Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
Ah, I see. I went out and chased down the claim sheets and see that the guy does have a PhD from an unaccredited university. Which essentially means he did the work for a PhD; but, since it was done at a Christian school he doesn't get the credit for the work...
Many Christian schools are accredited in the US. Christian schools are not excluded from applying for accreditation. It's a schools option - but don't be surprised if people question the bona fides of someone who has a degree from one a higher ed institutions that is unaccredited. Accedication teams make sure that a PhD program meets standards for work accomplished, etc. The PhD could be for basketweaving or military history, but it will still have to meet the same standards for credit hours of work required, etc., etc., etc.
But by your own standard, you cannot prove that Elvis didn't fake his own death and is now hiding out somewhere. So then, why would you use a perjorative term to refer to people who believe that this is the case. Furthermore, you, in an earlier post, refer to the fact that JFK was assassinated as an immutable fact. Can you prove that this is true? By your standard, if you can't prove it, you have no reason to regard it as a fact. It is possible that the person who was shot in Dallas that day was a double who looked like JFK. It is possible that it was all special effects and bogus news reports put out by the White House. I defy you to prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that JFK really was assassinated. (BTW, before the flames start, I do not seriously believe any of the above. I certainly do believe that JFK was assassinated; I just presented this to prove the point that we really don't know anything about the real world with complete certainty.)
I think the problem you are having is that you have a preconceived notion that evolution and creationism are necessarily contradictory. Evolution does not speak to where life came from, no matter how much you want to believe that is does or that it has to. Evolution simply states that the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time. Evolution only applies at times after the first living cells have formed. Evolution does not care whether that happened via abiogenesis, creation or any other mechanism. You may be confused because there are many proponents of evolution who believe in a form of prebiotic chemical evolution that led to the formation of life without the need for a Creator. This is NOT the theory of evolution, however. This hypothesis is certainly on much shakier ground than the TOE. (note, I don't refer to this as a theory; there simply isn't evidence enough to call this hypothesis a theory). The question of the origin of life and the diversification of life, once formed, are logically separate.
Do you exist. Yes, a rhetorical. And yes we most certainly can know things with complete certainty. There are more ways than one to do this. And unfortunately, many of the cults take the stand you do as a defense for their beliefs. They think if they can get you to agree to such a broad general statement, you will give them a pass. Oddly enough, among certain circles, this bunk works. It doesn't with me because I know better. There is plenty we can prove with absolute certainty. I don't particularly find excuses that 'we can't prove x, so you'll just have to take our word for it.' How about if we accuse you of murder and use that justification in court. Better yet, how about if we make sure to get a jury that thinks like that - and then use that reasoning with the jury. Methinks you'd become an instant believer in what can be proven with certainty.
So what if dinosaurs and humans did coexist? (not that I believe they did.) That does absolutely nothing to support or refute the theory of evolution any more than presenting proof that dogs and man coexist. Evolution does not predict which species will exist at any given time. It certainly does not rely on humans and dinosaurs never having coexisted.
Your problem is you don't understand the reply, so you think I'm evading the question. You're begging the question (i.e. you're asking me to assume something I'm arguing against). There is no loss in information going from a bacterium (singular bacterium, plural bacteria) to a blue whale. Thewhale genome is much larger.
You might check your information. Dinos and man coexisting jerks a pretty major knot in the timeline issues. The timelines are already shown to be untrustworthy IMO. It would just aid in sticking a fork in the system of dating so to speak. It may or may not also call into question the credibility of other related and unrelated claims maintained on the same basis. And that would tend to cause evolution some severe problems. Carbon and strata dating are essentially a Normandy for evolution. And evolution isn't defending the beach with much more success than the Germans had.
There is strong evidence RNA predeced DNA; there's no evidence (and I think much reason to doubt) RNA was the first carrier of information.
And of your examples, the longest is 46(23) residues, not much of a life precursor.
If you search the database for DNA crystal structures, I doubt you'll find anything a whole lot longer. The small size is a result of the experimental difficulties of crystallizing and solving the structure of big bits of nucleic acid.
Indeed, Mr. Balrog666 appears to have precisely embodied several of the phenomena described in the article in connection with ideological advocates of Darwin's idea.
In other words, he's a prime example of what the author was talking about.
Well then, that seems to reduce the likelihood of RNA being a precursor to life.
re: "Dr" Dino Kent Hovind...
1) Dinosaurs and man did not coexist. The evidence for this is so vast, so encompassing, and so clear that to build one's career upon this issue is mind boggling.
2) His supposed PhD is from Patriot University. There is no such thing. It was a diploma mill from some guy's garage. He has no CV, did no work for it. It's fake, it's a lie. It's not real. This is indefensible. And widely documented on the internet.
3) A simple google search, something you must be firewalled against, provided this as the first hit. It seems to be written by a creationist (though I'm not sure) and one who was taken in by Hovind's charisma.
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hovind.htm
Let me know if you actually read it... maybe I need to post it's full text here.
