Squishes
New member
Uh, mutations can occur in noncoding DNA to no detrimental effect.
NIH: 100M Years to Change a Binding Site
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Uh, mutations can occur in noncoding DNA to no detrimental effect.
Do you know every potential consequence of these changes?
You defenders of evolution miss the point with this response. The fact that random changes can only ever degrade information is not contradicted by no noticable degradation after a change.
Alate_One
Well-known member
So, you don't have a response to the substance of the challenges I presented?
Worldview does not change how things *actually* work. You're a Christian as am I, do you not believe in truth? Why, in the realm of the physical and natural world do Christians suddenly turn into relativists? I'm sure you're not a moral relativist, why on earth should the workings of the physical and natural world be relative?
So based on your above statement, yes you are obviously very bad at logic since you just broke your own worldview.
Uh huh. Maybe I should just nominate you for a Golden Crocoduck award.
A_O, I appreciate the time you take and the challenge to creation arguments that you present.
Is the evidence really that I'm bad at logic, or that we are operating from different worldviews, and interpreting the same evidence accordingly?
As to my silly upright-walking, hair-growing octopus image, the sequencing of marine worms has now killed off the long-alleged common ancestor of man and insects because the genomes of those marine worms (acoelomorphs) is found to be more like humans than are either insects or mollusks (snails, octopuses, etc.). According to LiveScience, "the missing link has gone missing" as reported in the Jan/Feb 2011 Creation Matters:
- marine worms are more closely related to humans than are mollusks and insects - Nature 2-9-11
- Evolution: A can of worms. Nature 2-9-11
- "the missing link has gone missing" Dept. of Genetics & Evolution's Max Telford, Univ. College, London
- evolutionists "alarmed" with "vehemence" - Nature magazine
- shows how important these worm props were to the evolutionary story-telling
- "the most politically fraught paper I've ever written" -Genetic researcher Max Telford
Political A_O? Yes, political.
Am I making more of this than the original paper does? Of course.
So A_O, your analysis of why we enjoy evolutionists being "shocked" all the time is wrong. You wrote:
Your equal sign "=" equates to "therefore." Yes, that would be dumb. But of course you're ignoring our actual usage.
If evolutionary cosmologists, geologists and biologists are wrong, thousands of major new finds are not going to reinforce their assumptions but challenge them.
With Aristotle's cosmology of the Sun and planets orbiting Earth, in circles, the multiplication of secondary assumptions in the form of epicycles has a strong parallel in evolutionists being shocked by countless discoveries about planets, geology, and genetics, and whether it's the chimp's Y chromosome, the former common ancestor of man and insects, or a thousand other challenges, secondary assumptions multiply faster than the number of tectonic plates.
-Bob Enyart
p.s. You write a lot A_O that deserves to be carefully considered and responded to. Time's a tough constraint though. Thanks.
Squishes
New member
Alate_One
Well-known member
Okay, yes you're making a massive deal out of something that doesn't actually challenge evolution. Scientists line up behind particular hypotheses,
"All the time" is an overstatement as is "shocked". (Back to that radio language again aren't we?) Besides, scientists do science to LEARN THINGS.
But MOST finds don't challenge anything and no finds have actually challenged the central ideas of evolution. You are cherry picking what you think makes science looks bad.
The problem with your entire "Real Science Friday" setup is you keep implying that because scientists learn new things, that major theories like the age of the earth and evolution itself are under threat. They aren't. The argument about the worms is an argument about where a branch goes on the tree of life, not WHETHER there is a tree of life.
It is as if you thought the argument over whether Pluto is a planet or not brought into question the heliocentric solar system.
I've already showed you videos that represent quite a bit of research that has been clearing up other areas of the tree of life. There are oodles and oodles of papers coming out every day.
