New Scenarios Proposed For Fundamental Problem

Non-living chemicals emerging into living cells are not being observed in nature but evolution requires such an observation like that to occur and scientists are down to creating a story about RNA. Two recent studies have surfaced in this area. The first is an RNA reactor being a precursor for life.

Physorg tells the story…

Nobody knows quite how life originated on Earth, but most scientists agree that living cells did not abruptly appear from nonliving cells in a single step. Instead, there were probably a series of pre-cellular life forms that arose from nonliving chemicals and eventually led to a living cell, one that could undergo metabolism and reproduce. One of the most well-known theories of pre-cellular life is the RNA world theory, which proposes that life based on RNA predates current life, which is based on DNA, RNA, and proteins.”

“But recently, scientists have been wondering what may have preceded RNA. In a new study, a team of scientists from Germany has suggested that the ability to self-replicate may have first emerged in the form of an RNA reactor, which they show can transmit information.”

From an evolutionary standpoint, these scientists admit they have no clue on how non-living chemicals supposedly became a living cell. In the article it contains a display of weak information being transferred in RNA strands, but the text is vague about the definition of information which is vital for every living cell.  We know when a computer is built where the information comes from which wasn’t a by-product of mere survival of random sequences. Even if there was some hypothetical meaningful use of “information” in this particular scenario, it would be quickly lost in an “error catastrophe” without accurate replication.

There wasn’t much hype with this particular scenario as though it was going to solve the fundamental problem, rather it was viewed as another angle for them to explore. Two chinese scientists offer up their scenario on the origin of life in PLoS One.

It is now widely accepted that at an early stage in the evolution of life an RNA world arose, in which RNAs both served as the genetic material and catalyzed diverse biochemical reactions. Then, proteins have gradually replaced RNAs because of their superior catalytic properties in catalysis over time. Therefore, it is important to investigate how primitive functional proteins emerged from RNA world [sic], which can shed light on the evolutionary pathway of life from RNA world to the modern world.”

“In this work, we proposed that the emergence of most primitive functional proteins are assisted by the early primitive nucleotide cofactors, while only a minority are induced directly by RNAs based on the analysis of RNA-protein complexes. Furthermore, the present findings have significant implication [sic] for exploring the composition of primitive RNA, i.e., adenine base as principal building blocks.”

Admitting its a fundamental problem concerning the origin of life, they confined themselves by bowing to the most widely accepted scenario out there. Their experiment consisted of searching a database for existing RNA-binding proteins in living cells that they targeted as possibly “primitive”.  Since polypeptide chains do not naturally form from amino acids in water (and even if they did, are unlikely to be functional), any results from a dubious method are likely to remain dubious.

Their scenario makes quite a leap from the fact that ATP, NAD, FAD, and more all contain adenine. “Considering the notion that early cofactors are vestiges of RNA world, we thus believed that adenine base should be included in the original composition of primitive RNA,” they said. There is a reason why they had made such a leap from fact, you see in order to believe that the building blocks of RNA, the bases A, G, C, and U, formed naturally and available on an early prebiotic Earth. But that has a fundamental problem too, while some of these bases have been found in meteorites (A, G), no one has been able to cook up cytosine (C) in a plausible early earth. So they focus on adenine which could come from space which is quite a leap.

NASA which mission to the moon was changed to a plan for a $800 million asteroid sample-return mission called OSIRIS-REx, which stands for Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer. If this mission is ever followed through on, it will no doubt give evolutionary scientists more material to invent new scenarios in order to explain a fundamental problem.

This is where people’s tax money is going, scientists providing pseudo-scientific props for their materialist world views. Science is considered a representative of knowledge, did anybody see any knowledge going on in these articles? Just because it makes in a peer-review science journal doesn’t make it science. Using scenarios is not science. Busy work is not science. Merely using words like arose and emerged is also not science. Suggestive phraseology like “RNA world” and “building blocks of life” is not science either rather knowledge is supposed to be justified true belief!

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “New Scenarios Proposed For Fundamental Problem

  1. Non-living chemicals emerging into living cells are [sic] not being observed in nature but evolution requires such an observation like that to occur

    Really? Even though the environment of prebiotic Earth was grossly different from today, we must still observe life emerging today? This is like saying that stone axes were never invented because we don’t observe cavemen making them today. Sorry, Michael; this one is a non-starter.

    But that has a fundamental problem too, [sic] while some of these bases have been found in meteorites (A, G), no one has been able to cook up cytosine (C) in a plausible early earth.

    Michael has left the facts behind at the narthex again. Even Michael knows about the Miller-Urey experiments, whose major products were cytosine and uracil. Why does anyone still ask why we don’t trust creationists?

    In the article it [sic] contains a display of weak information being transferred in RNA strands, but the text is vague about the definition of information which is vital for every living cell.

    And a failure of basic reading comprehension. The Physorg article makes very clear what they mean—

    RNA replicators can transmit information from one molecule to another so that the information survives even when the original carrier molecules have become degraded.

    The configuration of a molecule is information. A replicator transmits information by copying its own configuration to another physical substrate. This seems fairly obvious to most people. But Michael, when he sees his favorite buzzword, starts imagining computers, unicorns, and other human artifacts. Sorry, this one won’t fly either.

    .

    But now we come to the crux of Michael’s ignorance (or deception, if you will)—

    Using scenarios are [sic] not science. Busy work is not science. Merely using words like arose and emerged is not science. Suggestive phraseology like “RNA world” and “building blocks of life” is not science either [sic] rather knowledge is supposed to be justified true belief!

    Michael seems to be unaware that a synonym for “scenario” is “hypothesis.” Even Michael would agree that forming hypotheses to explain facts is not only justified, but constitutes the entire reason for doing science. Without hypotheses, looking through a microscope at stunning cells is nothing more than art appreciation.

    Yet Michael denigrates “scenarios” and “stories.” Michael continues to confuse them with biblical stories. We keep trying to convince Michael that science differs from theology. A scientific story–a scenario, a hypothesis—is based upon observable or experimental evidence. A theological story—a myth, an allegory–is not.

    By sneering at such scientific scenarios, Michael hopes to strengthen his argument from ignorance: that life did not arise from non-living matter because no one yet knows how it happened.

    Perhaps Michael should look to his own field, and tell us how he would construct a hypothesis concerning how God created bacteria? How would he then proceed to test that scenario? What experiments and computer simulations would he perform to winkle out which Day of creation saw the rise of bacteria? How would he arrive at a “justified true belief” in this matter?

    I thought not.

  2. Michael highlights a portion of a quote that says that we don’t know how life originated. In doing so, he is implying that this is a weakness. I would like to imply that this is the logical fallacy of “an appeal to ignorance.”

  3. And there we go again, confusing formation and evolution.

    The theory of evolution is not covering abiogenesis: that is a different theory, and much less developed, for good reasons.

  4. Evolution happens all the time.

    How do you think a sperm and an egg combine to turn into a human. Magic? It is all part of molecular biology, evolutionary biology…and, well, FACT. Why do you think people look like their parents?

    Also, look at dogs from 100 years ago. They have been extensively bred, and such have different sized heads, jaws and even legs.

  5. And there we go again, confusing formation and evolution

    This is not confusion. It is deception.

    Creationists play a shell game in which a question they can’t answer gets turned into a different question where less is known or where controversy exists. Thus the undeniable evidence for organic evolution is misdirected into the less developed area of abiogenesis.

    Ultinmately, the only case that creationists have ever come up with devolves into an argument from ignorance coupled with a false dichotomy. “We don’t know eactly how Theory X works. Therefore Theory Y must be true.” When stated this baldly, this is ludicrous. So creationists have had little success convincing anyone who is not already a believer.

  6. Well perhaps in the future Michael can give us something that is worth some serious thought—– What am I saying?! He hasn’t posted anything lately that even lights my interest, even a little. Why should I think that things could potentially be any different? I tend to be interested in things that others of my age (I’m 24) would not tend to be interested in (like Creation/Evolution), but Michael really knows how to make such an interesting topic such a bore, especially since all he can say is “It must be designed,” or “I don’t get how this could happen naturally, so God must have done it.” Also, his fallacy of equivocation of assuming that “complexity” is the same thing as “designed” is, as we say in Spanish realmente predecible que solo aburre. [1]

    Perhaps Michael should stick to regular Christian apologetics rather than hang around the “anti-science wing” of the fundamentalist movement. If he were to spend his time arguing against the “Jesus-Myth” crowd for example, he would actually have a lot more allies. But no, he seems to insist on remaining in the section of apologetics with absolutely no credibility.[2]

    ————-
    [1] Translation to English:
    “so predictable that it only bores.” — Yes, I speak Spanish, and proud of it.

    [2] Yes, some apologetics are more credible than others. For example, I consider J.P. Holding’s “Tekton Apologetics” to be a lot more credible than Apologetics Press. — Holding is a YEC, but he does not usually argue in favor of it. He tends to spend his time in topics he actually knows about.

  7. Hey Michael Roberts,

    You say, “Evolution happens all the time.” Well, in one of your examples concerning dogs (and this applies to humans too) is merely an example of change among an already-dog population. This is a fine-tuned expression of the variety in genetic information that already existed in the dog population, not an example of generations of copious amounts of new genetic information created by mutations then chosen by natural selection. Experiments involving 600 generations of fruit flies have shown they are resisted to change not open to it as evolution requires, it also showed a downward fitness trend.

  8. See how Michael wiggles out of the obvious? “Well, dog breeding is not really evolution.” What is it, Michael, if not evolution?

    Creationists are forced to keep moving the goalposts. Originally, no evolution at all was alowed. When this position became laughable, then they redefined evolution as new species. When new species were shown to develop within recorded history, then it became, “major changes.” And so on and so forth.

    These days, creationists and ID folk like to talk about “information”—

    genetic information that already existed in the dog population, not an example of generations of copious amounts of new genetic information created by mutations then chosen by natural selection

    Sounds plausible, until one realizes that they never define the term in an meaningful or quantitative way. But even here they are forced to move the goalposts. They used to claim that all> “information” had to come from an intelligence. Even Michael has moved away from that position as it induces more and more ridicule; now he requires “copious” amounts of “new” information.

    Call you bluff, Michael: How much information is “copious information”? In what way does :”new information” differ from information changed within an existing population?

    The obvious answer is that these terms refer to “that amount of information which evolution cannot provide.” In other words, creationist are now asking the goalposts to move themselves. But, eventually, there is nowhere left to go.

    .

    We can hope that, at that point, they will give up on evolution as they gave up arguing for a flat Earth in the 1920s and 1930s. Flat Earth only a century ago? Oh, yes—

    I believe that the earth is a staionary plane, that it rests upon water, and that there is no such thing as the earth moving, no such thing as the earth’s axis or the earth’s orbit…. I get my astronomy from the Bible.”

    (A speech made by Ben Voliva on Dec. 26, 1915. From Schadewald, “The Earth Was Flat in Zion” p.72)

  9. @Michael

    You say:

    This is a fine-tuned expression of the variety in genetic information that already existed in the dog population, not an example of generations of copious amounts of new genetic information created by mutations then chosen by natural selection.

    This is wrong on two counts:

    1. It doesn’t matter if the information had already existed in the common ancestor. Even a recombination of already-existing-information counts as information.

    2. A recombination of genetic material CREATES A NEW GENETIC MESSAGE, and THEREFORE it creates new information. To prove my point, I will give an over simplified example: The sentence “Darwin was a scientific god,” verses “Darwin was a scientific dog.” This is a recombination of what is already there, but it is STILL NEW INFORMATION.

    3. New genes are not really necessary for evolution. Evolution works with what is already there, so new materials are not necessarily needed.

    Experiments involving 600 generations of fruit flies have shown they are resisted to change not open to it as evolution requires, it also showed a downward fitness trend.

    This is not true. Michael has eaten this talking point up from Creationist websites without any further investigation. In the fruit fly experiments, it was found that there were individuals that received the variation of red eyes, and were able to pass it on. (Yes, Michael, a different color of eyes counts as new information). Not all the descendants received the trait, but it was heritable, and therefore counts.

    Once again, Michael shows he has no idea what he’s talking about. All he has done is lap up creationist literature that he was all to ready to believe.

  10. Inh other news,
    . . . . .. . GE X-Ray Unit Will Move to Beijing
    Now based nearby in Waukesha, Wisconsin, the General Electric Healthcare unit is the world’s largest designer and manufacturer of medical imaging systems.

