The design of living things

[xDICEx]

DNA Replication, mRNA Transcription, and Ribosomal Translation: The inter complexity of nucleic polymer and protein synthesis as evidence of the Cell Principal

The Cell Principal from the time of Robert Hooke (1665), Mathias Schleiden (1838), and Theodore Schwann (1839) until now in biology has been: First, "That all living things are made up of living units called cells and cell products," and Second, "That all cells come from pre-existing cells." 1. That this fundamental principal of biology is apparently contradicted in the fundamental principal of evolution (i.e. that cells evolved by random chance out of decomposition and solution of inorganic elements in the primordial sea.) is not widely admitted by current literature in education or the sciences. The notion that simple cells could evolve in some primordial environment, and that given great amounts of time, could also change into more complex forms, forms to which the cell principal might then apply to, seems to be the dogma of the day.

That notion, perhaps, was credible between 1860 and the early 1900's but, since the 1950's, with the advances in molecular biology, it seems obviously outdated and unduly ridged. As microscopy advanced with resolutions down into the angstrom scale and techniques that cryogenically paused molecular operations in process, the observational field in biology made a quantum leap. While those techniques combined with the DNA structural breakthroughs of Watson and Crick in 1953, molecular research and cytology was discovering a greater complexity than ever before imagined. There is no such thing as a simple cell. In fact this paper addresses a rather tiny portion of that complexity, perhaps a 10 billionth part, if that, and yet, this little part's complexity, as complexly as we now know it, is far beyond our collective scientific scope. Though we have much systematic, descriptive and analytic elaboration, there are more questions and mysteries than ever before. The ounces we have come to know provoke tons of research into that which we have come to question.

What do we know? The simplest statement of the DNA/RNA/Protein inter complexity is: Precision DNA polymers and precision molecular protein machines make RNA strands, and these precision strands working together with other precision protein machines make protein and protein machines. Copying DNA is incredibly complex, and yet it has to be done to perpetuate life. The instructions for making the protein machines are encoded in the DNA, which code is useless without the machines; of course the machines cannot be made without the instructions in the DNA. The precise sequential encoding and sequential protein construction involved in this process is in the order of tens of thousands, if not millions. The most obvious inference in this chicken and egg scenario is the confirmation of the Cell Principal, and an equal rejection of the Evolution Principal. Only a living cell and cell products can do the work and make the things of living cells: all RNA has come from pre-existing DNA and all Protein machines from pre-existing machines. The first cells had it all, because it's obviously all or nothing. And the random probability of systems ordered this complexly is virtually zero. This is the current scientific evidence, and it is evidence of design and intelligent construction and confirms the thesis that these organisms must have been made complete from the start, and moreover, each according to its kind.

Helicase and polymerase are two of the complex machines involved in replicating DNA and transcribing DNA into RNA. Next to these are the ribosomes, bi-structural protein complexes that read the messenger RNA (mRNA) strands and construct the encoded protein structures out of their individual amino acid parts gathered up by their individual transfer RNA (tRNA) carriers. The ribosomes thus translate the coded information into sequentially peptide bonded amino acids making complexly folded proteins. Ribosomal structures, as well as Helicase and polymerase structures, are encoded in DNA, and that is how they have come into being since the creation. But, quite obviously, the first of their kinds were created complete from the start; at least that is what the evidence indicates. The first cells must have had it all.

DNA Complexity (deoxyribonucleic acid)
DNA is a double helical polymer composed of deoxyribos sugar, phosphate, and the four nucleic bases adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine.2 The sugar/phosphate iterations form the two strands along both sides, and joining the opposed sides like runs on a ladder are two paired base molecules. Each sugar/phosphate side member having one of the bases bonded to the sugar group toward the side of the polymer and bonded toward the middle to its paired base counterpart, (adenine A to thymine T, cytosine C to guanine G: A/T or T/A and C/G or G/C.) The overall acidic properties of the polymer are attributable to the phosphate groups along its two sides. The fundamental element in this spiraling helix is the nucleotide which is one sugar/phosphate group with its unpaired base attached. A 16 inch strand is nearly 500 million times longer than its 2 nanometer width and may have more than 200 million nucleotide pairs. Human DNA in 46 chromosomes has about 3,165 million base pairs.

When this ladder is split down the middle separating the paired bases, two strands are expressed that constitute a 4X code at each nucleotide: A, T, C, or G, every three nucleotides of which representing a coded word of 64X possibilities. With some duplication the 20 bio-amino acids are represented with their own words along with some control words that encode operations essential to the replication, transcription, and translation devices that utilize this code for highly specific work. These 64 words have been experimentally demonstrated, with their individual amino acids and operations identified.3. But whether this is the sole extent of the sequences, or rather the only level of meaning is a question. Transfer RNA, (tRNA), having from 60 to 95 nucleotides which also must be transcribed off sequential DNA locations, has at least 20 different multi-word expressions; what else? What about the many ribonucleic protein structures, (RNP), e.g. Vaults and Ribosomes? Where are their structural RNA parts encoded? Lastly there are many external factors and controls that operate on DNA sites suitable to their influence: some are known; how many are not? Moreover, as DNA twists like licorice two groves are expressed where the active sites on the paired bases are presented in the major and minor groves. How many cell processes and cellular machines might utilize this structured information?

The packaging of DNA to fit into and be useful within the nucleus of cells is another wonder. First the twisting of the strand reduces its absolute length, but coiling twice around 8 histone proteins at precise points all along its length forms an 11 nanometer “string of pearls,” called a nucleosome string. This string is again coiled and, by the 9th histone protein, bound in solenoids of twisting groups of 6 to 8 nucleosome forming the 30 nanometer fibers called chromatin.4

The inter working of histone and DNA increases the complexity significantly in all other operations DNA is involved in. All operative factors network with these packaging states and coordinate their functions. Under meiosis and mitosis the DNA is coiled and folded more, but these above are normal DNA states during interphase where most cellular life work is done.