Here's a smattering of a plant taxonomy journal, Taxon (Mind you, this is just February's issue)
| Revisiting the wax plants (Hoya, Marsdenieae, Apocynaceae): Phylogenetic tree using the matK gene and psbA-trnH intergenic spacer pp. 4-14(11) Authors: Wanntorp, Livia; Gotthardt, Katherina; Muellner, Alexandra N. Molecular phylogeny and biogeography of three closely related genera, Soroseris, Stebbinsia, and Syncalathium (Asteraceae, Cichorieae), endemic to the Tibetan Plateau, SW China pp. 15-26(12) Authors: Zhang, Jian-Wen; Nie, Ze-Long; Wen, Jun; Sun, Hang Graphis is two genera: A remarkable case of parallel evolution in lichenized Ascomycota pp. 99-107(9) Authors: Plata, Eimy Rivas; Hernández M., Jesús E.; Lücking, Robert; Staiger, Bettina; Kalb, Klaus; Cáceres, Marcela E.S. Extensive gene flow blurs species boundaries among Veronica barrelieri, V. orchidea and V. spicata (Plantaginaceae) in southeastern Europe pp. 108-121(14) Authors: Bardy, Katharina E.; Schönswetter, Peter; Schneeweiss, Gerald M.; Fischer, Manfred A.; Albach, Dirk C. Phylogenetic relationships in the order Cucurbitales and a new classification of the gourd family (Cucurbitaceae) pp. 122-138(17) Authors: Schaefer, Hanno; Renner, Susanne S. Molecular phylogeny of Camphorosmeae (Camphorosmoideae, Chenopodiaceae): Implications for biogeography, evolution of C4-photosynthesis and taxonomy pp. 51-78(28) |
Where are all those papers that are showing evolution to be the great theory in crisis? Hmm, maybe we can find them in the fossils.
So here's this Month's issue of Vertebrate paleontology.
| Three-dimensional pelvis and limb anatomy of the Cenomanian hind-limbed snake Eupodophis descouensi (Squamata, Ophidia) revealed by synchrotron-radiation computed laminography Alexandra Houssaye; Feng Xu; Lukas Helfen; Vivian De Buffrénil; Tilo Baumbach; Paul Tafforeau Pages 2 – 7 A partial skeleton of the Late Cretaceous lamniform shark, Archaeolamna kopingensis, from the Pierre Shale of western Kansas, U.S.A. Todd D. Cook; Michael G. Newbrey; Alison M. Murray; Mark V. H. Wilson; Kenshu Shimada; Gary T. Takeuchi; J. D. Stewart Pages 8 – 21 A new amphibamid (Temnospondyli: Dissorophoidea) from the Early Permian of Texas Hélène Bourget; Jason S. Anderson Pages 32 – 49 A new helmeted frog (Anura: Calyptocephalellidae) from an Eocene subtropical lake in northwestern Patagonia, Argentina Raúl O. Gómez; Ana M. Báez; Paula Muzzopappa Pages 50 – 59 Selenemys lusitanica, gen. et sp. nov., a new pleurosternid turtle (Testudines: Paracryptodira) from the Upper Jurassic of Portugal Adán Pérez-García; Francisco Ortega Pages 60 – 69 New information on Wumengosaurus delicatomandibularis Jiang et al., 2008 (Diapsida: Sauropterygia), with a revision of the osteology and phylogeny of the taxon Xiao-Chun Wu; Yen-Nien Cheng; Chun Li; Li-Jun Zhao; Tamaki Sato Pages 70 – 83 Cranial ornamentation and ontogenetic status of Homalocephale calathocercos (Ornithischia: Pachycephalosauria) from the Nemegt Formation, Mongolia David C. Evans; Caleb Marshall Brown; Michael J. Ryan; Khishigjav Tsogtbaatar Pages 84 – 92 The osteology of Chubutisaurus insignis del Corro, 1975 (Dinosauria: Neosauropoda) from the ‘middle’ Cretaceous of central Patagonia, Argentina José L. Carballido; Diego Pol; Ignacio Cerda; Leonardo Salgado Pages 93 – 110 Theropod teeth from the Middle-Upper Jurassic Shishugou Formation of northwest Xinjiang, China Fenglu Han; James M. Clark; Xing Xu; Corwin Sullivan; Jonah Choiniere; David W. E. Hone Pages 111 – 126 Cranial pneumatic anatomy of Ornithomimus edmontonicus (Ornithomimidae: Theropoda) Rui Tahara; Hans C. E. Larsson Pages 127 – 143 A small alvarezsaurid from the eastern Gobi Desert offers insight into evolutionary patterns in the Alvarezsauroidea Sterling J. Nesbitt; Julia A. Clarke; Alan H. Turner; Mark A. Norell Pages 144 – 153 A new enantiornithine bird from the Lower Cretaceous of western Liaoning, China Dongyu Hu; Li Li; Lianhaim Hou; Xing Xu Pages 154 – 161 Cimolestids (Mammalia) from the early Paleocene (Puercan) of New Mexico Thomas E. Williamson; Anne Weil; Barbara Standhardt Pages 162 – 180 Differences in the tooth eruption sequence in Hyaenodon (‘Creodonta’: Mammalia) and implications for the systematics of the genus Katharina Bastl; Michael Morlo; Doris Nagel; Elmar Heizmann Pages 181 – 192 The first cranial remains of the Pleistocene proterotheriid Neolicaphrium Frenguelli, 1921 (Mammalia, Litopterna): a comparative approach Martín Ubilla; Daniel Perea; Mariano Bond; Andrés Rinderknecht Pages 193 – 201 A new uintan horned brontothere from Wyoming and the evolution of canine size and sexual dimorphism in the Brontotheriidae (Perissodactyla: Mammalia) Matthew C. Mihlbachler Pages 202 – 214 Merychyus calaminthus (Mammalia, Artiodactyla, Oreodontidae) of probable early late Arikareean (late Oligocene to late early Miocene) age from the lower part of the Chalk Canyon Formation, Maricopa and Yavapai counties, central Arizona E. Bruce Lander; Everett H. Lindsay Pages 215 – 226 |
Or we could look at the science Daily headlines from just this morning.
