn't say how God created man, or are you just rambling?

Neither, just that there is an equally valid alternative to the evolution
that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a common God created ancestor, but
not a common ancestor.

It may be an equally valid theory, but it isn't scientific, it's
religious.

Why, specifically and particularily?

The scientific theory of evolution by implications (and as can be

easily

documented by high priest Dawkins pseudo scientific religious writings)
creates its own significant religious dogma. Why can't you understand
this?

Not at all. The only people who think so are the fundamentalists who
feel threatened by it. There is no shortage of Catholics who fully
believe that evolution occurs.

We all observe 'micro evolution, but that does not prove that tomatoe
plants and giraffes have a common ancestor instead of a common Creator.

(Or both...) There is no difference between microevolution and
macroevolution.

Do tell. No one disputes that 'species' can be bred to accentuate certain
traits nor that they are capable of adaptation to environmental
conditions; however, that is intra species adaptation or micro evolution,
not the macro evolution theory that tomatoe plants and giraffes have a
common ancestor.

You aren't making any argument here except that since you can't
believe it, it must not be true. If you want some respect for
creation as a scientific theory, you need to supply some *scientific*
reasons.

What scientific ones have you provided?

It's only a matter of scale. So tell me: What

natural force exists that will allow an population to evolve a *little
bit*, but not a lot.

Genetic limits to reproduction.

Such as? I'm very interested to hear what you have to say about this.

There are no examples of a common ancestor to tomatoe plants and giraffes.

And the way one might fo about falsifying Intelligent Design is what?
This is something I'm sure we'd all be better off knowing.

Author: Doug Sharp
Subject: Creation-Evolution Overviews
Date: 10/02/1999

First of all, we would expect that God would not contradict his word, that
he would not tell a lie. Therefore, if we find any outright lies in the
Bible, we must dismiss it as God's word.

In all cases I have seen where critics have thought this to be the case,
they have proven out to be straw-man arguments.

What makes them straw man arguments? Because they find contradictions
in the Bible, which makes the Word of God a lie? What about comparing
Isaiah 14:21 to Deuteronomy 24:16? Here is a clear contradiction in
the Bible. Therefore, at least one of these is a lie. Can we
therefore dismiss the Bible as God's Word?

No, neither is there a discrepency.

And Jn 10:03 and 14:28?

What is your point specifically as there is no discrepencey.

Gen 7:2 and 7:8-9?

Mt 1:6-16 and Lk 3:23-31?

One is the geanology of Jesus step father, the other the geanology of His
mother.

Bring these to your pastor and see what he tells you to respond with
here.

Don't have to, I can answer the question directly, if specifically stated.

We would expect that the scientific evidence would be more consistent with
the predictions of a world created by God than it would be with the
evolutionary model.

Why?

because no specific nor particular thing has ever been identified that
evolved into tomatoe plants and giraffes.

Weak and specious argument.

Stonger than the weak and specious as the argument that there must have
been one.

What about something that evolved into

both mammals and reptiles? Would that convince you, if I could
provide you with evidence of such an organism?

Prove? Well, give it a try.

If one wanted to disprove the existence of God as
creator, he then would have to come up with a scenario that explains the
existence of life on earth, evolving from inanimate matter through the
food chain to man. To falsify the creation theory, an evolutionist would
need to demonstrate the following:

1. Natural chemical processes that produces all of the components of
life from non-life in quantities sufficient to account for all life on
earth.
2. A natural process that purifies amino acids in their left handed
form, and sugars in their right hand form for use as the building blocks
of life.
3. The origin of the DNA, RNA, protein manufacturing process.
4. The origin of photosynthesis and the appearance of chlorophyll.
5. The origin of reproduction at the chemical level.
6. The origin of the genetic code and the chemical infrastructure to
make it work.
7. Once you have determined what these processes are, show that
these processes are much more likely to happen than the processes that
break down the components of life.
8. Once you have demonstrated that the chemical origin of life is
possible from off-the-shelf chemicals, show the biochemical changes that
occur to increase the meaningful information content of organisms to
produce the vast variety of creatures found today.
9. A corollary to this would be to show that mutations in the vast
majority of cases are beneficial and promote evolution.

But nobody's concerned with falsifying the Creation theory, because it
ain't science!

Tee hee hee, let me get this straight, on the one had, evolutionists claim
that Creation theory isn't scientific because it can't be falsified, but
if falsifiable, it is still not scientific.

Were it falsifiable, it would be scientific.

Intelligent design is falsifiable.

However, as it is by
definition not falsifiable (for how do you falsify an omnipotent God
whose supporters could easily claim chooses simply not to directly
reveal Himself?), it is not scientific, and therefore is no reason to
attempt falsification.

Only in the cathedral of evolutionism, it seems.

On the other hand, if you want to falsify evolutionary

theory, you need to go out there and show why populations can evolve a
little bit (your micro-evolution), but not a lot (macro). Where's the
boundary line?

The limitatios of genetic code.

Then tell me, what is the property of genetic code that allows one
mutation to occur at a time, but would prevent the gradual
accumulation of mututations?

the fruit fly experimentation put to the grave the Mutated Moster theory
of evolution. Its successor, punctuated equilibrium is less believable
than that.