In any living organism all of its complexity from beginning to end is encoded in its DNA. And all that information is useless without the rest of that cell or cells. It has been said, that if the information in a teaspoon full of DNA were written into paperback books, the stack would reach from the earth to the moon and back 400 times. That is a lot of complexity in a very little package, but without a ribosome it is gibberish, useless.

Ribosomal Complexity
It takes a great deal of nonscientific, dogmatic inflexibility to believe that something as complex as a ribosome and yet as essential to all cellular life, could come into being on its own. The parts of this machine must not only all be there for it to do its job, but they all must be in working order. No cells could live long without their jobs being done. Ribosomes have been called construction sites and factories; they make the proteins that cells utilize in almost all their structures and the enzymes that operate ubiquitously throughout the cells and cell systems catalyzing the chemical works of life. Hemoglobin is an example: it is a ribosome constructed protein utilized in blood cells to capture and carry oxygen throughout many cellular systems. Even the proteins in a ribosome are made by ribosomes, as well as the proteins in helicase and polymerase whose job it is to preserve and produce reliable blueprints and work orders for ribosomal operations.

Ribosomes are two piece machines that assemble around their blueprints of mRNA to do their work. Their parts are composed of ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and different proteins. Their structural rRNA and proteins vary from part to part: one of the parts with rRNA 1,500 nucleotides in length and 20 different proteins, and the other with rRNA some 100 and some 3,000 nucleotides long and 35 different proteins. Nucleotide sequence is as critical to RNA as amino sequence is to functional proteins. This machine requires 55 proteins and conservatively 10,000 nucleotides of rRNA. Chance construction is out of the equation, scientifically anyway. In a billion universes like our own and 100 billion years the chance probability is still zero. These kinds of arrangements do not happen by chance; this is engineering and design; it just happens to be way beyond our intelligence. It is instructing us. And that awes us.

Even the construction of ribosome, first in the cell nucleolus for framing and then out in the cytoplasm for finishing under what must be numerous controls, magnifies the order of complexity and presupposes the coevality (must exist at the same time together) of these structures. These DNA, RNA, protein systems are not reducible among their individual parts, products, and services. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume their simultaneous creation inside each of the first cells after their kinds and guaranteeing the perpetuity (existance over time, without change) of their kinds.

RNA Complexity (ribonucleic acid)
RNA is the coded transcription of the information in DNA that is meticulously co-produced by the DNA and protein enzyme catalysts in a highly orchestrated symphony of intertwined labor and control. Truly stunning, it is a wonder to behold.

RNA is not just a copy of DNA with a slightly different sugar molecule, one stranded not two, and using uracil (U) instead of thymine (T) to bind to adenine (A); it is that, but it is more. The mRNA strands are the transcribed blue prints sent out into the cytoplasm to be translated by the ribosome. The tRNA strands are individualized amino acid carriers that match up along the mRNA strand and co-catalyze the peptide bonded amino acid chains of protein construction. And, in a structural capacity, all ribonucleic protein (RNP) structures have their own RNA elements and parts; rRNA in ribosome and vRNA in vaults are examples.

The code complexities are the same, but RNA is more of a worker and tool of the code than the repository of it. mRNA carries the intelligence out of the nucleus and into the cytoplasm where it is read and acted upon. tRNA is the labor force that coordinates and transports all the construction materials and facilitates their joining at the ribosome construction sites. Robert Holly (1962) solved the structure of tRNA, which looks a bit like a Celtic cross attaching its specific amino acid at its top and having at its base the nucleotide word that pairs with mRNA at a specific site on the ribosome. Lastly, the various possible roles of the RNA in RNP structures are driving much current research.

Every thing we learn adds to a complexity that simply can not be reduced without serious damage to the organism. Indeed damage from toxins and mutations are some of the most heuristic objects and generators of this research, as is cancer and other diseases, all adding to our understanding of how these complex machines work, communicate, and network.

Helicase Complexity
Spinning DNA as fast as a jet engine where it climbs along the double helix, unzipping it at its nose and re-zipping it at its tail, helicase catalyzes the construction of mRNA, copying the code as it passes along. Gathering free RNA nucleotides through a special induction tunnel, it matches them, and then shunts the forming mRNA strand out its side. It must start and stop at precise locations controlled by many factors releasing its products and reassembling somewhere else to do another job. Therefore, helicase is not only a precise and complicated catalyst, but it must be responsive to various work controls; there is more intelligence in this than we know of, and this is a growing field of molecular experimental research.

Helicase is not a random grouping of proteins, nor are the proteins that compose it a random grouping of amino acids. Again, this is a precision machine far outside the realm of mathematical random probability. Added to its own complexity, the fact that its own blue prints are some of the products it makes as it slides precisely along the complex DNA molecule, the complexity becomes irreducible, incapable of simplifying without destroying the whole purpose of the system. The number of sequential dependent operations in this system, its fabrication, maintenance, and reproduction, begins to look like the grains of sand upon the sea shores.

Polymerase Complexity
These catalytic machines reproduce DNA reading it, checking it, and repairing it as they go about their precision jobs. Along with helicase, it must unwind and unzip the DNA stand and then produce two duplicate strands from the two halves. This too is a wonder to behold.