Flowering Plant Study catches evolution in the act
Gosh, where are all those papers showing that evolution is a theory in crisis? Not there either. Maybe they *gasp* don't exist!
Of course you desperately WANT to believe evolution is in crisis, regardless of the facts. Or maybe you are just interested in keeping people listening to your show and keeping the money flowing.
It's interesting how you ignore what I debunk and bring up new things. Classic creationist tactic, keep shifting the spotlight.
Then you cannot make the claim that a random change certainly has no detrimental effect.
It really is irrelevant and a useless thing to talk about in a study of information. If there is "junk" DNA then it got that way because of random changes and it will certainly never turn into information.
Alate loves to say that evolutionists continuing to believe in evolution is good reason to ignore challenges to evolution. :chuckle:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Bob is trying to say that the scientific literature itself is showing evolution to be "in crisis" by cherry picking articles he thinks show that (of course they don't), but that's why I gave him the list.
"Creation Science" isn't science and if it's peer reviewed it's by the same handful of people that all agree on using the journal to advance a religious purpose, not to find out how the physical and natural world actually works. Modern Creation Science has produced nothing that actually works, No medical breakthroughs, no new technologies, no explanations that pass scientific tests.
So no you don't get to play the relativistic game "you have your science and I have mine". Mainstream science is the only science that actually works. That's how science is judged, does it work or not.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Because scientists LOVE to upset the apple cart. If there were real evidence that could overturn evolution, someone would be making their name based on it. It would be great, instant Nature paper. Problem is, there isn't any evidence.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Except that "Junk DNA" does sometimes become genes . . . . :chuckle:
Another one of those things that surprised "evolutionists". And another notch against "random changes are always bad".
A_O, is "horrendous" an overstatement? It's a verbatim quote. Google "scientists were shocked" to find 200,000 web pages. Of course not all are "in the literature."
Alate, how would you be able to tell if they were coming apart? Do you think you would be honest enough to recognize that? Would you be one of the first to see it, if this were the case?
Here is my assessment of that. In the afterlife you will meet your creator Jesus Christ, and you will hear the truth from Him. And you will still reject it.
A_O, if you look at this more closely, you'll see that the worm has not only lost it perch, but (as usual) there's another deep evolutionary mystery, in that according to the researchers, it apparently lost a lot of genetic information, for it went far backwards, from where it supposedly was on a genetic bush closer to humans, to where it is now. And remember, these worms are more of the thousands of species that have lost their place on the tree, to where the tree isn't even a bush anymore...
New Scientist: DARWIN WAS WRONG: Cutting down the tree of life.
Remember A_O that New Scientist magazine published their cover story, Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life, admitting that Darwin's theory of descent was as important as his theory of natural selection. Of the many thousands of species genetically evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter). And that was before the sequenced chimp Y chromosome. And before the worm.
From RSF's Bearded Ladies & Flowering Plants: Science magazine 4-3-09, Nature magazine, the Swedish Museum and Cornell University still can do no better than agree with Darwin that the evolution of flowering plants is an "abominable mystery" with DNA analysis and radiation scans of fossil plants leaving evolutionists baffled that the "ancestor just isn't there" and that they seemed to have "transformed without intermediates."
Yes, I know. It's like mining gold!