    Moving toys and commodity electronics to China is one thing. More and more, the life-sciences and biotech industries are relocating there. Most major drug companies already do development as well as manufacturing in China. Chinese universities advertise for US professors.

    Some predict that life sciences will dominate the next century as computers dominated the previous century. Innovation is the lifeblood of any industry. Where does that leave the US, with our low science literacy and not enough technical graduates to satisfy the needs of General Electric and others?

    Not to mention the persistent efforts of creationists to sabotage science education with “academic freedom” bills. Fortunately for them, the Chinese do not struggle under this handicap. Nor Indonesia, nor Korea, nor India—all rising stars in the life sciences.

    .

    And we can’t blame these moves on lower wages. If low wages were the criterion, everyone would move to Africa, where the prevailing rates are half of those in the Far East.

  11. Olorin said:

    Michael has left the facts behind at the narthex again. Even Michael knows about the Miller-Urey experiments, whose major products were cytosine and uracil. Why does anyone still ask why we don’t trust creationists?
    ________________________________________________________________________

    Olorin, you really ought to question whether you can trust yourself because you suggest Michael is being dishonest when it is evident you are either ignorant of the issue or you are being intellectually dishonest. You claim the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil” I have read even from your fellow evolutionists, for instance, Robert Shapiro say the “most abundant product” was tar, so where do you get your information?

    ________________________________________________________________________

    Thank you Michael for another excellent post.

  12. @53Isaiah

    You claim the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil” I have read even from your fellow evolutionists, for instance, Robert Shapiro say the “most abundant product” was tar, so where do you get your information?

    I don’t know if Olorin meant Miller-Urey, but the SAME miller in 1995 did another experiment in which uracil and cytosine WERE produced! It was said that the results were similar to the 1953 experiment though.

    I have a question for you? Did you read Shapiro’s book? Or did you pick that statement up from creationist literature? And if you read the book, could you give the entire context?

  13. Kriss:

    Are you saying Olorin SAID, “…the Miller-Urey experiments…” but he MEANT something else? There is a word for that, it is called double-speak. Regardless, we know exactly what “experiments” he was referring to, thus, bringing up “another experiment” is irrelevant. It will not deflect from the fact that Olorin claimed the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil” and from what I have read, that claim is not true. It appears Olorin made that claim out of ignorance and or in an effort to discredit Michael; yet he only discredited himself.

    It is interesting that you answer for Olorin yet you did not answer the question I asked him, which I now ask you, i.e. where do you get your information? I have seen your claim, for instance on RationalWiki, yet they like you provide no link documenting the actual experiment. Where is the actual data from Millers 1995 experiment?

    As for your question, no, I have not read Shapiro’s book, have you? I have read numerous authors quote Shapiro, including some of your fellow evolutionists, are you saying they quoted him inaccurately? I have read the following from him, which speaks directly to Olorins assertion about cytosine:

    Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life

    Cytosine, however, has not been reported in analyses of meteorites nor is it among the products of electric spark discharge experiments. The reported prebiotic syntheses of cytosine involve the reaction of cyanoacetylene (or its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde), with cyanate, cyanogen, or urea. These substances undergo side reactions with common nucleophiles that appear to proceed more rapidly than cytosine formation. To favor cytosine formation, reactant concentrations are required that are implausible in a natural setting.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

    Comments on `Concentration by Evaporation and the Prebiotic Synthesis of Cytosine’

    The claim by Nelson et al. (2001) that the reaction of cyanoacetaldehyde and urea provides `an efficient prebioticsynthesis’ of cytosine is disputed. The authors have not dealt with the important points presented in a criticism of this reaction(Shapiro, 1999): (1) The reactants undergo side reactions with common nucleophiles that appear to proceed more rapidly than cytosine formation, and (2) No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition by deamination, and permit accumulation over extended periods of time.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/dxr2xc9he7qt5g8a/

    Furthermore, regarding the Miller-Urey experiments and any like it, when evolutionists and the media etc., etc., make claims that such and such “amino acids were produced” it is an intellectually dishonest claim that amounts to subtle propaganda. Miller took what God Created, mixed it together in an experiment confined to Millers hypothetical conditions, and watched the reactions. That is it. To claim otherwise is tantamount to claiming that if a child constructs a house using Lego blocks it proves the child can also produce the Lego blocks he used to construct the house. It is simply absurd. All those experiments ONLY speak volumes about the FAITH you evolutionists place in fallen mans speculations; in assumptions based upon assumptions based upon assumptions etc., all of which rests on the grand a priori assumption of evolution. It is not genuine science Kriss; it is pseudo-science.

  14. @53Isaiah

    Are you saying Olorin SAID, “…the Miller-Urey experiments…” but he MEANT something else? There is a word for that, it is called double-speak. Regardless, we know exactly what “experiments” he was referring to, thus, bringing up “another experiment” is irrelevant.

    I was saying i know for a fact that the ingredients he was mentioned showed up in another experiment that Miller did. In that case, it still isn’t good for your position. Bringing another experiment is not irrelevant, so long as it still confirms or denies a certain result.

    It is interesting that you answer for Olorin yet you did not answer the question I asked him, which I now ask you, i.e. where do you get your information? I have seen your claim, for instance on RationalWiki, yet they like you provide no link documenting the actual experiment. Where is the actual data from Millers 1995 experiment?

    My source: When I took Biology: History of Life. Sometimes you have to get the detail from a university course, not online.

    As for your question, no, I have not read Shapiro’s book, have you? I have read numerous authors quote Shapiro, including some of your fellow evolutionists, are you saying they quoted him inaccurately?

    I was trying to make sure whether or nor you quote-mined an author. Your exact wording was I have read even from your fellow evolutionists, for instance, Robert Shapiro say…” — That can be a bit misleading and give the impression that you actually read a book you have not. Thanks for showing that you are willing to quote-mine without checking the original source. In short, it doesn’t matter whether I read the book or not because I am not the one citing him without actually checking the original source; you are.

    Miller took what God Created, mixed it together in an experiment confined to Millers hypothetical conditions, and watched the reactions.

    So what’s your point? It doesn’t matter where the ingredients came from originally since the Miller experiment did not include that in it’s scope, nor did was that the intention.

  15. Sorry for this double post Michael, I am posting through ScribFire and its not posting correctly.

    krissmith777 on July 29, 2011 at 12:01 pm said:

    I was saying i know for a fact that the ingredients he was mentioned showed up in another experiment that Miller did. In that case, it still isn’t good for your position. Bringing another experiment is not irrelevant, so long as it still confirms or denies a certain result.

    Bringing up “another experiment” certainly is irrelevant. Once again, it will not deflect from the fact that Olorin claimed the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil” and from what I have read, that claim is not true. He needs to confirm his claim, yet he did not. It appears he made it out of ignorance and or in an effort to discredit Michael; yet he only discredited himself. Now we can talk about “another experiment” if you wish just as soon as we finish discussing the Miller-Urey experiments. As it stands, you answered for Olorin, I asked him a question, and instead of answering it, you are engaging in disingenuous tactics and discrediting yourself as well; it is not good for your position Kriss. Where is the data that shows the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil”?

    krissmith777: My source: When I took Biology: History of Life. Sometimes you have to get the detail from a university course, not online.

    What is the title of the book from your “university course” who is the author and does it contain the actual data from Millers 1995 experiment?

    krissmith777: I was trying to make sure whether or nor you quote-mined an author. Your exact wording was “I have read even from your fellow evolutionists, for instance, Robert Shapiro say…” — That can be a bit misleading and give the impression that you actually read a book you have not.

    You and Olorin have stated bare assertions including giving the impression that you actually have the data to back them up and yet the only thing you have provided to back them up is more bare assertions given in your usual rude manner and NOW you have the audacity to claim what I wrote “can be a bit misleading”… that is rich.

    krissmith777: Thanks for showing that you are willing to quote-mine without checking the original source. In short, it doesn’t matter whether I read the book or not because I am not the one citing him without actually checking the original source; you are.

    You are the one suggesting the quote I posted is inaccurate. It does matter whether you read the book otherwise how could you “make sure whether or not” I “quote-mined an author”?

    In short, you cannot show how the quote I posted from Shapiro is inaccurate so you falsely accuse me of being “willing to quote-mine” and you do all that because your position rests on sinking sand. Read the message I initially posted to Olorin, it applies to you as well Kriss, because you show the same irrationality, anger and utter lack of common decency.

    krissmith777: So what’s your point? It doesn’t matter where the ingredients came from originally since the Miller experiment did not include that in it’s scope, nor did was that the intention.

    If you failed to comprehend my simple points, I am not sure how re-wording what I said will help you. I do not think you are that dense though. You did indeed grasp the points I made, you will simply refuse to acknowledge them. The scope of Millers experiments did indeed include the “origin of life” and the “production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions” and for the reasons I pointed out and many others, his experiment utterly failed. When reviewing his and other evolutionists’ attempts to confirm their various hypotheses I am embarrassed for you evolutionists. As A.E. Wilder-Smith said in the following:

    “The scientific materialists are bending all their efforts to demonstrate that, if a reaction leading up to life can take place now, in laboratory reaction vessels, without supernatural aid, then proof positive has been effectively delivered that no supernatural agency was needed to produce life at the beginning, at archebiopoesis. Thus any synthetic, laboratory production of life in the laboratory, under what are presumed to be conditions resembling those on the earth when life arose for the first time, is heralded in many circles as driving the last nail in God’s and the supernaturalist’s coffins.

    Who needs God and the supernaturalist position if life on the earth can be effectively accounted for without either? Before accepting this commonly assumed position let us consider the following: Is it not remarkable that this view is not generally recognized for what it is-an absolute contradiction? For all the efforts of the scientific naturalists to prove their point by the above mentioned method only serve, in fact, to verify the correctness of the supernaturalist position. For, is it not true that the scientific materialists are, in their experiment, applying intelligence and thought to the ordering of matter? Under the influence of intelligence they are hoping to produce living matter from its nonliving base. This is precisely the supernaturalist point of view.”

  16. Hey Michael,

    Since I cannot edit comments, would you please delete my July 30, 2011 at 11:35 am comment. Thanks.

  17. @53Isaiah

    What is the title of the book from your “university course” who is the author and does it contain the actual data from Millers 1995 experiment?

    I told you what it was called. It was called “Biology: History of Life.” It was at San Bernardino Valley College, and the lecture on it contained the summary of the results, though not the actual paper on it. It was not in the textbook, it was in the lecture.

    In short, you cannot show how the quote I posted from Shapiro is inaccurate so you falsely accuse me of being “willing to quote-mine” and you do all that because your position rests on sinking sand.

    Actually yes I can show that. The fact you lifted a claim WITHOUT checking the source for yourself IS a form of quote-mining.

    If you failed to comprehend my simple points, I am not sure how re-wording what I said will help you. I do not think you are that dense though.

    Saying “Miller used matarials God used, not materials he himself made” is simply a way of moving the goal posts. It does not matter if the materials he used had an origin beyond the experiment itself. That was not the point. It’s not as if he was trying to actually create life because he was not. He was simply trying to experiment to see if ingredients necessary for it could appear under certain conditions. — Even if you are right in assuming that his experiments did mostly cause Tar to appear, it does not discount the fact that necessary amino acids needed for life to appear also appeared as well, and in that case, the experiment was a success.

    It is true that he was wrong about the primitive atmosphere, but even in experiments that have been done since then with more accurate simulations of the primitive atmosphere there have been similar results to Miller. That is why Miller-Urey is still used in textbooks. If newer experiments had been.

    We know that these necessary components can form EVEN OUT of the test tube because we found them in meteorites. On meteors, 74 different amino acids have been found, and among them ALL OF THE 20 amino acids that are required for life to form.

    As A.E. Wilder-Smith said in the following:

    Wilder-Smith only speak for themselves, and themselves alone. If their definition of God is someone who must directly intervene in the creation of life, then I guess God (in their point of view) is dead. But different people have different definitions of God. I don’t think God is bound to either create life, directly or indirectly. And frankly, I don’t even think it matters. Even if every experiment to recreate the origin of life are all misguided, it still does not mean God could not have originated the laws of nature in a way that would allow those same natural laws to lead to the origin of life. Whether in person or not, God could still get the credit.

  18. 53 Isaiah…That’s alright, I wish they would have an editing function for those who are not the hosts. Comment was deleted by your request.