As the DNA is split down the middle along the base pairs, one half of the split strand is reproduced directly by polymerase factors pairing DNA nucleotides. But the other half is winnowed out in a loop to be reproduced backwards and then joined to the completed previous loop. There is a quality control aspect to this procedure as helicase factors check its accuracy pairing across the products, and if there is an error, progress down the DNA strand is halted while the defective strand or loop is severed and rebuilt. This ballet has the relevant factors embracing pulling apart, re gathering, spinning off, swinging out drawing back, and combined producing two identical DNA strands. The movement of these factors and the distances they must operate over are magnificent, like a molecular loom of ingenious innovation and design.

Again the number of proteins and their number of amino acids, the sequences of their construction and precise folded forms are all essential to their flexibilities and active sites. Mistakes, reductions, or additions are together counterproductive. The continuance of life and the perpetuity of the organism are dependent on the proper networking of every factor. Per-organism, it is just not reducible.

There are polymerases used in amplifying human DNA that come from organisms that normally live in extremely heated environments. These lack some of the code checking complexity of human polymerase, but then they uniquely are able to survive the sequential heating that is required by the amplifying procedures which human polymerase cannot. It is assumed that the high temperature of its native habitat provides that essential check on its accuracy. Not withstanding, this is not an argument for a reduction in complication, rather it argues for specie specific design variations. Their individual complexities remain irreducible.

CONCLUSIONS
The amazing order, inter working, and networking among the DNA/RNA/protein systems express a wisdom that is nothing less than an observation of the eternal power and divine nature of the Creator. It takes a lot of effort not to see this. It seems as though one could see the actual design orders marshaled out to implement the divine decree for living things to multiply and fill the earth after their kinds. Insuring their individual integrity within their kinds, this is the most stable information storage system known to man. Receiving the cell principal as confirmed by all evidences, therefore, the naïve notions speculated by the doctrine of evolution ought to be relegated to the history of science, and not to be presented as current science. Much less should it be mandatory for those who would do science to kiss the ring of Darwin in order to enter though her portals. Ridged, officious, and dogmatically bigoted presumptions ought not to be the bench mark of scientific inquiry, right? Then let not the shibboleth of infinite time and chance exclude any longer those who would discover and learn, or those who would teach, for that matter.

References:
1. Biology God’s Living Creation: Keith Graham, Laurel Hicks, Delores Shimmim, and George Thompson; A Beka Book Publications, (1986)
2. www.ncc.gmu.edu/dna/base.htm[/url]
3. www.dnai.org/a/index.html]Finding the DNA Structure, Copying, Reading, & Controlling DNA Code[/url]
4. www.dnai.org/a/index.html]Finding the DNA Structure, Copying, Reading, & Controlling DNA Code[/url]
I wrote this back in 2006 as an apologetic to my secular teacher friends, who questioned my creationist approach to biology xDICEx

 

[ItinerantLurker]

CONCLUSIONS
The amazing order, inter working, and networking among the DNA/RNA/protein systems express a wisdom that is nothing less than an observation of the eternal power and divine nature of the Creator.

How so? I haven't seen any evidence or reasoning presented so far arguing in favor of this. All you're doing is noting the complexity and saying "Aha, it must have been poofed into existence."

Insuring their individual integrity within their kinds, this is the most stable information storage system known to man.

Really? What mechanism, precisely, are you seeing that ensures the individual integrity of "kinds"? This is actually not at all the most stable information storage system known to man - it's known to change due to errors known as mutations which produce variations that are acted upon by natural selection and have been observed to produce new species.

Receiving the cell principal as confirmed by all evidences, therefore, the naïve notions speculated by the doctrine of evolution ought to be relegated to the history of science, and not to be presented as current science.

Curiously, virtually all modern practitioners of science in the relevant fields disagree.

{snip rant}




Lurker

 

[agua]

Nice post Dice.

Another interseting side to creation and how life began popped up in my chemistry lecture yesterday. Professor Trau was speaking about the second law of thermodynamics and the tendancy of the universe to always flow towards the most probably energy levels. So in any spontaneous reaction the entropy of the universe is always increased. Entropy is the ditribution of energy and maximum entropy comes from maximum randomization/distribution. After speaking for a bit about this process the professor paused and said " don't try to apply the idea of entropy to life ... life is incredibly organized and does not fit into the usual trend of entropy".

Funny that : )

 

[xDICEx]

How so? I haven't seen any evidence or reasoning presented so far arguing in favor of this. All you're doing is noting the complexity and saying "Aha, it must have been poofed into existence."

Thank you for replying. I take it you can not see any intelligence in this complexity and order science is describing today. I suppose you might think this could randomly be selected out of accidents over enough time. How much time does it take to make a cell, perhaps seems like a rational question. In the real world, as agua has noted (So in any spontaneous reaction the entropy of the universe is always increased), there are real answers to the how much time question: the life span of the shortest lived component in the finished system. So, lets say the shortest lived element in the cell is a product that only holds its integrity for an hour or so: then the answer is: you have an hour or so to make the cell. That is how much time in the real world. You see, time does not make things: it destroys things. It is amazing how this is not grasped by people who have to live in the real world every day. Poofed is a very poor word to describe creation by fiat decree; but then I suppose the temptation to try and be rid of the rational notion that with any given cause and effect, the cause is greater in order and power than the effect, is expedient to some. The wiser and more powerful the cause, the less time it takes to get a finished product. The longevity of the parts of the thing created actually constitute limits of how much time it must have taken. It will not take too much reading to find out that there are essential enzymatic elements in the cell that have useful lives of less than a second. Chemicals do not naturally do intelligence; that information encoded in those few I mentioned in the post, had to be put there by something more intelligent and more powerful than the result: for there just can not be very much time.