A_O, not only that, but the angiospermae story-telling about which flowering plants were at the base of the tree (including by a researcher Ryerson up the street at CU) will go the way of the iconic marine worm, because when you read the research, and the jockeying, and remember the lesson from the (secondarily) flightless, recently extinct moas, with thousands of extant bones available, and scientists for decades had an extremely confused view of them, as badly as believing that males and females were different species. And one of the Darwinist researcher asked, to paraphrase, "If we get it this wrong on such a recently extinct species with a plethora of remains, how confident can we be when we're making conclusions about evolutionary events millions of years ago when we're going on many assumptions and scant evidence?" Yes, how?
A_O, millions of Christians believe in evolution, showing that I wouldn't have to dump my worldview if evolution were proved. You, on the other hand, would. It's more difficult for you to be objective than me. And I've corrected myself publicly on many significant claims and conclusions I've drawn. I don't know if you do that. I have an errata link on my home page, and list errors in show summaries when I become convinced of them.
A_O, my fulfillment and self-worth are in Christ, in God's love for me, and in my relationship with my wife and children and friends. Being a radio host is merely an outlet to talk to people about God. If the show were canceled tomorrow, I'd simply ask God for other opportunities. As for money, yes, we all need money to provide for our loved ones. Cheryl and I have no savings, no retirement money, we live paycheck-to-paycheck like most people, but we're blessed beyond measure with the Lord, one another, and our children. While working at Microsoft in the mid-1980s I had 5,000 stock options that would have vested if I had stayed, which have since split a half-dozen times and today are worth tens of millions of dollars. I have never had the slightest regret. Within months of leaving Redmond, I was in full-time Christian ministry and fighting to stop Planned Parenthood from ripping the arms and legs off of unborn children. You can psychoanalyze me and claim that I'm insincere and motivated by money like many televangelists, but I don't know what evidence you would have for that accusation.
We'll, when we see Him we can ask if you actually debunked anything.
-Bob Enyart
Last edited:
A_O, it's so funny that it's SO EASY to "quote mine" evolutionists because thousands of Darwinist authors have stated in every conceivable way the severe problems with the theory, from paleontology "their trade secret," to cosmologystatement.org. So blame them
I note that you say Creation Science and not ID scientists or creation scientists, since they have published thousands of refereed papers, and invented technologies from the MRI to Terra, discovered planets, made science history, etc., etc. etc. As far as I know, AiG, CMI, CRS, etc., fund neither applied science start-ups nor get any of the billions of tax dollars paid by creationists that go strictly to materialists.
And that claim, A_O, shows your extreme bias.
Okay, so in this list of major inventions and technologies since 1860, tell me which ones were enabled by Darwinian insight? Countless technologies and inventions were enabled by Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Bacon, Pascal, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, the Wright Brothers, and Carver. But they're all on OUR list. But, which of these did they need Darwinism to develop?
Light bulb, vacuums, pasteurization, railway, typewriter, electric motor, carburetor, loudspeaker, telephone, phonograph, microphone, photographic film, seismograph, solar panels, punch cards, cars, combustion engine, AC transformer, contact lens, tractor, ballpoint pen, cinematography, wind energy, zipper, escalator, X-ray, remote control, tape recorder, air conditioning, fire fighting foam, neon lamp, EKG, airplane, seismometer, sonar, radio, TV, rockets, radar, sliced bread, transfusion (think Harvey here), EEG, steel, radio telescope, jet engine, computer, velcro, transistor, atomic clock, nuclear reactor, fiber optics, hard ddrives, satellites, spandex and spam, lasers, digital photography, optical disc, 3D holography, LED, mouse, lunar lander, Venus lander, video games, video cassette, space station, e-mail, karaoke (so sad), LCD, microprocessor, MRI, ethernet, PC, DNA sequencing, Internet, Plasma TV, GPS, MP3 player, flashdrive?
I read evolution books, and enjoy them. A_O, would you want to read In Six Days, with each chapter of dozens by young-earth scientists who've published, and invented, and discovered, and they all testify that, like Newton and Kepler and thousands of other successful scientists, they have been inspired to accomplish much by following the evidence left by the Creator.