  19. krissmith777 on July 30, 2011 at 4:24 pm said:

    I told you what it was called. It was called “Biology: History of Life.” ……Actually yes I can show that. The fact you lifted a claim WITHOUT checking the source for yourself IS a form of quote-mining……Saying “Miller used matarials God used, not materials he himself made” is simply a way of moving the goal posts….

    FIRST, I asked you, where do you get your information and you responded with, “…My source: When I took Biology: History of Life…” which sounds like you are saying you took a Biology course, so how was I supposed to know the course you “took” had the same name as the textbook used in the course? So apparently, neither your “teacher” nor the book he/she used in that lecture provided the actual empirical scientific data to support their claims. That is the typical propaganda used throughout the “educational” system to brainwash the gullible into believing what is NOT true. As it stands you, you are simply parroting the bare assertions you heard from your “teacher” but that is not what I asked for. Once again, WHERE is the actual data from Millers 1995 experiment?

    SECOND, falsely accusing me of quote mining and then claiming that you show the quote I posted from Shapiro IS inaccurate by simply repeating and adding to your initial false accusation does not help your position Kriss, you expose how disingenuous you are.

    THIRD, I have not set up any goalpost much less move any. You evolutionists set up the goalpost with your assertions (and you move it whenever you need to revise your stories) it is your responsibility to provide actual empirical scientific evidence to support your assertions; otherwise, they are simply irrational bare assertions. It most certainly is NOT a “fact that necessary amino acids needed for life to appear also appeared as well” as you claim. To suggest things “form” and “appear” i.e. pointing out an effect while ignoring the cause as well as every other factor is just plain double speak Kriss. You are simply parroting a piece of the propaganda of the fable of evolution, which suggests something like this…

    “…common chemicals plus energy supply is all we need to create life…”

    Which translated means this…

    “…IGNORING all else, especially the fact that life uses l-amino acids exclusively, common chemicals plus energy is all that is needed to create life IN THE IMAGINATIONARY atmosphere of OUR IMAGINATIONARY early earth scenario which is specifically DESIGNED to yield amino acids that “form” spontaneously…”

    Now, once again, Olorin claimed, the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil” and that claim is NOT true. You answered for Olorin and claimed“…but the SAME miller in 1995 did another experiment in which uracil and cytosine WERE produced! It was said that the results were similar to the 1953 experiment though.” From what I have read not only were cytosine and uracil NOT the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments, they were NOT “produced” at all. So how could Millers 1995 experiment be “similar to the 1953 experiment” as you claim? Where is the data from that experiment? After listening to false claims from Olorin about the Miller-Urey experiments, do you seriously expect me to take YOUR word for it regarding Millers 1995 experiment?

    LASTLY, to say “people have different definitions of God”, is nothing but relativism and it too is false and irrational. God is not relative and neither is His Truth. It matters not what you, your evolution “scientists” or anyone else thinks or says regarding anything Kriss. Neither you nor they have the authority, power or knowledge to define truth or anything, period. You and yours have no answers. It matters ONLY what God Himself said, God IS the AUTHOR-ITY, He is the Creator, and He reveals the Truth quite clearly in the Holy Scriptures. You as well as countless others simply choose to reject it. Yours is a revised version of the first recorded deception, “Has God indeed said? Well He did not tell you the truth; we will tell you the truth.” Continue to believe modern day serpents and you will continue to be “…tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting…”

  20. @53Isaiah

    So apparently, neither your “teacher” nor the book he/she used in that lecture provided the actual empirical scientific data to support their claims. That is the typical propaganda used throughout the “educational” system to brainwash the gullible into believing what is NOT true.

    You are not in a position to say what any of my college professors have or do not have. No dice.

    SECOND, falsely accusing me of quote mining and then claiming that you show the quote I posted from Shapiro IS inaccurate by simply repeating and adding to your initial false accusation does not help your position Kriss, you expose how disingenuous you are.

    Oh that hurts. You’re still a quote miner.

    LASTLY, to say “people have different definitions of God”, is nothing but relativism and it too is false and irrational. God is not relative and neither is His Truth.

    I never said God was relative, just that perceptions of him are. Huge difference. Even the most fundamentalist Christians do not perceptions of him that are exactly the same. So I re-affirm: This only depends on how you define God.

  21. @53Isaiah,

    Besides, I have no need to defend myself on what Shapiro said or didn’t say. You are the one who cited him without checking to make sure that your citation was accurate. Since you were the one who brought him up, it is up to you to show that you cited him accurately; not to me to show that you did inaccurately (since I actually have not made one claim one way or the other).

    You cannot justify lifting a quote and not checking it from the original source on any grounds whatsoever. In academia, they would crucify you for doing that, no matter what you are arguing for or against. (Two famous examples of quote lifting without checking the original source are Richard Dawkins and Ward Churchill, though the latter had more of a backlash than the former.)

    No not fuss at me until you have checked your quote in the original source, context and all, to see if you cited him accurately. If you cited him accurately, then I’m fine with that. That burden is on you since you are the one who cited him in the first place, not me.

    So my advice to you: I don’t care what your cause is. If you cannot check your source, do not quote it. It’s unadvisable, it is unquestionably wrong, and it is foolish.

  22. You claim the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil” I have read even from your fellow evolutionists, for instance, Robert Shapiro say the “most abundant product” was tar, so where do you get your information?

    Mea culpa, 53isaiah. But not mea gravissima culpa. The originals Miller-Urey experiments did not produce measurable quantities of cytosine.

    However, similar experiments by Miller alone in 1995 did produce cytosine. And uracil.[1] Subsequent experiments reproduced these results.

    .

    Saying that the most abundant product of Miller-Urey was tar is like saying that the most abundant product of the Homestake gold mine was crushed rock. True, but irrelevant.

    ===================

    [1] Also, a 2008 reanalysis of some fortuitously preserved results of the original 1953 work showed a number of other amino acids that Miller and Urey had not detected at the time—22 amino acids, in fact.

  23. krissmith777 on August 3, 2011 at 2:17 pm said:

    “You are not in a position to say what any of my college professors have or do not have. No dice…Oh that hurts. You’re still a quote miner…”

    FIRST, I am going by what you said Kriss. You claimed you “…know for a fact the ingredients he was mentioned showed up in another experiment that Miller did…” when asked you where you get your information you said, “My source: When I took Biology: History of Life… It was not in the textbook, it was in the lecture…” so based on your own information neither your “teacher” nor the book he/she used in that lecture PROVIDED ACTUAL EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC DATA to support their claims. Again, it is a typical propaganda used throughout the “educational” system to brainwash the gullible (you) into believing what is NOT true.

    SECOND, you have not shown the quote I posted from Shapiro IS inaccurate; your accusation that I am “a quote miner” is still false.

    THIRD, Kriss you appear to be so full of anger you must want peace.

    I never said you said God was relative; I said for you to say, “…people have different definitions of God…” is nothing but relativism. It is false and irrational because it is a denial and or avoidance of absolute truth. You are insinuating God is not absolute and because perceptions of Him are relative, you can never know Him and that is not true. It matters NOT one little tiny bit how you or anyone “defines” Him. It matters ONLY what God Himself said, about Himself, His Creation, morality, and all else. God is God is God; He said His name is “I AM” His truth is truth is truth; reality is reality is reality and none depends on human opinion or perception. He created Adam and Eve in His Image, in His Likeness they WERE perfect and “very good” indeed. What happened…through Adam, sin entered the world, death and all the horror and suffering that precedes it is through Adam’s sin…, and now all of us are born in Adams “…own likeness, after his image…” “…born of the flesh…” and here we are.

    All we like sheep have gone astray;
    We have turned, every one, to his own way;

    It started with Adam, but we have all corrupted ourselves and through us, the earth is corrupt. The difference between religion and Christianity is in religion you rely on your own way to save yourself; you rely on your own flesh in which “…nothing good dwells…” it is a vicious cycle. God is Holy, Just and Righteous, and His very nature demands Justice. We know this, we all know right from wrong; we know His wrath is Just. God did not give us a religion; He gave us His Only Begotten Son so that we may be “…born again…born of the Spirit…” the Spirit of which Adam forfeited communion with when he disobeyed God, when he went “…his own way…”

    In Christianity, you rely solely on the Person Christ Jesus and HIS work for us.

    And the LORD has laid on HIM the iniquity of us all.
    And by His stripes we are healed.

    6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

    “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

    27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

  24. krissmith777 on August 3, 2011 at 2:59 pm said:

    “Besides, I have no need to defend myself on what Shapiro said or didn’t say. You are the one who cited him without checking to make sure that your citation was accurate…”

    Kriss, I would like to have a civil, honest discussion with you, but I see that is not possible.

    The burden is on you to prove your accusation that I quoted Shapiro inaccurately, you cannot prove it because it is a false accusation. The primary reason you have lodged it against me is that what Shapiro said shows that the claims made by you and Olorin about the Miller-Urey experiments are NOT true. Being embarrassed by that fact and trying to cover up your disingenuousness with more of the same indicates your relativism extends to your standard of mortality. Behaving as you do, do you seriously think I or anyone else would consider your “advice” about anything as sound, truthful, rational advice?

    You are fooling yourself.

    I can deal with your irrational anger; there is a kind of honesty when someone comes at you with both fists in the air. However, I will not deal with your disingenuousness because it would simply feed your self-deception. Plain and simple Kriss you are in bondage to sin, a slave of it, your behavior is one of a lost, frightened, angry child; a common school yard bully who is utterly miserable. Michael has not done thing to deserve you (and Olorin) treating him in that manner and nor have I. You may spend your entire life, the precious gift God has so generously given you doing what you do, but I guarantee if you remain on your present course in your present condition, you will look back and feel nothing but shame and regret.

    You will never have peace Kriss, not with yourself or with your fellow man, until you have peace with God. God has shown you the way. He has provided the way and that out of His Love for you, His only begotten Son, Christ Jesus the Lord.

    “ Awake, you who sleep,
    Arise from the dead,
    And Christ will give you light.”

  25. Olorin on August 10, 2011 at 9:48 pm said:

    “However, similar experiments by Miller alone in 1995 did produce cytosine. And uracil.[1] Subsequent experiments reproduced these results…Saying that the most abundant product of Miller-Urey was tar is like saying that the most abundant product of the Homestake gold mine was crushed rock. True, but irrelevant…”

    Olorin, aside from your continued bare assertions, now about Millers 1995 experiment, saying “…a 2008 reanalysis of some fortuitously preserved results of the original 1953 work showed a number of other amino acids that Miller and Urey had not detected at the time—22 amino acids…” may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant.

    Again, you are simply parroting a piece of the propaganda of the fable of evolution, which suggests something like this…

    “…common chemicals plus energy supply is all we need to create life…”

    Which translated means this…

    “…IGNORING all else, especially the fact that life uses l-amino acids exclusively, common chemicals plus energy is all that is needed to create life IN THE IMAGINARY atmosphere of OUR IMAGINARY early earth scenario which is specifically DESIGNED to yield amino acids that “form” spontaneously…”

    When asked for actual empirical scientific evidence to support your claims, at every step of the way, you evolutionists have nothing but your imagination. Once again, when you and or the media etc., etc., make claims that such and such “amino acids were produced” it is an intellectually dishonest claim that amounts to subtle propaganda. Miller took what God Created, mixed it together in an experiment confined to Millers hypothetical, IMAGINARY conditions, and watched the reactions. That is it. To claim otherwise is tantamount to claiming that if a child constructs a house using Lego blocks it proves the child can also “produce” the Lego blocks he used to construct the house. All those experiments ONLY speak volumes about the FAITH you place in fallen mans speculations; in assumptions based upon assumptions based upon assumptions etc., all of which rests on the grand a priori assumption of evolution. It is not genuine science; it is pseudo-science.

    The hypothesis of evolution in all its various forms is nothing but a fable.

    Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

  26. @52Isaiah

    Kriss, I would like to have a civil, honest discussion with you, but I see that is not possible.

    So my pointing out that you have not verified your quotation is “uncivil?” You really don’t stand criticism, do you?

    The burden is on you to prove your accusation that I quoted Shapiro inaccurately, you cannot prove it because it is a false accusation.

    My accusation only goes as far as saying that you did not check the actual source for the quote, not to whether or not it was accurate or inaccurate. You even said you didn’t check, so therefore my accusation stands, confirmed by you. Again, since you last commented, have you checked your source? If you had, then and ONLY then will I withdraw all criticism here. As I have pointed out, Richard Dawkins has quoted without checking his source (at least once in “The God Delusion”), now would you go after him for doing that very same thing? —-I thought so.