Really? What mechanism, precisely, are you seeing that ensures the individual integrity of "kinds"? This is actually not at all the most stable information storage system known to man - it's known to change due to errors known as mutations which produce variations that are acted upon by natural selection and have been observed to produce new species.

Fossil haring look like living haring. The DNA/RNA/Protein systems account for that. Books do not last that long. Computer memories do not last that long. The systems surveyed in the post are information driven. There are limits to the variability of organisms; new information is never added but rather selectively eliminated, but only to a very clear boundary, experimentally. It is the systems described, the checks within it, the inner dependance of the elements, and the sequential complexity of the code: that in real time limit the organisms corruptibility. You are correct in saying errors and mutations are known; they certainly are. And we know them because the standards from which they have degraded are still ascertainable. With the degradations fully in mind, practitioners of the sciences in the relevant fields actually do agree with the 'most reliable' statement. It might help in understanding this, to think of (or with) a more stable one. Please suggest something, I'd love to consider it. Even tomb stones don't last this long.

Thanks, Lurker, for your interest in this post. I encourage you to explore that curiosity you mentioned in closing. There is a lot (I wouldn't say virtually all) of agreement: that this creation thesis is not acceptable. But among those who rarely agree among themselves and over time drastically change, why would there be such agreement? It is not the facts or data of science that urges this. Perhaps it is the pre-scientific suppositions the scientists make going into the lab and classroom that make it? I know it is true for Bible acceptors. Could it work the same way for Bible rejectors? Give it some honest thought.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

I suppose you might think this could randomly be selected out of accidents over enough time.

That would be an excellent supposition on your part.

In the real world, as agua has noted (So in any spontaneous reaction the entropy of the universe is always increased), there are real answers to the how much time question: the life span of the shortest lived component in the finished system. So, lets say the shortest lived element in the cell is a product that only holds its integrity for an hour or so: then the answer is: you have an hour or so to make the cell. That is how much time in the real world.

Most of the variation upon which natural selection acts occurs on the genetic level, which makes the life-span of a single cell irrelevant.

You see, time does not make things: it destroys things. It is amazing how this is not grasped by people who have to live in the real world every day.

You appear to be wandering a bit, "time" is not the only factor involved. The process of dna replication is, by nature, imperfect which means that occasional variations occur. Some of these variations do, in fact, produce "new information"/novel traits that convey a survival advantage. This is not a theory, it is a fact - time then simply increases the amount of possible variation.

Poofed is a very poor word to describe creation by fiat decree; but then I suppose the temptation to try and be rid of the rational notion that with any given cause and effect, the cause is greater in order and power than the effect, is expedient to some. The wiser and more powerful the cause, the less time it takes to get a finished product.

What the above word salad has to do with genetics is unclear.

The longevity of the parts of the thing created actually constitute limits of how much time it must have taken.

Sure. . .unless we're talking about a self-replicating molecule which is exactly what dna is.

It will not take too much reading to find out that there are essential enzymatic elements in the cell that have useful lives of less than a second.

Irrelevant.

Chemicals do not naturally do intelligence; that information encoded in those few I mentioned in the post, had to be put there by something more intelligent and more powerful than the result

Why? We observe organic molecules assembling themselves according the laws of chemistry every day.

Fossil haring look like living haring.

I can be sure as to what you're trying to be wrong about here, could you clarify?

The DNA/RNA/Protein systems account for that. Books do not last that long. Computer memories do not last that long. The systems surveyed in the post are information driven.

And DNA doesn't last that long either - it simply self-replicates, and many of the copies it makes of itself have variations, which in turn make copies of themselves which include further variations, and so on.

There are limits to the variability of organisms; new information is never added but rather selectively eliminated, but only to a very clear boundary, experimentally.

Nonsense. Where can I measure this limit to variability and why haven't geneticists managed to detect it?

It is the systems described, the checks within it, the inner dependance of the elements, and the sequential complexity of the code: that in real time limit the organisms corruptibility.

You are correct in saying errors and mutations are known; they certainly are. And we know them because the standards from which they have degraded are still ascertainable. With the degradations fully in mind, practitioners of the sciences in the relevant fields actually do agree with the 'most reliable' statement. It might help in understanding this, to think of (or with) a more stable one. Please suggest something, I'd love to consider it. Even tomb stones don't last this long.

If any of the above actually made a coherent point in your mind it was utterly lost in your post. Could you perhaps try clearing that up a bit?

It is not the facts or data of science that urges this.

Actually it is precisely the data and facts of science that inform our theories. That's how science works. I would invite you to seriously consider getting a better handle on genetics as well as what the theory of evolution actually is.




Lurker

 

[xDICEx]

That would be an excellent supposition on your part.
Most of the variation upon which natural selection acts occurs on the genetic level, which makes the life-span of a single cell irrelevant.

I'm sorry you missed my point there: it is not the cell as such whose life span is at issue, but the elemental parts of any theoretical first one or ones, constructing them from their parts. Because the viability of the parts can not be less than the time to get them together (the point at discussion). So it is not necessary to comment on the excellency or lack thereof in your assumption, that would be to complicate further its irrelevancy.

The same must be said for your next three comments. They all seem to labor under the same misunderstanding of the issue in discussion. They are totally irrelevant to the engineering and materials constraints, whether one assumes an intelligent omnipotent creator or chance arrangements. Selection must have something to select, blind or intelligent; making that first thing is the issue. And the shortest lived element in the assembly sets the maximum amount of time the assembler has to get it made.

You appear to be wandering a bit, "time" is not the only factor involved. The process of dna replication is, by nature, imperfect which means that occasional variations occur. Some of these variations do, in fact, produce "new information"/novel traits that convey a survival advantage. This is not a theory, it is a fact - time then simply increases the amount of possible variation.