-Bob Enyart
Alate_One
Well-known member
In that particular field (of deep branches of the animal family tree) it was, apparently very upsetting to some people. But I also read the article in more detail and it seems they used only a small amount of DNA data to make their conclusions and a type of DNA data that hasn't been used for phylogenetics for very long. The researchers are currently working on sequencing the whole genomes, which should make the relationships much more clear. They may not be "demoted" after all, who knows. The paper only came out in Feb, so it's hardly THE definitive answer when you're dealing with a critical issue like this. We'll see what conclusions other groups of scientists come to.
I keep track of most of the big science news coming out. If evolution were coming apart, it would be pretty obvious. But in all honesty it's hard to imagine what kind of data could unseat the mountains we already have. You may as well ask me when the heliocentric solar system is going to be overturned. Certainly we will continue to get a clearer and clearer picture of what actually happened, and particular models of aspects of evolution will get rewritten . . . but not the whole thing. That would take something really, really strange to happen.
I don't think the age of the earth and the method of God's creation are really that important in the great scheme of things. However, I do think it is a stumbling block for potential believers which is why I am opposed to things like your "science friday".
My, you do like to make mountains out of molehills. Except there are millions of species on earth, and no species gets *removed* from the tree as you're implying, branches just get rearranged.
Yeah, we've been over this. Why do you keep bringing this news story up as if it actually means anything that important?
Magazines have sensational covers all the time. The organisms in question were the product of endosymbiosis and horizontal gene transfer. You do understand that those are still evolutionary processes, right? None of this makes evolution wrong, or more importantly, your version of YEC correct. You know what endosymbiosis is right?
We don't have nice and neat fossils for flowering plants, mostly because plants, and more importantly flowers don't fossilize well or frequently. However, we have a pretty good handle on the evolutionary relationships of extant plants and algae.
Again, you're still trying to play the game of "we don't know this, therefore it's all wrong!"
Let me ask you this then. Who wrote Hebrews?
If you can't answer that, then how can we trust anything you say about the Bible. Because you DON'T KNOW SOMETHING!!!! Or how about when you were wrong earlier, about the circular reasoning with the ATP synthase? You were wrong, and you got the wrong idea from Creation magazine. Why should we trust anything you, or they say? Clearly, you're falling apart.
If you're going to use that standard, apply the same standard to yourself and see how far you get.
I believe that, but I don't think you do. You're a literalist that believes in a particular view of certain parts of scripture. and if you're wrong on those parts then scripture collapses, for you, as a house of cards. Am I wrong?
Why would I have to dump my worldview? I was a YEC not too many years ago, so I have seen both sides. I am quite aware of which side is being objective with the evidence. I grew up reading ICR tracts and Morris' Genesis Flood. I'd be happier if life were simple and everything fit together into a neat package. But it isn't that simple, the evidence is quite clear that it does not.
I don't have much of a public presence other than here but I already admitted to you my one mistake so far.
No human being can see into someone else's true motivations. I'm not accusing you of anything, I am simply wondering aloud because I see so many YECs like yourself, public figures that repeatedly misrepresent science in the name of Christianity. I wonder how many are truly sincere and simply deluded and how many are purposefully lying for money, fame or whatever else may motivate them.
You've used quite a bit of obfuscation, repeated assertion and other tactics that aren't the hallmarks of honest conversation. I want to assume the best in people, especially other Christians but it is hard for me to do so when they try so hard to make a lie look like the truth.
Speaking of which . . . . (and I will cut this down to the most critical things you are ignoring since there are plenty more).
Where is the evidence you have for your assertion that Mendel rejecting Darwin's theory in total? One of the other posters posted evidence saying he was most certainly not a YEC, and while apparently not being impressed by the details of Darwin's non-genetic mechanism, Mendel at least believed in transmutation (that species change over time and replace one another).
You didn't reply to this article., the one covering the human nuclear DNA and a single primal couple.
I'd like to get your reply to these two issues in particular.
Alate_One
Well-known member
All of your quote mines have the same problem. You confuse an argument over an aspect of evolution to be an argument as to WHETHER evolution happened. The latter does not happen in modern, mainstream scientific literature. You pretending it does, does not make it so.A_O, it's so funny that it's SO EASY to "quote mine" evolutionists because thousands of Darwinist authors have stated in every conceivable way the severe problems with the theory, from paleontology "their trade secret," to cosmologystatement.org. So blame them
I say creation science because it is the models or whatever else creation science has that must be working. Individuals that happen to be creation scientists can certainly work in fields that are not directly related to the age of the earth or evolution and do great things. But those things are no testament to the functionality of creation science.