    Behaving as you do, do you seriously think I or anyone else would consider your “advice” about anything as sound, truthful, rational advice?

    First of all, I have been really polite. Second of all, this looks more like an excuse to not check your source that you have quoted without even checking (by your own admission) just because you don’t “like” how I put my criticism of you.

    Michael has not done thing to deserve you (and Olorin) treating him in that manner and nor have I.

    Michael has done several things to warrant contempt: He has been known to misquote papers. Recently I caught him at inserting an entire sentence in a quote from a PLOSone paper that was not there. In the past, he has even banned dissenting voices from his blog despite them being not being “rude” or obscene. Only after publishing that on my blog did Michael permit them back on again (He banned both Eelco and Olorin in the past, and I am still amazed he never banned me). — Despite letting them back on, it shows a sort the sort of Stalinist approach mixed with a double standard; Creationists want two sides taught when they are not in control, but when they are in control with no pressure against them, they no longer are in favor or academic freedom.[1]

    You will never have peace Kriss, not with yourself or with your fellow man, until you have peace with God.

    And why have you assumed I have no peace with God? Are you assuming I am an atheist, or a non-Christian? If so, then you are wrong since I am a Christian. I am saved through God’s grace through the blood of Jesus.

    ——————————
    [1] La Sierra University is a good example. Though it is a Seventh-Day Adventist school, it now teaches evolution. This has caused Church members to rally against it. Sean Pitman, a “Creation scientist” is leading the charge. Interestingly enough, on his blog dedicated to banning evolution from LSU, he whined about a non-evolutionist science teacher from not getting a teaching post. All of a sudden, he was for teaching both sides….Just not when he is in control.

  27. @53Isaiah

    I never said you said God was relative; I said for you to say, “…people have different definitions of God…” is nothing but relativism. It is false and irrational because it is a denial and or avoidance of absolute truth. You are insinuating God is not absolute and because perceptions of Him are relative, you can never know Him and that is not true. It matters NOT one little tiny bit how you or anyone “defines” Him.

    You don’t understand what I was saying then. Again, I do believe “absolute truth” does exist. And I was not saying God was not absolute either. God is a certain way, despite all the various definitions of that different religions may have of him. — Hindus and Muslims have different definitions of what God is, but are they still right to believe that he may exist? Yes. Is God still God even though both of their definitions can be wrong? Yes. God Is absolute. I do not disagree with you there. It is the human point of view that has different perspectives about him.

  28. Quoth 53isaiah:
    Olorin, aside from your continued bare assertions, now about Millers 1995 experiment, saying “…a 2008 reanalysis of some fortuitously preserved results of the original 1953 work showed a number of other amino acids that Miller and Urey had not detected at the time—22 amino acids…” may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant.

    Irrelevant? Michael asserted that cytosine, a necessary organic compouind, was never produced in any OOL experiment. This is not correct; Miller himself did so. This is not merely a bare assertion: Miller’s later results are set forth in Johnson et al., “”The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment, Sci. 322:404 (17 Oct 2008); Parker et al.,”Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 5 Apr 2011, pp. 5526-5531′; “Historical Development of Origins Research” Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol., 1 Nov 2010; as well as others.

    When comparing the trustworthiness of Science and Proceedings of the Nationmal Academy of Science with the cited Answers in Genesis, I favor the former. In fact, the expanded form of Scopie’s Law holds that citing AiG as a credible source for any purpose loses the argument. I any case, the Science/PNAS discuss scientific evidence. The AiG screed rests only upon argumemts from ignorance.

    Scientists continue to perform experiments finding that the simpler building blocks of life are not all that hard to come by in non-life processes that ciould have occurred on the early Earth—and even in space—in a number of different plausible environments. Meanwhile, creationists perform no experiments at all to develop any positive evidence whatever for special creation.

  29. Miller took what God Created, mixed it together in an experiment confined to Millers hypothetical, IMAGINARY conditions, and watched the reactions. That is it. To claim otherwise is tantamount to claiming that if a child constructs a house using Lego blocks it proves the child can also “produce” the Lego blocks he used to construct the house.

    Have we ever seen such a blatant moving of the goalposts?

    53isaiah argues that, well, OK, Miller did produce amino acids. BUT he didn’t create carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen. Desperate, tres desperate. The next step is, well OK so stars can produce carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen by natural processes; but they didn’t create protons and electrons and neutrons. And so on. And so on.

    As to “IMAGINARY” conditions, scientists continue to find evidence for several scenarios as to possible environments of the early Earth. Meanwhile, do we see any creationists developing physical evidence as to how the earth would have looked, say, between the second and the third day of creation? They wouldn’t have a clue even as to how to go about such a project.

    Science doesn’t find out everything at once, as religion does. Yet, as my father-in-law used to say, “One at a time is good fishing.”

  30. @Olorin

    53isaiah argues that, well, OK, Miller did produce amino acids. BUT he didn’t create carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen. Desperate, tres desperate. The next step is, well OK so stars can produce carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen by natural processes; but they didn’t create protons and electrons and neutrons. And so on. And so on.

    They do this with the flagellum. They claimed that 30 proteins are not homologous to anything else, however that number has been reduced by over half as new research has been done. Now they say that it doesn’t matter if all of the homologies are found since we don’t know exactly how the flagellum was connected. Goal Post moved.

    At first, animals could not change at all, but when the evidence that they did change came in, they changed their argument to “Well, there are certain limits,” or “well a little evolution is okay.” You know, it’s in the Bible: “And on such and such a day, God declared that microevolution was okay, but not macroevolution. And the evening and the morning were the eighth day.” This is all despite the fact that not even Creationists have ever suggested a genetic mechanism that fixes a limit and actually prevents large scale change over long periods of time. [1]

    ——————–
    [1] Okay, well, that is only mostly true. Harun Yahya in his book The Evolution Deceit claims that Genetic Homeostasis is why evolution is impossible. He misunderstood what that means though, since “Genetic Homeostasis” applies when you have a wide-spread population of a species breeding without too much selectivity. The irony of his using Genetic Homeostasis is that it is an important mechanism for the “Punctuated Equilibrium,” which Mr. Yahya mocks earlier in his book. This is a case of Creationists mocking a scientific theory, and then citing the very same theory when it is convenient.

  31. Yes, Isaiah 53 is one of my favorites. I have performed Handel’s setting of it in The Messiah half a dozen times. Including once with an internationally known orchestra.

  32. Kris:
    And the evening and the morning were the eighth day.

    An interesting allusion. One of the premiere historical accounts of modern molecular biology is called The Eighth Day of Creation. (H.F. Judson, Simon & Schuster 1979). The author states that the book “is an historical account of the chief discoveries of molecular biology, of how they came to be made, and and of their makers.” It is written for the general public: “biology has been growing accessible to the general reader as it never was before.” Several of the sections had appeared in the New York Times. It is built “of my conversations with the scientists—over a million words of conversations, some taken in pen and notebook, most on tape, with one hundred and eleven scientists in person, another eleven by telephone, and with twelve non-scientists.” So, although the publication date now makes this book somewhat incomplete, it covers the 1930s to t the 1970s authoritatively. My copy is from 1980, and it has survived several cuts in my ever more crowded shelves since then. (One of our houses had more than 600 feet of bookshelves. Now we’re in a townhouse.)

    Thank you for reminding me of this book. I may plow through its 700 pages again soon. Although new books demand attention also. For example, Charles Seife’s Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception (Viking 2010), ways in which advertisers and politicians employ bogus mathematical arguments. And a new novel by Neal Stephenson, Reamde, in which hackers introduce a virus into a massively multiplayer role-playing game, and hold the players’ data hostage. This unleashes both a virtual and a deadly real war. (You may remember his Snow Crash (1992), in which an addictive linguistic narcotic was not only sold but also delivered and used entirely over the internet. It worked by reprogramming the brainstem.)

  33. krissmith777 on August 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm said:

    “So my pointing out that you have not verified your quotation is “uncivil?” You really don’t stand criticism, do you?”

    No. Your accusation that I have quote mined is uncivil, dishonest, and a common tactic to avoid your own ignorance. You do not criticize you lie. You have nothing to back it up because your accusation stands a FALSE accusation lodged for the simple reason that you are embarrassed because of your ignorance and with your hateful disingenuous tactic of trying to malign Michael and me; you are simply exposing and maligning yourself Kriss.

    Now, you avoided the following. Once again, Olorin claimed, the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil” and that claim is NOT true. You answered for Olorin and claimed,

    “…but the SAME miller in 1995 did another experiment in which uracil and cytosine WERE produced! It was said that the results were similar to the 1953 experiment though.”

    From what I have read not only were cytosine and uracil NOT the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments, they were NOT “produced” at all. So how could Millers 1995 experiment be “similar to the 1953 experiment” as you claim? WHERE is the data from that experiment? After listening to FALSE claims from Olorin about the Miller-Urey experiments, as well as your other FALSE claims, do you seriously expect me to take YOUR word for it regarding Millers 1995 experiment?

    krissmith777 on August 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm said:

    “First of all, I have been really polite….Michael has done several things to warrant contempt: He has been known to misquote papers…”

    You have not been polite nor have you been honest. Simply spouting more FALSE accusations as usual against Michael does not help your position Kriss, you look pathetic, and if you think that by hiding behind an Internet nickname you can avoid the consequences, you are sadly mistaken about that as well.

    krissmith777 on August 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm said:

    “And why have you assumed I have no peace with God?”

    I have not assumed anything; you expose yourself as well as your anti-Biblical doctrines. The Holy Scriptures flatly CONTRADICT evolution at every turn. That is a fact. What “theistic evolutionists” do is cherry pick from the Scriptures what they will and will not trust. Trying to force Gods Word to serve them; they delete from the Scriptures, add to it their revised contradictory version and then peddle that as truth. That behavior is blatant sin against Him and His Word.

    5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
    6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

    18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    Simply claiming His name means nothing, Hitler claimed to be Christian. You do not look, sound and behave like HIM at all Kriss.

    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

  34. Olorin on August 11, 2011 at 4:01 pm said:

    “Irrelevant? Michael asserted that cytosine, a necessary organic compouind, was never produced in any OOL experiment.”

    Michael posted this:
    “But that has a fundamental problem too, [sic] while some of these bases have been found in meteorites (A, G), no one has been able to cook up cytosine (C) in a plausible early earth.”

    To which you responded with the following untrue, hypocritical and ignorant bare assertion.
    “Even Michael knows about the Miller-Urey experiments, whose major products were cytosine and uracil. Why does anyone still ask why we don’t trust creationists?”

    When comparing the trustworthiness of Michael and AIG with you, Kriss and NAS, I favor the former, because the latter shows itself to be utterly untrustworthy. As for what Miller supposedly did and did not do, you evolutionists spout what is not true, spin in circles and argue with yourselves.

    Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life

    “Cytosine, however, has not been reported in analyses of meteorites nor is it among the products of electric spark discharge experiments. The reported prebiotic syntheses of cytosine involve the reaction of cyanoacetylene (or its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde), with cyanate, cyanogen, or urea. These substances undergo side reactions with common nucleophiles that appear to proceed more rapidly than cytosine formation. To favor cytosine formation, reactant concentrations are required that are implausible in a natural setting. Furthermore, cytosine is consumed by deamination (the half-life for deamination at 25°C is ≈340 yr) and other reactions. No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine, even in a specialized local setting, at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition. On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life.”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

    * No plausible prebiotic synthesis of cytosine yet exists.
    * Vital ‘building blocks’ including cytosine and ribose are too unstable to have existed on a hypothetical prebiotic earth for long.
    * Even if cytosine and ribose could have existed, there is no known prebiotic way to combine them to form the nucleoside cytidine, even if we granted unacceptably high levels of investigator interference.
    * Building blocks would be too dilute to actually build anything, and would be subject to cross-reactions.
    * Even if the building blocks could have formed polymers, the polymers would readily hydrolyse.
    * There is no tendency to form the high-information polymers required for life as opposed to random ones.
    http://creation.com/origin-of-life-instability-of-building-blocks

    Comments on `Concentration by Evaporation and the Prebiotic Synthesis of Cytosine’

    The claim by Nelson et al. (2001) that the reaction of cyanoacetaldehyde and urea provides `an efficient prebioticsynthesis’ of cytosine is disputed. The authors have not dealt with the important points presented in a criticism of this reaction(Shapiro, 1999): (1) The reactants undergo side reactions with common nucleophiles that appear to proceed more rapidly than cytosine formation, and (2) No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition by deamination, and permit accumulation over extended periods of time.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/dxr2xc9he7qt5g8a/

    OOL on the Rocks 02/15/2007

    An important survey of the origin-of-life (OOL) field has been published in Scientific American. Robert Shapiro, a senior prize-winning chemist, cancer researcher, emeritus professor and author of books in the field, debunks the Miller experiment, the RNA World and other popular experiments as unrealistic dead ends. Describing the wishful thinking of some researchers, he said, “In a form of molecular vitalism, some scientists have presumed that nature has an innate tendency to produce life’s building blocks preferentially, rather than the hordes of other molecules that can also be derived from the rules of organic chemistry.”
    http://creationsafaris.com/crev200702.htm#20070215a

    Better Life Origin Through Chemistry – March 22, 2011

    Go ahead and cook your amino acids by intelligent design. We’ll give you as many as you want. In fact, we’ll give you a whole earth packed with amino acids, arranged in sets, all left-handed (to overcome one huge improbability, see book), and assume they are combining and recombining at fantastically rapid rates. Conditions could not be better for forming a usable protein molecule! Now read chapters 6 and 7 from our online book.
    See also the 05/02/2003 about the “useful lie” made out of the Miller experiment, and Miller’s own attempts with other ingredients in 2002 (10/31/2002) before his death. If hydrogen sulfide added such powerful magic to the potion, one would think Miller would have concentrated on it more between 1958 and 2002. He was more honest about the problems with chemical evolution than many others. They get an F in chemistry for turning his iconic experiment into the building blocks of lie (03/19/2008).
    http://crev.info/content/better_life_origin_through_chemistry

    Simple Molecules: The Building Blocks of Lie

    March 19, 2008 — At a physical level, everything in the universe is made of atoms and molecules. Life, being a subset of everything in the universe, is composed of a subset of all molecules that exist. It could be said that any atom or molecule present in a living thing is a building block of life, but how informative is that? Carbon, for instance, is essential to life, but is also a building block of cyanide, tailpipe soot, graphite, diamond and a host of deadly poisons…

    Your imagination is being taken for a ride when you fall for the “building blocks” line. Assumptions, unwarranted inferences and misdirection: these are the building blocks of lie.
    http://creationsafaris.com/crev200803.htm#20080319c

  35. krissmith777 on August 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm said:
    “You don’t understand what I was saying then.”
    .
    .

    I understand you perfectly Kriss and you are lost, “…tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting…”

    You do indeed hold to relativism as shown by the fact that you embrace evolution despite the fact that the Holy Scriptures flatly CONTRADICTS it. Claiming to be Christian and holding to an anti-Christian world-view, makes you double minded. You have no Scriptural justification for what you believe yet that is not about to stop you from holding to anti-Christian doctrines of men; because you are content being carried about by your “authority” i.e., evolution “scientists” and those who follow them.

    Again, it matters NOT one little tiny bit how you or anyone “defines” Him. It matters ONLY what God Himself said, about Himself, His Creation, morality, and all else. God IS the AUTHOR-ITY, He is the Creator, and He reveals the Truth quite clearly in the Holy Scriptures. You as well as countless others simply choose to reject it.

  36. Olorin on August 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm said:
    “Have we ever seen such a blatant moving of the goalposts?”
    .
    .

    Kriss already tried that tactic of falsely accusing me of moving YOUR goalposts and it fails. You once again simply show why you are utterly untrustworthy.
    I never said, “Miller did produce amino acids”. I said Miller TOOK WHAT GOD CREATED, mixed it together in an experiment confined to Millers hypothetical, IMAGINARY conditions, and watched the reactions.
    That is it.
    That is all they will ever be able to do, play with WHAT GOD ALREADY CREATED, devise IMAGINARY scenarios and pretend they are practicing genuine science. The only thing that tempers the comedy of it is the fact that it is so pathetic.

    They are indeed IMAGINARY conditions; and your evolution “scientists” continue to find IMAGINARY evidence for several IMAGINARY scenarios as to possible IMAGINARY environments of the early Earth of which they will NEVER have any knowledge.

    That is the truth.

    Meanwhile, do we hear honesty from any evolutionists, do we hear them admit to their utter ignorance of Creation Models, and the fact that they reject those models NOT because of any empirical scientific evidence against those models but because ALL evolution “scientists” claims rest solely on their grand a priori assumption of evolution?

    No.

    The science practiced by evolutionists is pseudo-science.

  37. @53Isaiah

    Simply spouting more FALSE accusations as usual against Michael does not help your position Kriss, you look pathetic, and if you think that by hiding behind an Internet nickname you can avoid the consequences, you are sadly mistaken about that as well.

    I didn’t make a false accusation, and I can prove it right here and now. In this post I am linking here (link: https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/more-conformation-verifying-soft-tissue-in-fossils/ ), he inserts words in a quote in a paper’s abstract that aren’t even there. I call him out in the comments after I actually read the paper he links and quotes.

    If you want to claim that I am falsely accusing Michael of banning Olorin and Eelco unjustly until I called him out on it, just ask Olorin and Eelco.

    I have not assumed anything; you expose yourself as well as your anti-Biblical doctrines. The Holy Scriptures flatly CONTRADICT evolution at every turn.

    That’s YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Besides, there is no chapter and verse that says that macroevolution cannot happen. A lot of the “changes” that YECs claim to have happened as a result of Noah’s flood would constitute as macroevolution today, so everyone believes in Macroevolution, even YECs.

    Simply claiming His name means nothing, Hitler claimed to be Christian. You do not look, sound and behave like HIM at all Kriss.

    I’m not simply “claiming,” but then you do not know me enough to make such a claim. You cannot have any first hand or even third hand knowledge of my own personal devotion to God.

    If I am devoted to God and accept Jesus’s sacrifice and still accept evolution, why am I not saved? Would you not prefer someone to be saved and still accept evolution, or would you prefer someone to accept your interpretation of the Bible and therefore reject God because he thinks it is unreasonable? — Answer that question before I reply to anything else.

  38. Kriss already tried that tactic of falsely accusing me of moving YOUR goalposts and it fails. You once again simply show why you are utterly untrustworthy.
    I never said, “Miller did produce amino acids”. I said Miller TOOK WHAT GOD CREATED, mixed it together in an experiment confined to Millers hypothetical, IMAGINARY conditions, and watched the reactions.
    That is it.

    Let’s review the bidding. The first claim was that no one (not just Miller & Urey) had produced a certain amino acid. When it was shown that cytosine had in fact been produced in a possible early-earth environment, 53isaih admitted this, but then claimed that no one had artificially produced the components of these amino acids: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. The analogy was that a child could build a Lego-block structure, but could not manufacture the individual Lego pieces.

    In what way does this not move the goalposts? From inability to produce amino acids to inability to produce the atoms which comprise amino acids.[1]

    This might be a good time to invoke the Law of Exclamation: The more exclamation points and capital letters, the more likely a statement is a complete lie.[2]

    ==================

    [1] Altho this doesn’t help. Astronomers and atomic physicists have shown repeatedly that stars produce these elements in entirely natural nuclear-fusion reactions. Or do you believe stars are also an imaginary scenario?

    [2] Internet Rules and Laws Should we await an instance of Godwin’s law, and the Argumentum ad Hitlerum?

  39. @Olorin

    Apparently I’m not a Christian because 1) I accept evolution and 2) 53Isaiah thinks I’m a bit rude.

    Even when I was a Creationist, I was always a bit opinionated, and I will admit I do have a problem with arrogance. That said, I wonder if Isaiah would attack my “rudeness” if I agreed with him. I have run across several YECs that were much worse than I am. I wonder if he would have any of the same criticisms for them as he does for me.

    As for his accusing me of lying, I think you and I both know I have NEVER falsely accused Michael of wrongdoing when he was not guilty of it. — (Remember that time a while ago when he quoted a paper and the quote was not there at all? Okay, well the quote was in a completely different paper, but considering that he linked the wrong paper by different authors, it really doesn’t inspire confidence). If I remember correctly what you said when I found the paper the quote actually appears in, you said he was “dumpster dumping literature again.”

    — And I think we can both agree that Michael was showing a moral downside when he banned both you and then later Eelco.

    If 53Isaiah thinks you and I are both lost because we accept evolution, then all I can say is this: “I’m glad he is not God, because only God can make that determination, not any human being alive today.”

    You and I both know that I do not “reject” the Bible at all. — I’m a history major, and I read the Bible in the way I read any other ancient historical document in many cases. In ancient literature, there are many stories in many cultures that are historical, but then there are others that bear the marks of NOT being historical..In the Gilgamesh accounts, a lot of it is not historical, but there is archaeological evidence that the Utnapashtum flood is based on a true event, which I think is the same source for Noah’s flood (Notice: I do not say one copied the other. I think they had a common source inspiration by a single event.)

    YECs like to say that unless the Bible says it explicitly, if the story does not come out and say “This is a parable,” then it is to be taken literally. Then they point to Jesus’s parables as an example. But then we run into a problem, since not all of Jesus’ parables are introduced as such: The Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable, but it is not said openly that it is…Are we to assume that therefore the Rich Man and Lazarus are literal history?

    Now, what I consider history in the Bible tends to have archeological evidence backing it up:

    1. I do consider the Flood of Noah to probably be historical, though I think it was more likely a local disaster, and the original language can back up a “local” area being flooded. — YECs like to ask, “Then why bring birds? Why couldn’t they fly away during the rain?” The answer is this: Birds that Noah had on the ark, like doves, do not fly in the rain.

    2. I consider the story of King David to be historical because the Tel Dan Stela indicates that his dynasty existed.

    3. I actually consider the Book of Daniel to have been written in the 6th century BC, and not in 164 BC.. Objections that the Greek words making the date of the composition later seem plausible, but fail for two accounts: 1) As early as the 7th and 6th centuries BC, Assyrian and Babylonian tablets have Greek words in them, and 2) there are only three Greek words in Daniel. — My endorsement of Daniel being Pro-Maccabean, and since it makes prophesies about the Maccabees that are really accurate is enough of an admission that I personally believe God has used prophesy.– I.e., I am most certainly not a Metaphysical Naturalist at all.

    4. Being a Christian, it goes without saying I believe Jesus Christ existed. I accept the reference that Tacitus (106 AD) makes to him as authentic (Annals XV: 45). But even if Tacitus were straying from his usually critical self, the fact that he mentions Christians in Rome not even three decades after Jesus’ death is itself an indication that Jesus existed, since it was early enough to the point that if he didn’t, someone alive at the time he supposed to have lived would have been able to say with authority that he didn’t.– Also Suetonius mentions Christians at an early time in Nero’s reign (Nero XVI).

    — I suppose 53Isaiah would love to cite that verse from James that says, “Even the demons believe and tremble,” but the problem there is that he cannot say that I am not a dedicated believer and not just someone who claims it since he does not know me and cannot make such a judgement.

  40. Kris:
    If 53Isaiah thinks you and I are both lost because we accept evolution, then all I can say is this: “I’m glad he is not God, because only God can make that determination, not any human being alive today.”

    This reminds me of a quotation from writer Anne Lamott—

    You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

    And while the Quote Book is open, Carl Sagan had one apropos of 53isaiah’s moving the goalposts from amino acids to atoms–

    “In order to make an apple pie from scratch, we must first invent the Universe.”

  41. @Olorin

    This reminds me of a quotation from writer Anne Lamott—

    You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

    The implications of 53Isaiah’s position of believing in evolution meaning we are therefore lost are far-reaching. In a Pew Poll done a couple years ago of scientists. In the section of the poll that surveyed their religious views, the poll shows that 33% of scientists believe in God, and also that 18% believe in a higher power. [1] Taken together, that means that 51% (A MAJORITY!!) of scientists are either believers in God or that there is a force bigger than ourselves. A pretty interesting result, considering that these same people accept Evolution.