What the above word salad has to do with genetics is unclear.

Sure. . .unless we're talking about a self-replicating molecule which is exactly what dna is.

Therefore, those three statements are just as irrelevant as the first two.

The next interjection and the statements and phrases you site illustrate this perfectly well: "It will not take too much reading to find out that there are essential enzymatic elements in the cell that have useful lives of less than a second." This is the issue your eyes are closed to, and the rational experimental point to the Time issue. Do you think your interjection, "Irrelevant" will make it go away? Arrange the best scientists and engineers, refine your apparatus and techniques, assemble your elements, use all your knowledge and wisdom and assemble your cell. Then you will be able to grasp the interference time works in the real world. You are acquainted with real research are you not? If you are not, it will be difficult to appreciate the things that are at issue here.

Why? We observe organic molecules assembling themselves according the laws of chemistry every day.

This is a good statement of the CELL PRINCIPAL: organic things making other organic things using intelligence driven organic chemistry. And this is what we witness and operate within daily in bio-molecular research.

With that said, your next point is well taken. I stand corrected. Herring is the proper spelling and common name of the marine fossils and their descendants that we find in the seas today. But it is true: they are identical, and I should then clarify that herring's connection to the following statement: "The DNA/RNA/Protein systems account for that." Here actually the argument shifts to the finished cells and organisms that are made up of finished cells. So, you should be at home here.

And DNA doesn't last that long either - it simply self-replicates, and many of the copies it makes of itself have variations, which in turn make copies of themselves which include further variations, and so on.

In reproduction this known and demonstrated variation on the polymer level is systematic, and investigated sites and sections of code do changed, insuring specie variation; these variations allow specie adaptations as a rule. Within a single mortal organism, however, mutated variations are the rare and debilitating exception that, even though they accumulate into what is called a genetic load, are by reproduction minimized in their expression among specie populations. But you say:

Nonsense. Where can I measure this limit to variability and why haven't geneticists managed to detect it?

This is exactly what geneticists have discovered in the fruit fly and bacteria populations where the number of generations is plentiful and rapid enough to approach the non viability of the populations in deliberate mutational selections, as in longer time frames with selectively breeding: where the genetic load approaches non viability. Change within species variability has limits where the continuation in experimentally selected directions eliminates the organism. Extinction due to degradation of the organ or organelle systems in the organism or to ineffective reproductive competition in that species gene-pool is that boundary.

If any of the above actually made a coherent point in your mind it was utterly lost in your post. Could you perhaps try clearing that up a bit?

In the last statements you had asked regarding the stability of the vast information that is preserved in the DNA systems of organisms, and I had given you an answer as to what mechanism account for that. You had called it into question with what seemed to be a denial of that stability. You never offered a more stable example so I suppose you can not think of any. Therefore the coherency was not lost, but ignored. I still doubt you have an answer. But do surprise me, I should still love to hear of one. I happen to know of only one, but I really would like to see you come up with it.

Actually it is precisely the data and facts of science that inform our theories. That's how science works. I would invite you to seriously consider getting a better handle on genetics as well as what the theory of evolution actually is.

You have not shown me a better understanding of genetics than that I already have, but I can see that you either did not recognize the philosophical gist of my very last statement, or you ignored it. You tell me nothing new or disputed about how theories work in science, What you missed was how pre-theoretical assumed preconditions for science to even start lend paradigmatic mater to the whole process after it starts. The net result is conflicting world views, that can only be settled by what is called a transcendental philosophical critique. You seem to think that the Biblical creation thesis is some how not dealing with the facts of science. That is egregiously mistaken.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

The next interjection and the statements and phrases you site illustrate this perfectly well: "It will not take too much reading to find out that there are essential enzymatic elements in the cell that have useful lives of less than a second." This is the issue your eyes are closed to, and the rational experimental point to the Time issue.

Ah, so your error seems to be that you think modern cells with all their complex machinery needed to evolve from scratch. In reality, complex cellular machinery simply isn't necessary to form a simple proto-cell - all you need is a self-replicating strand of RNA in a phospholibid membrane. Everything else from there can be added via descent with modification, i.e. evolution.

This is a good statement of the CELL PRINCIPAL: organic things making other organic things using intelligence driven organic chemistry. And this is what we witness and operate within daily in bio-molecular research.

Except that that's not a "good" description of cell theory at all. The actual principle you seem to be referring to is that cells arise from pre-existing cells via cell division.

Cell division is not "intelligence driven", nor does cell division preclude variation - which makes it irrelevant to a discussion about descent with variation, i.e. evolution. If you're trying to discuss how the first cells arose you are talking about abiogenesis, evolution deals with how living things made up of cells descend with modification.

With that said, your next point is well taken. I stand corrected. Herring is the proper spelling and common name of the marine fossils and their descendants that we find in the seas today.

If this is true what is the significance to the ToE? Evolution explains how populations adapt to their environment, if an adaptation works just fine for a given population there is no reason we should expect any drastic changes even over long periods of time.

But it is true: they are identical,

I think you mean that they kind of look the same, unless we get our hands on a fossil herring's genome to sequence we can't say that they are "identical" to modern specimens.

Within a single mortal organism, however, mutated variations are the rare and debilitating exception that, even though they accumulate into what is called a genetic load, are by reproduction minimized in their expression among specie populations.

Except that that's not actually accurate. All individuals within a population are mutated variations, every single one, it just so happens that most of these mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and a rare few are beneficial.

Genetic load is the cost of selection, and while it does place an upper limit on the rate of selection that is a very different thing than your claim of a limit on the amount of variation.