Of course none of those organizations get any competitive grants because they essentially do not do science. They sit around and read the science others have done and try to reinterpret it so it fits into their view of scripture. Then they publish their findings so that other Christians can feel better about the scientific basis of their faith. Really they put science *before* faith in a backwards sort of way.
Show me where creation science itself, has informed or aided any discovery or invention.
You've never actually supported Carver or Mendel as *actually* belonging on your list (I wonder how many others are questionable). Also remember that Creation Science wasn't a separate entity until the 1960s with Henry Morris' book, along with a number of other figures that really invented the concept of "creation science". So no, your list STILL doesn't count. :chuckle:
Those people on the list, whether you are correct about their true beliefs about creation or not, did actual science. Creation scientists as we know them today don't do science. So no you don't get to claim all of those inventions either, since they are based on the scientific method. That includes testable and falsifiable hypotheses.
I've already read more creationist books than I care to mention. I find them extremely boring since they all use the same tired arguments and the same faulty logic you've been using this entire time. However, I too am inspired to discover by the Creator. I am always fascinated by the new DNA data coming out, and I would really like to get back to generating my own.
Speaking of which, did you want to sit down and actually look at data for yourself?
A_O, I've only read half that paper, but here are my thoughts so far:
Partial Sequence: The researchers acknowledge that they couldn't look in areas of the chimp genome that have not yet been sequenced, of course.
Later Research: Now that the chimp Y chromosome has been sequenced and so much surprising variability found, the authors may want to rethink their "exploit[ing of] the high gene order conservation between human and chimp to infer the expected location in chimp." So that even within the assumptions of the authors, they may realize they need to repeat their study after the chimp genome is complete.
Length: The researchers state that the "proteins are short with lengths ranging from 121 to 163 amino acids" and this they expected because of the longer time that would be needed to evolve lengthier genes. That directly raises a question they seemed to avoid...
Quantify Change in DNA: They write, "We hypothesize that these genes have originated de novo in the human lineage, since the divergence with chimp from ancestrally noncoding sequence." Since the length of time to evolve genes of a certain length was clearly on their minds, for the shortest of these three genes they could have worked up a probability analysis of the number of reproductions needed statistically before these three sequences would arise by chance. Since they're likely going to have to revisit this research anyway, they could now take advantage of the estimates published by NIH on the time to evolve a new binding site.
Little Known: The authors write that, "Little is known about these proteins…" So it may yet be discovered that these are found to be prerequisite to very complex (seemingly ancient) vital pathways that defy explanation without them, especially seeing that they play a yet unknown role in the brain and in the male reproductive system.
Disablers: "We focused on “disablers”—sequence differences that cause the inferred protein to be truncated or not translated at all." They put that in quotes. Is this paper introducing a new entry to the genome glossary, a disabler?
Circular Reasoning: The authors' basic assumption is largely circular. They claim that these three genes evolved newly (and not from duplication or recombination) because these genes do not appear in the known chimp genome. Therefore, they *must* have evolved from scratch.
It's late. I'm tired, and bright and early tomorrow morning I'm planning on putting on my superhero costume to go out and help the innocent and meek from being killed by greedy, power-hungry, might-makes-right bad guys.
-Bob Enyart
A_O, yes you're wrong. But it's clear that you have a lot of confidence in judging my heart since you're suggesting that I don't believe something that I just told you that I do believe. Fred Williams and I just did a show applauding Ken Ham's article in which he said that believing Genesis literally and in a young earth is not necessary to be a true Christian.
Come to think of it, this simple report might objectively show that Ken Ham, Fred Williams, and Bob Enyart are more gracious to the opposition than is Alate_One.
Last edited:
Well first, you should admit that my list of technologies and inventions called your bluff of claiming that the only science that works is evolutionary science.
And to answer your question:
How about, according to Isaac Newton, everything he discovered.
How about, according to Kepler, everything he discovered.
How about... etc., etc.
A_O, I put together that list in the 1990s by going through a couple sets of Encyclopedias that I borrowed for the purpose, including a set that reprinted lengthy excerpts of the original writings of many of them. That's how I made my list. There's a world of data available in our information age, and I don't have any fear of being proved wrong. And hey, if the scientists who get paid good money to study global warming can loose their supporting data for the hockey stick graph, I imagine I can get more time to dig up my old notes on Mendel.
-Bob Enyart
Last edited:
Then it's not junk.
Is there any area of study other than evolution that requires randomness to equate to information? :think:
- Status