Summary: Kent Hovind is neither a PhD and he is a liar and a tax cheat.
I think the bigger problem here is not a matter of the bacteria or the blue whale. It is the matter of going from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction - the core issue both of you are chasing. This then requires the independant spontaneous generation of two entirely seperate and distinct sets of organs geared to opposite sides of a single purpose and yet 100% compatible with each other and functional to the end that neither process knows it's heading toward as this is essentially happening in a vacuum with no purpose in mind. IT would be a random, uncontrolled and unguided happenstance governed by only chaos for it's outcome. This is why it is often waved as a huge red flag for evolution. It is not an issue evolution can really overcome though the attempt is interesting. This, to me isn't much different than the idea of a space shuttle engine assembly falling out of the sky one moment, and the fuel system the next - just random chance, and both matching up to work to perfection. I wouldn't want to calculate the odds myself. But engineers who worked on the things would probably bust you upside the head for saying that random chance could replace them.. rofl.
Space Shuttle engines and fuel systems, to my knowlege, are not living, reproducing organisms. I know you know this, and I know you've been told this, but for some reason you don't seem to understand the difference.
Engineers would laugh at you for suggesting that their work is somehow some way related to biological processes.
As you're fond of saying, "rofl." You laugh too much and learn too little.
Don't move the goalposts yet because you are wrong yet again. Bacteria do exchange DNA, so you are chasing another chimaera.
No, it isn't clear. It might be clear in light of the theory of evolution; but, it isn't otherwise clear that such is the case. And I don't believe that Hovind built his career on this notion. His career appears to have been built mainly on his background as a teacher.
2) His supposed PhD is from Patriot University. There is no such thing. It was a diploma mill from some guy's garage. He has no CV, did no work for it. It's fake, it's a lie. It's not real. This is indefensible. And widely documented on the internet.
I know people who got degrees in computer sciences from NCR and similar outfits who know just about as much about computers as I do now. I don't find that this invalidates what they know. I'd have to investigate further; but, I'm not terribly interested beyond the appearance that this is being used to sidestep his arguments rather than deal with them. He could be Bill Clinton, that doesn't persay invalidate his case anymore than I would argue Being a Catholic Pope would invalidate anything he said. I would argue that both reputations would require a careful critique of what they are saying - not who they are. People screw up in life. That doesn't mean we invalidate them for being screw ups at some point in their life. The information they present is what we have to look at. And not liking the information is not the same as it being wrong.
3) A simple google search, something you must be firewalled against, provided this as the first hit. It seems to be written by a creationist (though I'm not sure) and one who was taken in by Hovind's charisma.
I don't think that's particularly necessary unless we're going to change topic to Kent Hovind, I'm happy to read it. And at this point, I have. So you've discredited the man; but, not what he said. Or are we to assume this guy may have been a plant setup specifically in hopes that discrediting him would discredit what he says.. lol. What he actually says comes from another source for which he gives credit. So, I guess we're at this point left with the material he presents.. right.
That was specifically the point of using their complexity as an example. They aren't living reproducing organisms. They merely are being compared to a portion of the organism specifically geared to reproducing. It would be a miracle enough that the two independant systems would mate up if created at random and blindly and show up on the same universe much less on the same planet. If they mate up and actually worked together, it would be even more incredible.
Engineers would laugh at you for suggesting that their work is somehow some way related to biological processes.
No, they actually would not. They have some level of sense as well and understand that complexity is mirrored all over. Many will admit that their designs are less complex than what is found in biological systems, some will note that they think their designs at least as complex. I know, I've had similar discussions with Engineers in my own family and in facilities I've both worked in and visited. Aircraft engineers love to talk, btw. As do, I assume, most engineers in general. Circuit board designers can teach you a thing or two as well.
As you're fond of saying, "rofl." You laugh too much and learn too little
The latter does not follow from the former. I just happen to find some things funny and don't mind expressing it. I am curious and spend much of my off time trudging through one topic or another - learning new things. Your opinion on a subject you are unfamiliar with doesn't much sway me. You are trying to buy believability of HighSchool students with your pile of theories. They ain't buying it. There are guys out there with degrees out the wazoo that not only disagree with evolution; but, are disagreeing because of what they have observed in science. This tells us that it's not a matter of a level of learning that is involved. It the learning level didn't solve it for guys with Phds who got them legitimately. So your argument fails. Which puts you back in the position of dealing with the central argument - not tangents intended to distract.
I suspect you know absolutely nothing about biology or about the living organisms that bridge this "divide" quite handily. There are many variations on sex, and there are organisms that reproduce both sexually and asexually. Then there is the dandelion, a flowering plant that has abandoned most aspects of sexuality.
Not trying persay to move the goalposts. These two have been back and forth on this issue for a while now and I was looking at it from the point of what they seem to be driving at from opposite directions. Saying bacteria exchange dna doesn't make the case for explaining dual complex complementary systems.
Stating that organisms merely are capable of it, does not explain how any or even one of the systems came to be. You haven't explained the issue, you just sidestepped it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.