Change within species variability has limits where the continuation in experimentally selected directions eliminates the organism. Extinction due to degradation of the organ or organelle systems in the organism or to ineffective reproductive competition in that species gene-pool is that boundary.

You are misunderstanding what genetic load is on a pretty epic scale. We've found that too much selection can, indeed, result in the extinction of populations. Curiously, however, long-term evolution studies have not supported your claims and, instead, show that beneficial mutations do occur, are selected for by environment, and become fixed in a population. You might try looking up the Lenski Experiments as a good starting point.

Reality > your claims.

You had called it into question with what seemed to be a denial of that stability. You never offered a more stable example so I suppose you can not think of any.

When I copy and paste from a .pdf file to a .doc file and press save not a single letter is altered.

What you missed was how pre-theoretical assumed preconditions for science to even start lend paradigmatic mater to the whole process after it starts.

The net result is conflicting world views, that can only be settled by what is called a transcendental philosophical critique. You seem to think that the Biblical creation thesis is some how not dealing with the facts of science. That is egregiously mistaken.

The above word salad does nothing to change the fact that we can observe beneficial mutations occur, we can observe these mutations being selected for by the environment, we can observe these beneficial mutations becoming fixed in populations, and we can observe no mechanism that would prevent this process of descent with variation from producing new species.

Carrying on about "pre-theoretical assumed preconditions" is irrelevant. The process of science works precisely because assumptions not supported by evidence (such as your unsupported claims about limits to variation or your arbitrary abstractions about assumed preconditions) are worthless.

"For I am building in the human understanding a true model of the world, such as it is in fact, not such as a man's own reason would have it to be. . .But I say that those foolish and apish images of worlds which the fancies of men have created in philosophical systems, must be utterly scattered to the winds. Be it known then how vast a difference there is between the idols of the human mind and the ideas of the divine. The former are nothing more than arbitrary abstractions; the latter are the creator's own stamp upon creation, impressed and defined in matter by true and exquisite lines."

Francis Bacon, Novum Organum​

Enjoy.




Lurker

 

[xDICEx]

In the 16th century Francis Bacon warned against idols of the mind and suggested an inductive method based on observation, systematic classification, and experiment. In the hope of discovering the forms or laws of nature, his goal was to use nature to efficiently solve problems: to master nature, one must first become its servant. He grounded his notions in what he called the “divine creative word” which brought nature into being and set its forms or laws. He foresaw the tenacious tendency of man to subject his reasoning to groundless ideas and jump from the tedious work of induction and experiment and force his “idols” on the data and become a priestly explainer of everything. He was optimistic in his method, and pessimistic of his idols of the mind. He viewed a scientific experiment as second only to the Bible as effective in abolishing those idols. His rather short and unfinished work, Novum Organum, is worth the reading. An example of the transcendental critique, the New Organum was meant to free natural philosophy from the stifling effects of Aristotelian dogma just as the Reformation had freed Biblical Theology from the dogma of Aristotle and Aquinas. Bacon knew that human pride and power was a devilish factor in the quenching and perversion of the arts and sciences as it had been in ecclesiastical polity. He received the Bible as the truly divine revelation from the Creator to man, whom he had made in his image. Mentioning the orderly way God has worked on matter, he advocates the orderly way man needs to freshly look at it. He states that the idols of the mind are not like the ideas of God. As a Christian he was able to hold to his optimism and humbly submit his “fruits” to the preview and improvement of his fellow man.

Where does this leave us now? As the design for living things by rigorous experiment is manifestly showing itself in our day, we can also see the idol of “naturalistic evolving life” forcing all discoveries into the vacuous vanity of its non-scientific dogma. Bacon's exhortations to do an experiment which will banish the idols hold over the mind, is second only to the Bible in this service. Do they have experiment? No; what they do have is dogma: “In reality, complex cellular machinery simply isn't necessary to form a simple proto-cell - all you need is a self-replicating strand of RNA in a phospholipids membrane. Everything else from there can be added via descent with modification, i.e. evolution.” If it is simple, then make one and show us. The experimental results will support the truth that God made them all at once by disabusing us of the contra hypotheses. What are the rocks such works crash upon? Chirality or left and right handedness of organic compounds is one level of difficulty. Time is another which we have already dealt with. The ribonucleic acid chain is neither simple nor inorganic, and the information for protein synthesis in its sequences is not simple. Of course, the first order of difficulty is the Bible which is a testimony of how they were made in the first place. If a man will not bow before the word of his Creator, why would any one expect him to cast off his idols? The evidence of costly and elaborate research is out there in the journals, but it is just as obvious that man's idols close his mind and his eyes. So, as long as he will not accept the real world of evidence for loosing the comfort of his idols, it must be to the greater of God's books we point our adversary. The Book of God’s revelation will keep your minds from the idols of man’s imagination. How far will men go in defending their idols? How about the absurd: “Cell division is not "intelligence driven,” and not only does this disparage intelligent cancer researchers, men who would like to explain it so that they might then be able to manipulate it efficiently to some foreseen remedy, but it is also the irrationality that God has forewarned man of in Romans 1: “21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” so that it is said:“28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;” The idol of evolution has stifled the sciences and its priests have conducted their inquisition in schools, governments, and the science communication media. An idolatrous world view is at stake and it uses science falsely so called as its justification. They must have people agree with them, or the world might see the emperor has no clothes.

My first article speaks for itself, which is a short survey of the DNA, RNA, and Protein systems in cells. In the discussion that has followed no substantial objection has arisen, and the only attempt at truly engaging my argument has been: that the computer function of copy/paste is a more reliable information storage system than DNA. Now there are information theorists that would not value the computer so highly. But I would allow that as a good attempt. The only one that I am aware of is scripture, Jesus said not one jot nor title would pass away until all should be fulfilled; and God cannot lie.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

He viewed a scientific experiment as second only to the Bible as effective in abolishing those idols.