    Now, if accepting evolution means you are lost, then I guess that these scientists that accept both evolution and a God are all condemned to suffer eternity in hell.— That all included Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Karl Gibberson, Andrew Parker.. — Then lets also remember Christians who are not scientists who accepted Evolution such as C.S. Lewis and Eric Reitan,

    When all these Good, God fearing men and women appear at the Pearly Gates and ask God for entry, he shall tell them, “I know..I know you served me and loved me with all your heart. I know that you were true and sincere in your service and love for me, but yet I cannot let you enter.”
    They will ask him, “Why, Lord?”
    And God will tell them, “Because you did not believe Genesis was a completely literal, historical account.”

    Now, can anyone see the problem with this logic? I cannot believe God would condemn a man who accepts his son’s sacrifice, and condemn them to an eternity in hell over Genesis. —- Oh wait, there was that time when the Jailor asked Paul and Silas what was needed to be saved:

    And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe that Creation week was six literal days, that Genesis is a completely literal, historical account, that micro-evolution is permitted, but not macro-evolution, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:30,1)

    No. To a Christian it to believe in and accept Jesus’ sacrifice. Now, how is it that a man cannot accept this and still accept the scientific fact of evolution?

    ———————–
    [1] http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

  42. Kris, we could also cite the Apostles’ Creed–

    I believe in God the Father almighty,
    the maker of heaven and earth in exactly six 24-hour days,
    and in …

    Whoa! Wait a minute!

    Methinks someone is adding things to quotations again.

  43. 53isaiah

    Great post, Olorin tends to build up a strawman for the basis of his argument. As you are aware, Ingredients doesn’t constitute dead chemicals becoming a living a cell. No experiment has ever accomplished the task, yet we see the likes of SETI claiming this planet has alien life forms or that planet. Having no experimental evidence on how life first emerge, how can some scientists claim they know how it emerged anywhere let alone on other planets?

    The evolutionary assumption always gets more complex, accumulating more questions with very few answers and even those few answers are questionable. President of Britain’s Royal Society, “We share half our genes with the banana” (2001). This is hypothetical by the way, it’s like claiming humans are half banana and try to invent every possible scenario through experiments in order to say that we are even though the chromosomes are vastly different. When these experiments falsify such a claim, they say we are still half banana, we just haven’t figured out all the details. The whole thing about evolution and the scenarios on the emergence of life are proven to be bananas…lol

  44. Well. Michaerl weighs in with his usual erudite refutation of evolution—

    “We share half our genes with the banana” (2001). … [I]t’s like claiming humans are half banana and try to invent every possible scenario through experiments in order to say that we are even though the chromosomes are vastly different. When these experiments falsify such a claim, they say we are still half banana, we just haven’t figured out all the details.

    This is called the sneer argument. But, as usual, it falls flat.

    First, sharing 50% of your genes with a banana does not mean humans are half banana.[1] Even Michael knows this—which converts his statement from ignorant blather to deliberate deceit.

    Second, by substituting “chromosomes” for “genes” in the second sentence, Michael either fails basic reading comprehension or again attempts to prevaricate. The correspondence of genes to chromosome location is highly flexible.

    Third, an organism that is half banana and half human could not be the product of evolution. It would have to be designed. We have never seen homonanas, or crocoducks[2] or other organisms that combine disparate parts into a single whole the way designers can. So Michael here makes an argument against creation, not for it.[3]

    Fourth, no experiments have failed to show the commonality of many human and banana genes. We have figured out the details, by comparing the genes. So Michael again utters a deliberate falsehood. Not even disguised as alternative interpretations this time. Just a bald-faced lie.

    By now, of course, we expect this of creationists. That’s one reason they have no credibility whatever in scientific circles.

    .

    The whole thing about evolution and the scenarios on the emergence of life are proven to be bananas…lol

    One way to identify a creationist is by a genetic defect in their ability to produce sarcasm, and to recognize sarcasm in others. An example of each is on display above.[4] Note the need to add “lol,” since the attempt is so lame that it would not otherwise be recognized.

    ==============

    [1] Altho one intrepid observer said he looked down his pants and found that he was only about 5% banana.

    [2] A delusion of creationist Kirk Cameron, which he stole from a Taiwanese children’s story by Chen Chih-Yuan.

    [3] For a discussion of why such chimeras would point to design rather than evolution, see Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth (Free Press 2009), pp297-300.

    [4] A quickie test for Michael: Find the second example.

  45. Michael weighs in with his usual erudite refutations of evolution—

    President of Britain’s Royal Society, “We share half our genes with the banana” (2001). … [I]t’s like claiming humans are half banana and try to invent every possible scenario through experiments in order to say that we are even though the chromosomes are vastly different. When these experiments falsify such a claim, they say we are still half banana, we just haven’t figured out all the details.

    This is called the sneer argument. But, as usual, it falls flat.

    First, sharing 50% of your genes with a banana does not mean humans are half banana.[1] Even Michael knows this—which converts his statement from ignorant blather to deliberate deceit.

    Second, by substituting “chromosomes” for “genes” in the second sentence, Michael either fails basic reading comprehension or again attempts to prevaricate. The correspondence of genes to chromosome location is highly flexible.

    Third, an organism that is half banana and half human could not be the product of evolution. It would have to be designed. Since we have never seen homonanas, or crocoducks[2] or other organisms that combine disparate parts into a single whole the way designers can. So Michael here makes an argument against creation, not for it.[3]

    Fourth, no experiments have failed to show the commonality of many human and banana genes. We have figured out the details, by comparing the genes. So Michael again engages in falsehoods. Not even disguised as alternative interpretations this time. Just bald-faced lies.

    By now, of course, we expect this of creationists. That’s one reason they have no credibility whatever in scientific circles.

    .

    The whole thing about evolution and the scenarios on the emergence of life are proven to be bananas…lol

    One way to identify a creationist is by a genetic defect in their ability to produce sarcasm, and to recognize sarcasm in others. An example of each is on display above.[4] Note the need to add “lol,” since the attempt is so lame that it would not otherwise be recognized.

    ==============

    [1] Altho one intrepid observer said he looked down his pants and found that he was about 5% banana.

    [2] A delusion of creationist Kirk Cameron, which he stole from a Taiwanese children’s story by Chen Chih-Yuan.

    [3] For a discussion of why such chimeras would point to design rather than evolution, see Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth (Free Press 2009), pp297-300.

    [4] A quickie test for Michael: Find the second example.
    .

  46. @Olorin,

    First, sharing 50% of your genes with a banana does not mean humans are half banana. Even Michael knows this—which converts his statement from ignorant blather to deliberate deceit.

    Pretty ironic, I’d say… Michael first accuses you of making “strawman arguments,” and then he goes on to make one of his own.

  47. Whenever one side in an argument accuses the other of setting up a straw man, it is incumbent upon that side to explain what the straw man actually is. You may notice that creationists do not do that. They stop with the bare accusation..

  48. @Olorin

    Whenever one side in an argument accuses the other of setting up a straw man, it is incumbent upon that side to explain what the straw man actually is. You may notice that creationists do not do that. They stop with the bare accusation..

    And that’s not the only accusation. Remember, 53Isaiah accused me of lying when I said Michael has inserted entire sentences in quotations from scientific papers…You remember when Michael did that though, so we know I’m not making that up.. Now that I linked the post in which it happened, perhaps he will retract his false accusation.

  49. krissmith777,

    You say, “I do consider the Flood of Noah to probably be historical, though I think it was more likely a local disaster, and the original language can back up a “local” area being flooded. — YECs like to ask, “Then why bring birds? Why couldn’t they fly away during the rain?” The answer is this: Birds that Noah had on the ark, like doves, do not fly in the rain.”

    How do you think rocks which had been moved 3,000 miles across whole continents would not consider a global flood as a plausible explanation? Secular geologists are baffled by it and state…

    “The causes of such a pattern might be unique to time and place, and may include a combination of (1) lack of continental vegetation, (2) clustering of continents near the equator, (3) increased continental weathering rates, (4) widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and relatively synchronous orogenesis [mountain-building] recording supercontinental amalgamation, and (5) production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems.”

    Not of those things absolutely falsify a global flood! It doesn’t make a global flood any more complex by raising more questions because of an assumption, also the data doesn’t have to be forced into a particular framework like what happens with evolution all the time. Instead of trying to explain with reference to natural law and observable, repeatable processes, they try and explain away a global flood by inventing five more different scenarios. When a scientific method is able to explain one cause for multiple effects it’s pretty strong. For example, your lawn is flooded, explanation one says, “a neighbor’s pool leaked and then a truck rode by with water and it leaked also” or “your neighbor’s pool just leaked or “it rained a lot causing the sewers to back up, flooding your property.”

    A worldwide flood would produce all five effects mentioned by the geologists…

    1) Lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away by the water.

    2) Widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred.

    3) Weather rates increased dramatically.

    4) Clustering of continents near the equator, then the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened.

    5) Production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because new mountains produces runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances. A worldwide flood would also explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed.

    As far as Tacitus, how do you know his accounts are even true, what verifies what he says? I’m not saying he’s is right or wrong, but I am observing your trust in this man over the Bible with far less of a standard than you try to hold the Bible to. So tell me how do you know what Tacitus says is true?

  50. @Michael

    How do you think rocks which had been moved 3,000 miles across whole continents would not consider a global flood as a plausible explanation? Secular geologists are baffled by it and state…

    Poor Michael has been too saturated by the strawman arguments made by Flood Geologists that he does not even realize this too is a strawman argument.

    1. There is no reason to even assume that a Global Flood is even responsible for these sort of layers.

    2. Even if they were, there is no indication that it happened 5,000 years ago, and there is no Radiometric dating to confirm that, though Michael may want to cry foul on dating methods.

    3. Rock layers across continents is not a problem at all, since we have a geologic Mechanism for such a thing.. One is called “Plate Tectonics.” Another is called “Wind Erosion” in which whole layers ARE KNOWN to have been blow and deposited from one side of a continent to the other. (Yes, Michael, wind CAN be that powerful. Even today, we know that Sand of the Sahara dessert, for example, gets deposited many thousands of miles away from it’s original location which would, in turn, deposit new layers elsewhere. We know this from satlelight pictures.)

    1) Lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away by the water.

    So what? What makes you say this was Noah’s flood and not some different disaster?

    Widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred.

    Erosion and mountain building are natural events that happen all the time…Again, what makes you say this was Noah’s flood.

    Weather rates increased dramatically.

    And Weather Rates (I think you really mean “Weathering”) has been known in the present to accelerate and slow down…So again, how can you test the hypothesis that this was because of Noah’s flood?

    Clustering of continents near the equator, then the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened.

    Funny thing here is that Creationists like to start with Pengea in this model and argue that Noah’s flood is the origin of Plate Tectonics. So creationists accept the geophysics data for Pengea…What makes this claim unreasonable is that the SAME geophysics data also indicates that the continents had different positions BEFORE Pengea.. Indeed, Pengea was NOT the FIRST Supercontinent. All this indicates that Noah’s flood has nothing to do with the continents today.

    Production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because new mountains produces runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances. A worldwide flood would also explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed.

    A world wide flood cannot explain the ARRANGEMENT of the sediment.. A flood would have washed moist of the sediments downward..And yet most sediments are UPWARDS. Nice try though.

    As far as Tacitus, how do you know his accounts are even true, what verifies what he says? I’m not saying he’s is right or wrong, but I am observing your trust in this man over the Bible with far less of a standard than you try to hold the Bible to. So tell me how do you know what Tacitus says is true?

    Tacitus was a very skeptical historian who did not even accept the word of his friends at face value. He sourced Plinny the Younger on some matters, but says outright that he doesn’t trust certain details, and the fact he does not place the existence of Jesus into doubt is a high indication.. Also, there is the fact he was born in 55 AD, so he would have been around during 64 AD when Nero started to persecute Christians, so he would have KNOWN of them.. The fact that Christians were around not even three decades after Jesus’ death itself indicates the man existed..—- Tacitus is considered an extremely reliable, much more so than Suetonius or Cassius Dio.

  51. Ahem. To return to the topic of the post momentarily—

    This is where people’s tax money is going, scientists providing pseudo-scientific props for their materialist world views.[A] Science is considered a representative of knowledge,[B] did anybody see any knowledge going on in these articles?[C] Just because it makes in a peer-review science journal doesn’t make it science.[D] Using scenarios is not science.[E] Busy work is not science.[F] Merely using words like arose and emerged is also not science. Suggestive phraseology like “RNA world” and “building blocks of life” is not science either[G] rather knowledge is supposed to be justified true belief![H]

    A rich lode of creationist ignorance here.