Certainly not,

". . .it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapters of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings; seeking for the dead among the living: which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also an heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's."

Francis Bacon, Novum Organum​

Bacon believed that an honest and in-depth analysis to discover the world as it actually is would, by itself, confirm scripture - that, ". . .one displays the will of God, the other his power.". He did not at all claim that if scientific experiment challenged our understanding of scripture we should place observation and experimentation below interpretation.

Where does this leave us now? As the design for living things by rigorous experiment is manifestly showing itself in our day, we can also see the idol of “naturalistic evolving life” forcing all discoveries into the vacuous vanity of its non-scientific dogma.

Except that the "design for living things" isn't being manifestly shown through scientific research. Instead what we are finding through observation and experimentation is that living things (and, indeed, the entire universe) contain immense complexity that does not seem to require the interposition of a deity.

Do they have experiment? No; what they do have is dogma: “In reality, complex cellular machinery simply isn't necessary to form a simple proto-cell - all you need is a self-replicating strand of RNA in a phospholipids membrane. Everything else from there can be added via descent with modification, i.e. evolution.” If it is simple, then make one and show us.

Sure thing: Scientists Close to Reconstructing First Living Cell

"Harvard Medical School researchers report in Nature that they have built a model of what they believe the very first living cell may have looked like, which contains a strip of genetic material surrounded by a fatty membrane."

"In an attempt to duplicate an early cell, scientists put fatty acids (that were likely membrane candidates) and a strip of DNA into a test tube of water. While in there, the fatty acids formed into a ring, or membrane, around the genetic segment. The researchers then added nucleotides—units of genetic material—to the test tube to determine whether they would penetrate the membrane and copy the DNA inside it. Their findings: the nucleotides did enter the cell, latch onto and replicate the DNA over 24 hours."​

While abiogenesis is still a new and rather tentative field, it's just plain silly to say that it's a "dogma" that's not based upon observation and experimentation.

The experimental results will support the truth that God made them all at once by disabusing us of the contra hypotheses.

Reality seems to disagree with your prejudice.

Chirality or left and right handedness of organic compounds is one level of difficulty.

How is chirality a problem for common descent?

Of course, the first order of difficulty is the Bible which is a testimony of how they were made in the first place. If a man will not bow before the word of his Creator, why would any one expect him to cast off his idols?

History has shown us exactly the opposite is true - that when man bows to the Bible and rejects observed reality ignorance prevails. Clearly our understanding of scripture absolutely cannot impose itself upon reality - reality simply is.

The Book of God’s revelation will keep your minds from the idols of man’s imagination.

Really? That certainly doesn't seem to have worked in the past.

How far will men go in defending their idols? How about the absurd: “Cell division is not "intelligence driven,” and not only does this disparage intelligent cancer researchers, men who would like to explain it so that they might then be able to manipulate it efficiently to some foreseen remedy, but it is also the irrationality that God has forewarned man

Absolutely ridiculous. Reality is under no obligation to conform to your preferences.

The idol of evolution has stifled the sciences and its priests have conducted their inquisition in schools, governments, and the science communication media. An idolatrous world view is at stake and it uses science falsely so called as its justification. They must have people agree with them, or the world might see the emperor has no clothes.

Your dramatic word salad is rather underwhelming. Evolution is a scientific theory and an observed fact. Dressing up your anti-science prejudice in colorful metaphors does not alter reality.

In the discussion that has followed no substantial objection has arisen. . .

Except for the fact that you've yet to substantiate your claim that "The amazing order, inter working, and networking among the DNA/RNA/protein systems express a wisdom that is nothing less than an observation of the eternal power and divine nature of the Creator." with anything other than pointing to the complexity of modern cells and claiming that they couldn't have arisen through natural processes. , apparently ignoring the fact that scientists don't think MODERN cells arose out of nothing but instead that they evolved from very very simple proto-cells thus rendering your point about all those protein systems rather moot.

In addition, you keep going off on odd rants about "dogma", "priests", and the like apparently without feeling the need to actually understand the evidence upon which modern biology is built. That ranks as a rather substantial problem in my book. Enjoy.




Lurker

 

[RJ]

I think that one of the most revealing things about science and the proof of God's exestence came from Albert Einstien.

Diring a time of his approaching death, he was asked from all his studies in science and physics and all the wonderful things that he himself had learned, what was the most important thing that he had discovered, he simple said : " That there was a God" .

 

[ItinerantLurker]

I think that one of the most revealing things about science and the proof of God's exestence came from Albert Einstien.

Diring a time of his approaching death, he was asked from all his studies in science and physics and all the wonderful things that he himself had learned, what was the most important thing that he had discovered, he simple said : " That there was a God" .

Nope. Bogus story made up by anti-science Christians a long time ago.




Lurker

 

[RJ]

Nope. Bogus story made up by anti-science Christians a long time ago.


Lurker

Nope. Einstien was an agnostic most of his life. In the end, he realized that he had discovered mysteries that had already existed and they could not have come from nothing-ness, that God must exist.


You say: A bogus story about the exsistence of God, which was essentially a scientificly supported statement and the story was from a anti- science Christian?

Your comment is superfluous rhetoric.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Your comment is superfluous rhetoric.

No, your little story is an utter fabrication or, to put it a bit more bluntly, a very well worn and well known lie.




Lurker

 

[David777]

The truth.

Albert Einstien deeply regretted giving nuclear theory to mankind.

Mankind created nuclear weapons as a result of this theory.

For this Albert felt responsible so he spent the rest of his life working on the disarmament of nuclear weapons and the peace movement.