    [A] Science has had a materialist world view ever since the priest Abelard of Bath first formulated modern science in the 12th century, in De Eodem et Diverso. He held that the physical world must be explained as a closed system—any natural phenomenon can only be scientifically explained in terms of another natural phenomenon. IF Michael wishes to change the definition of science, then he must call it something else.

    [B] What does this term mean? What would “a representative of knowledge” comprise? Please define.

    [C] What part would Michael consider not to be knowledge? Please be specific.

    [D] What then would it be? We tend not to find novels, or plays, or cookbooks, or creationism in refereed science journals.

    [E] Another word for a scenario is a “theory.” The scenario of evolution is common descent with modification. The scenario of cosmology is the big bang with expanding universe. Michael does seem to feel that science should confine itself to observation, and not propose hypotheses at all. He is totally wrong. He fears theories, because they so often contradict what he believes.

    [F] Please define “busy work” and give a specific example.

    [G] News flash. Words do not determine what is science and what is not. I guess if I said that snakes “emerged” from the ground, this would be non-science. Or if I said that amino acids are the “building blocks” o proteins, then I am not speaking scientifically. Desperate, Michael, desperate.

    [H] Please cite a source for this definition. It would certainly surprise all scientists. True belief is the province of religion. Christians have a true belief in a triune God. Muslims have a true belief that Mohammad is the prophet of God. Navajos have a true belief that the First World was an island in a sea inhabited by coyote, mist people, and insect people. Hindus have a true belief that we are reincarnated after death, and that our social caste reflects how virtuous (or not) we were in the previous cycle. These qualify as “beliefs” because there is no physical evidence for them, and as “true” because they are all inconsistent with each other. Obviously, science does not work that way.

    .

    So much garbage from a single short paragraph! And it seems to summarize the entire post.

  52. krissmith777 on August 16, 2011 at 2:19 pm said:
    “I didn’t make a false accusation, and I can prove it right here and now.”
    .
    You did not prove anything except your continued palpable, irrational anger at Michael, expressed in your usual blatant hypocritical accusations. That is it.
    Anyone who reads Michaels blog knows he often makes comments about a paper, then quotes from the paper and then makes more comments, thus, he simply may have mistakenly put the quotation marks in the incorrect position.

    Of course, you, who appear to be here simply to malign him, would automatically accuse him of being a liar, just as you falsely accused me of quote mining. Again, nothing you say or do is a reflection on Michael or me. Your behavior exposes and maligns your own hypocritical self-Kriss.

    Now run along and address what you continue to AVOID. Once again, Olorin claimed, the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil” and that claim is NOT true. You answered for Olorin and claimed,

    “…but the SAME miller in 1995 did another experiment in which uracil and cytosine WERE produced! It was said that the results were similar to the 1953 experiment though.”

    From what I have read not only were cytosine and uracil NOT the “major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments, they were NOT “produced” at all. So how could Millers 1995 experiment be “similar to the 1953 experiment” as you claim?

    WHERE IS THE DATA from that experiment? After listening to FALSE claims from Olorin about the Miller-Urey experiments, as well as your other FALSE claims, do you seriously expect me to take YOUR word for it regarding Millers 1995 experiment?
    .
    .
    Kriss:
    “A lot of the “changes” that YECs claim to have happened as a result of Noah’s flood would constitute as macroevolution today, so everyone believes in Macroevolution, even YECs.”

    Try to educate yourself as to what the major “YEC” organizations believe because once again you display ignorance, irrationality and dishonesty. Thus, your claim that “…everyone believes in Macroevolution, even YECs…” is yet another irrational, falsehood from you. You could start with CMI and AIG and work your way around, but you will not.

    http://creation.com/creation-scientists
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/03/creation-scientists-teachers-comment

    .
    .

  53. krissmith777 on August 16, 2011 at 2:19 pm said:
    “That’s YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Besides, there is no chapter and verse that says that macroevolution cannot happen.”

    .
    .
    Once again, there is that irrational and false relativism. It is not my interpretation; it is what the Holy Scripture clearly states. Scripture interprets Scripture as only God can explain Himself. The Holy Scriptures flatly CONTRADICT evolution at every turn; that is a fact. If one says otherwise, they are either ignorant of the Scriptures or they are being intellectually dishonest. It does not matter what YOU say can or “cannot happen” you are NOT God.

    It only matters what HE SAID DID HAPPEN and His Word is as clear as the light of day.

    The Holy Scripture declares – In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth… creation ex nihilo…BY HIS WORD. It then goes on clearly to describe God forming His creation from those materials He created. After each creative act, in which He created grass, herbs, fruit tree, all animals, insects…ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, He tells us what day it was.

    On day six “…God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them…”

    In Genesis 2 God explains how He created Adam and Eve “The LORD GOD FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being… And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man HE MADE INTO A WOMAN…”

    “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, WERE FINISHED. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

    God reiterates what tells us in Genesis when He gives Moses the Ten Commandments.

    1 “And God spoke all these words, saying…

    8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Exodus 20

    God created animals and man to live on a vegetarian diet. Death “entered the world” when Adam sinned. There was no death before then. From Genesis to the genealogies throughout Scripture, on through Revelations, the Holy Scripture is harmonious throughout. They make it abundantly clear God did not use evolution. His omnipotence makes it abundantly clear He did not need billions/millions of years to create. His Holy, Righteous, wholly Good, Loving, Merciful, Kind character makes it abundantly clear He did not use evolution.
    .
    .
    God spoke His creation into existence BY and THROUGH His Word; that Word is His Son, Christ Jesus – Who is light, life, and love; He is Lord of all. Thus, it was indeed perfect and very good.

    The myth of evolution claims the exact opposite of all the Holy Scriptures clearly teach, and those who hold to “theistic evolution” teach the most blasphemous LIE of all, they teach God created BY and THROUGH millions of years of suffering, violence, thorns, oppression, bloodshed and death and called it “very good”.

    .
    Perhaps yours is just delusion, but I fail to see how delusion causes the contradictory pagan philosophy of evolution to get added into the Holy Scriptures when it is NOT even there, when there is not one hint of it anywhere in any verse.

    .

    5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
    6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

  54. krissmith777 on August 16, 2011 at 2:19 pm said: “I’m not simply “claiming,” but then you do not know me enough to make such a claim. You cannot have any first hand or even third hand knowledge of my own personal devotion to God.
    If I am devoted to God and accept Jesus’s sacrifice and still accept evolution, why am I not saved? Would you not prefer someone to be saved and still accept evolution, or would you prefer someone to accept your interpretation of the Bible and therefore reject God because he thinks it is unreasonable? — Answer that question before I reply to anything else.”

    .
    .
    FIRST, who said anything about being “saved” you did, what you have done is taken what I clearly said and constructed a straw man out of it. I have no idea if you are a true Christian or one in name only. Regardless, I clearly said you are lost, “…tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting…”

    I also clearly said, claiming to be Christian and holding to an anti-Christian world-view, MAKES YOU DOUBLE MINDED. You have NO Scriptural justification for what you believe yet that is not about to stop you from holding to anti-Christian doctrines of men, because you are content being carried about by your “authority” i.e., evolution “scientists” and those who follow them.

    .
    SECOND, you behave as you do and have the audacity to claim, “…devotion to God…” and that begs the question, to which god are you referring? It sounds as though you cherry picked this verse from Romans 8, “…There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus…” while you never heard, or you ignored what Romans chapters 1-7 says and what it means to be IN CHRIST JESUS.
    .
    Godly sorrow leads to repentance, sorrow for what? For your sins, that is what. Repentance means “to change one’s mind and purpose” If you truly repent, accept, receive and trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you hear, trust and obey what God says about His Son. You hear, trust and obey what God says about what HE HAS DONE FOR YOU by the shedding of His own Sons Blood…by HIS GRACE.

    1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall WE WHO DIED TO SIN live any longer in it?

    3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus WERE BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH?

    4 Therefore WE WERE BURIED WITH HIM through BAPTISM INTO DEATH, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of HIS DEATH, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

    6 KNOWING THIS, THAT OUR OLD MAN WAS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.”

    7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

    9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

    10 FOR THE DEATH HE DIED, HE DIED TO SIN ONCE FOR ALL; BUT THE LIFE HE LIVES, HE LIVES TO GOD.

    “…Likewise you also, RECON yourselves to be DEAD INDEED TO SIN, BUT ALIVE TO GOD IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD…” Romans 5

    .
    “…RECON yourselves to be DEAD INDEED TO SIN, BUT ALIVE TO GOD IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD…”

    .
    .
    You are not simply rude to Michael; you are downright hateful to him and for no reason whatsoever. He has not done a thing to you to deserve your pitiful daily schoolyard bullying. The following verse fits you to a tee.

    .
    “A proud and haughty man—“Scoffer” is his name; He acts with arrogant pride.”
    .
    Judging by your own behavior AND the false anti-Biblical doctrine of evolution that you hold to, you have not heard, let alone OBEYED a word God HAS SAID. IF you obeyed the doctrine the Apostle Paul delivered, then you have “…been set free from sin…” IF that is so, HOW can you “live any longer in it” as you do here? If you continue consistently in sin, then you need “…Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith…”

    .
    “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, WHO DO NOT WALK ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, BUT ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT. Romans 8

  55. Olorin on August 16, 2011 at 2:21 pm said: “Let’s review the bidding. The first claim was that no one (not just Miller & Urey) had produced a certain amino acid. When it was shown that cytosine had in fact been produced in a possible early-earth environment, 53isaih admitted this, but then claimed that no one had artificially produced the components of these amino acids: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.”
    .
    .
    Sure Olorin, let us review the bidding and see how you have lied yet again.

    You have NOT “shown that cytosine had in fact been produced in a possible early-earth environment”.

    Simply saying, “a 2008 reanalysis of some fortuitously preserved results of the original 1953 work showed a number of other amino acids that Miller and Urey had not detected at the time—22 amino acids, in fact.” tells me nothing. As it is about as trustworthy as your other false claim that “the major products” of the Miller-Urey experiments “were cytosine and uracil”

    Kriss has NOT “shown that cytosine had in fact been produced in a possible early-earth environment”.

    .
    .
    Back on August 11, you said, “…53isaiah argues that, well, OK, Miller did produce amino acids. BUT he didn’t create carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen…” and that is a lie, I NEVER said “Miller did produce amino acids”.

    This from you is another lie, “…53isaih admitted this, but then claimed that no one had artificially produced the components of these amino acids: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc…”

    I did NOT admit “…that cytosine had in fact been produced…”

    I clearly said, Miller TOOK WHAT GOD CREATED, mixed it together in an experiment confined to Millers hypothetical, IMAGINARY conditions, and watched the reactions. That is it. That is all they will ever be able to do, play with WHAT GOD ALREADY CREATED, devise IMAGINARY scenarios and pretend they are practicing genuine science.

    .

    I further cited papers like this from Robert Shapiro:

    “Cytosine, however, has NOT been reported in analyses of meteorites NOR is it among the products of electric spark discharge experiments. The reported prebiotic syntheses of cytosine involve the reaction of cyanoacetylene (or its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde), with cyanate, cyanogen, or urea. These substances undergo side reactions with common nucleophiles that appear to proceed more rapidly than cytosine formation. To favor cytosine formation, reactant concentrations are required that are implausible in a natural setting. ”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

    .

    And this one from CMI:
    * NO plausible prebiotic synthesis of cytosine yet exists.
    * Vital ‘building blocks’ including cytosine and ribose are too unstable to have existed on a hypothetical prebiotic earth for long.
    * Even if cytosine and ribose could have existed, there is no known prebiotic way to combine them to form the nucleoside cytidine, even if we granted unacceptably high levels of investigator interference.
    * Building blocks would be too dilute to actually build anything, and would be subject to cross-reactions.
    * Even if the building blocks could have formed polymers, the polymers would readily hydrolyse.
    * There is no tendency to form the high-information polymers required for life as opposed to random ones.
    http://creation.com/origin-of-life-instability-of-building-blocks

    .

    And this another one from Robert Shapiro:

    “The claim by Nelson et al. (2001) that the reaction of cyanoacetaldehyde and urea provides `an efficient prebioticsynthesis’ of cytosine is disputed. The authors have not dealt with the important points presented in a criticism of this reaction (Shapiro, 1999): (1) The reactants undergo side reactions with common nucleophiles that appear to proceed more rapidly than cytosine formation, and (2) No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition by deamination, and permit accumulation over extended periods of time.”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/dxr2xc9he7qt5g8a/

    .
    .

    I could go on but it does not matter. Both you and Kriss have shown yourselves to be a miserable, angry, ignorant, irrational, couple who have no lives and so you spend the time you have coming to Michaels blog and trashing it with your schoolyard bully behavior. The worst part of it all, both of you have shown you are liars and I will not deal with dishonest people in any way.

    You will not stop me from coming here to read Michaels excellent blog, I simply will not read your trash anymore.

  56. @53Isaiah,

    Whether Creationism or Evolution is true, it could still be true that “mankind” came from the “dust of the earth” in the long run anyway. If the common ancestor to all life came from the “dust of the earth” as it were (which is what is believed anyway), then ultimately, we still would have come from the dust of the earth.. There is no problem here.

    The Holy Scripture declares – In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth… creation ex nihilo…BY HIS WORD. It then goes on clearly to describe God forming His creation from those materials He created. After each creative act, in which He created grass, herbs, fruit tree, all animals, insects…ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, He tells us what day it was.

    Two things:

    1. No one is denying that God created with a word. Whether through evolution or creationism, the same can still hold true.

    2. I was actually hoping you would use the “biblical kind” argument, since I am more than ready for it. — According to the Illustrated Bible Dictionary:

    Some have insisted that the phrase ‘after it’s kind’ is a complete refutation of the theory of evolution. It is not, however, at all clear what the Hebrew word ‘kind’ (mîn) means, except as a general observation that God made creatures that they reproduced in their families. But it the Hebrew word is not understood, it is also true to say that the biological groupings are not at all finally decided. Let it be agreed that the Bible is asserting that, however life came into being, God lay behind the process, then the chapter neither affirms nor denies the theory of evolution, or any theory for that matter. (Volume 1, page 334)

    The term “kind” is not understood by Hebrew linguists in the same way that it is understood by Young Earth Creationists. It neither confirms or denies evolution.

    Finally, I did not cherry pick Romans 8 for anything. I was simply commenting that it was a favorite Biblical passage.

  57. @52Isaiah,

    God created animals and man to live on a vegetarian diet. Death “entered the world” when Adam sinned. There was no death before then.

    Question: If there was no death before the fall, then what was the point of:

    1. God telling Adam and Eve to eat at all? There is no point to eating except to stay alive.
    2. God telling them to “be fruitful and multiply?” The point of reproduction is to keep a species alive.

    Besides, even a vegetarian diet causes death. The cells in vegetables and animals have the same kind of general structure.

    You also have no answered a question I have posed to you in a former comment: What do you prefer? For a Christian to accept both evolution and God and be saved? Or for someone who thinks Creationism is irrational to reject God and be lost on those grounds?

    I could go on but it does not matter. Both you and Kriss have shown yourselves to be a miserable, angry, ignorant, irrational…

    Speaking of angry, there is someone here who has made several angry statements also. Just as a few examples:

    1. You will not stop me from coming here to read Michaels excellent blog, I simply will not read your trash anymore.

    2. It does not matter what YOU say can or “cannot happen” you are NOT God.

    To comment 1: You are using really angry language. I have yet to call anything YOU said “trash” despite my disagreements with you.

    To comment 2: You are coming across as over-reactionary and defensive for no reason whatsoever. No one here has claimed to be God.

    The worst part of it all, both of you have shown you are liars and I will not deal with dishonest people in any way.

    You have accused me of lying about Michael, and I gave you a link in which I prove my accusation, and you completely ignored it. For your convenience, I will quote myself with the link yet again: “I didn’t make a false accusation, and I can prove it right here and now. In this post I am linking here (link: https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/more-conformation-verifying-soft-tissue-in-fossils/ ), he inserts words in a quote in a paper’s abstract that aren’t even there. I call him out in the comments after I actually read the paper he links and quotes.”

    Of course, you, who appear to be here simply to malign him, would automatically accuse him of being a liar, just as you falsely accused me of quote mining. Again, nothing you say or do is a reflection on Michael or me. Your behavior exposes and maligns your own hypocritical self-Kriss.

    It’s pretty hard to NOT accuse him of being a liar when I have proven he inserted words in a paper that WERE NEVER there. The only thing left is delusion, and I do not believe that Michael is delusional.

    Even if you are not guilty of quote mining, you are certainly guilty of “quote lifting,” which really is not much better.

  58. @53Isaiah

    God created animals and man to live on a vegetarian diet. Death “entered the world” when Adam sinned. There was no death before then. From Genesis to the genealogies throughout Scripture, on through Revelations, the Holy Scripture is harmonious throughout. They make it abundantly clear God did not use evolution. His omnipotence makes it abundantly clear He did not need billions/millions of years to create. His Holy, Righteous, wholly Good, Loving, Merciful, Kind character makes it abundantly clear He did not use evolution.
    .

    More questions for you here:

    1. This statement of a loving God not using evolution because of “death” can be easily turned on it’s head. I could easily ask you: “Why would a living God punish the animals for the sins of the first humans? Why would a loving God visit the punishment of the crime of the first humans upon the innocent?”

    3. I do not doubt that God did not need to use evolution. But Neither does God need to create in six literal 24 hour days.

    2 I already asked you if death were not around before the fall, then what is the point of eating at all before the fall? Food would not be necessary.

    God spoke His creation into existence BY and THROUGH His Word; that Word is His Son, Christ Jesus – Who is light, life, and love; He is Lord of all. Thus, it was indeed perfect and very good.

    “Perfect” is not the word used to describe the creation. The word “Good” is not the same as “perfect.” The Hebrew definition of the word “Towb” include:

    dj
    1) good, pleasant, agreeable
    a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
    b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
    c) good, excellent (of its kind)
    d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
    e) good, appropriate, becoming
    f) better (comparative)
    g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man’s sensuous nature)
    h) good understanding (of man’s intellectual nature)
    i) good, kind, benign
    j) good, right (ethical)
    n m
    2) a good thing, benefit, welfare
    a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
    b) good things (collective)
    c) good, benefit
    d) moral good
    n f
    3) welfare, benefit, good things
    a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
    b) good things (collective)
    c) bounty

    Now, take notice that in all this, the word “perfect” is conspicuously absent.

    The myth of evolution claims the exact opposite of all the Holy Scriptures clearly teach, and those who hold to “theistic evolution” teach the most blasphemous LIE of all, they teach God created BY and THROUGH millions of years of suffering, violence, thorns, oppression, bloodshed and death and called it “very good”.

    Death is not an inherently bad thing. Would you agree that the death of Hitler was a good thing?– Thank you.

    If “theistic evolution” is a blasphemous lie, then “young earth creationism” is pious delusion that creates atheists.– Now, be honest: If you were to ever be convinced that the earth was older than your literal reading of the Bible implies, then wouldn’t you feel the push to become an atheist? You wouldn’t be the first since there are many who became atheists because of Young Earth Creationism. Your position is much more dangerous than evolution. — Young Earth Creationism is the Christian’s worse enemy, and Satan’s best friend. Anyone who uses it may think they serve God, but they are serving Satan himself by repelling potential converts.

  59. 53isaiah has accused this humble commendatore of lying—

    Sure Olorin, let us review the bidding and see how you have lied yet again.

    You have NOT “shown that cytosine had in fact been produced in a possible early-earth environment”.

    And invokes Shapiro.

    Yet Shapiro himself acknowledged that Miller[1] produced 30-50% yields of cytosine.[2] That sounds major to me. Later efforts have synthesized cytosine from other starting materials: Saladino et al. in 2001[3] and Powner et al. in 2009.[4]

    Shapiro’s brief with the RNA World is not that cytosine could not have synthesized on prebiotic earth, but rather that it would deaminate too quickly to be useful. However, the reported syntheses were conducted in open environments. As Shapiro himself has noted, isolation is required for almost every possible OOL scenario. Recently, such isolated regions have been shown to form spontaneously under early conditions,[5] including long-chain amphiphilic membranes capable of self-reproduction.[6]

    The irony of invoking Shapiro is that Shapiro himself is a major proponent of the naturalistic origin of life. His cavil with Miller is that Shapiro holds that a life form existed before an RNA World, based upon a thermodynamic, “metabolism-first” regime.[7]

    53isaiah’s argument, like all creationist arguments, is at bottom an argument from ignorance. This is necessary because neither he nor anyone else in the past three centuries has ever come up with any positive physical evidence that life, the universe and everything was created in six (6) days less than 10,000 years ago. Or any mechanism, other than pure gobsmacking miracle, based upon a whiggist interpretation of a sacred text.[8]

    Science progresses. Every year we know more about the atmosphere of the early earth. About its geological characteristics. About the conditions under which biological compounds form About chemistry in space.[9] About the simple signals that cells employ to find their proper locations. About how systems self-organize into coherent entities. Creationism does not progress. It remains exactly where Bishop Paley dumped it 300 years ago.

    =================

    [1] My earlier “Miller-Urey” was a lapsus mentis for which I have already apologized. The work I meant to cite was Miller’s 1995 synthesis.

    [2] Shapiro, “Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origina of life” PNAS 96:4396-4401 (April 13, 1999)

    [3] Saladino, et al., “A possible prebiotic synthesis of purine, adenine, cytosine, and 4(3H)-pyrimidinone from formamide: implications for the origin of life” Bioorg & Med Chem 9:1249-1253 (May 2001).

    [4] Powner, et al., “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions” Nature 459:239-242 (14 May 2009).

    [5] Fox, “The evolutionary significance of phase-separated microsystems” Orig Life & Evol Biosph 7:49-68 (1976)

    [6] Oro, Miller (yes, that Miller), Lazcano, “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life on Earth” Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci, 18:317-356 (1990)., esp. pp 339-341. Other refs can be found in Woo, “The Beginning of Life and Amphiphilic Molecules” Sci Creat Qly, Aug. 2004.

    [7] Described for general readers in Shapiro, “A Simpler Origin for Life” Sci. Am. 296:6:46-53 (June 2007).

    [8] Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (John Knox press 1984).

    [9] Which, unexpectedly, can be far different from the chemical reactions seen on earth.

  60. I could go on but it does not matter. Both you and Kriss have shown yourselves to be a miserable, angry, ignorant, irrational, couple who have no lives and so you spend the time you have coming to Michaels blog and trashing it with your schoolyard bully behavior. The worst part of it all, both of you have shown you are liars and I will not deal with dishonest people in any way. You will not stop me from coming here to read Michaels excellent blog, I simply will not read your trash anymore.

    Translation: “I’m outta here, before my beliefs disintegrate.”

    Does anyone still wonder why scientists laugh at creationists?

  61. @Olorin

    Translation: “I’m outta here, before my beliefs disintegrate.”

    Does anyone still wonder why scientists laugh at creationists?

    I don’t think his case is “Creationism” per say. This is a case of OEIS (Old Earth Intolerance syndrome) since he mocks the very acknowledgement of an old earth. Reading between the lines, it seems that it is not just “Theistic Evolution” that he consideres damned by God… He would also damn Old Earth Creationists telling them that THEY are also lost.

    I have been known to cozy up to some creationists, even now as someone who accepts Evolution. Mostly they are the intellectually honest few that do not hold so much a dogmatic view. –Greg Neyman (from Answers In Creation) is one of the “few” who say that al though he does not think evolution is true, that it very may well be true and that Christians should not take a dogmatic view against it. — His position is that it is possible for a Christian to believe in an old earth, and even evolution and STILL believe in an infallible Bible. Christians would do well to follow his advice.

    There is ONLY ONE young earth Creationist that I encountered that was really receptive to evidence that countered his view. At the same time I was debating Sean Pitman (if you remember), this same man told Pitman that problems with the conventional scientific view was in no way evidence in favor of a young earth and against evolution.

    Both were a breath of fresh air…and such a rarity in the Creationist community (young and old earth.)

  62. OEIS frequently manifests itself in this in defining Christianity as only including belief in biblical literalism. Others are not only wrong, they are not Christians at all. Catholic priest Francisco Ayala would thus be defined as not a Christian.

    Do we still wonder why people in general laugh at creationists?

    .

    As to creationists who seek truth. it is ironic that this was characteristic of early 20thC creationism. many were read out of the movement because they had no qualifications, or misled others about the science The American Scientific Affiliation got their start that way. When the evidence became stronger and stronger against theirr initial anti-all-evolution position, they changed that position. Huh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s