Poor fellow, Albert had no real understanding of human nature.

 

[RJ]

No, your little story is an utter fabrication or, to put it a bit more bluntly, a very well worn and well known lie.




Lurker

As you wish...this has gone far enough for me!

God's blessings and will for you my friend!

 

[RJ]

Albert Einstien deeply regretted giving nuclear theory to mankind.

Mankind created nuclear weapons as a result of this theory.

For this Albert felt responsible so he spent the rest of his life working on the disarmament of nuclear weapons and the peace movement.

Poor fellow, Albert had no real understanding of human nature.

Because of his vast knowledge of things he believed is a God that reveals himself in the natural order of things like the Cosmos and Quantum Physicis.

On the other hand, he didn't believe in a personal God that concerns himself with the lives and actions of human beings. These reports of him believing in God have been confused with him believing in the God that we do, which is of course not true.

 

[xDICEx]

dear Lurker, I informed you that bacon viewed an experiment as second only to the Bible as a source for dispelling the idols of the mind and you respond:

Certainly not,

And then you quote from affirmation 65:

". . .it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapters of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings; seeking for the dead among the living: which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also an heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's."

Your misconception here is really nor excusable for had your read affirmation 89 you would have seen, "Even in the present state of things, the condition of discussions on natural philosophy is rendered more difficult and dangerous by the summaries and methods of divines, who, after reducing divinity into such order as they could, and brought it into a scientific form, have proceeded to mingle an undue proportion of the contentious and thorny philosophy of Aristotle with the substance of religion." And if you will, Bacon explaines why he used such a phrase as, "seeking for the dead among the living." Which is an obvious reversal of the the angels advise to the women seeking the body of Christ in the tombs after Christ's resurrection: "seeking the living among the dead." The dead sought for in Bacon's line is the corrupted theology intermixed with philosophy of Aristotle, and the living is the scripture books of Genesis and Job.

And thus, your next words make good sense rightly understood:

Bacon believed that an honest and in-depth analysis to discover the world as it actually is would, by itself, confirm scripture - that, ". . .one displays the will of God, the other his power.". He did not at all claim that if scientific experiment challenged our understanding of scripture we should place observation and experimentation below interpretation.

For when the Bible or nature is admixed with idol error, the result is darkness not light. However, I get the impression in your use of the quote, that you are suggesting that the Bible's interpretation ought to be subordinate to your imaginations of nature intermixed with your idol of evolution. If the light that be in you is darkness, how great is that darkness? If your eye be single, your body shall be full of light.

In advancing our discussion of Bacon, I would urge you to consider affirmation 48: "So much concerning the several classes of Idols, and their equipage: all of which must be renounced and put away with a fixed and solemn determination, and the understanding thoroughly freed and cleansed; the entrance into the kingdom of man, founded on the sciences, being not much other than the entrance into the kingdom of heaven, whereinto none may enter except as a little child." You quoted bacon saying, "give to faith that only which is faith's." Are you aware that bacon held to the divine inspiration and authority of the scriptures as the Sola-scriptura that the reformation taught, not on the philosophical foundation of corrupt theologies, but on the exegetical authority of the Bible's verbal plenary perspicuity? (or in simple terms: the obvious meaning God intended in bulk of His words He provided mankind in the 66 books of the Bible) Bacon knew of the passage saying, Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Therefore he uses Genisis ch.1 as his basic model of how science experimentation should proceed, first with experiments of light, as he called them, imitating God's method of creating in the first place. Bacon is not being inconsistent when he puts the plane meaning of scriptures first. For that is where true faith comes from.

Bacon would most definitely not say any thing like your next lines:

Except that the "design for living things" isn't being manifestly shown through scientific research. Instead what we are finding through observation and experimentation is that living things (and, indeed, the entire universe) contain immense complexity that does not seem to require the interposition of a deity.

Do not weary me with your idol dreams, nor pawn them off here like they have any scientific authority behind them. There is no such abiogenetic experimental success, and the research you mention does not support your idol:

Sure thing: Scientists Close to Reconstructing First Living Cell

"Harvard Medical School researchers report in Nature that they have built a model of what they believe the very first living cell may have looked like, which contains a strip of genetic material surrounded by a fatty membrane."

"In an attempt to duplicate an early cell, scientists put fatty acids (that were likely membrane candidates) and a strip of DNA into a test tube of water. While in there, the fatty acids formed into a ring, or membrane, around the genetic segment. The researchers then added nucleotides—units of genetic material—to the test tube to determine whether they would penetrate the membrane and copy the DNA inside it. Their findings: the nucleotides did enter the cell, latch onto and replicate the DNA over 24 hours."​

While abiogenesis is still a new and rather tentative field, it's just plain silly to say that it's a "dogma" that's not based upon observation and experimentation.

For if you had read the apparatus and methods sections of the original research, you would have discovered that the materials were not abiogenesis but biogenesis in origin. So is the DNA amplification work going on in forensics labs all over the world today. Therefore, the charge of "dogma" stands. And you need to see that it is an idol that has ruined your common sense. And if you should counter: that it is I who have the non-real, let me remind you again of Bacon's words in aff.23, "There is a great difference between the Idols of the human mind and the Ideas of the divine. That is to say, between certain empty dogmas, and the true signatures and marks set upon the works of creation as they are found in nature." The scripture give us light; they can give you that light too. Not because I say so, but because His words are truth.

Reality seems to disagree with your prejudice.

It is not my prejudice, I am just an observer, so are the researchers that discoved this intelligence (can be described using words) and who go on to manipulat nature using the knowledge gained thereby. It is thou who must maintain there is no design nor intelligence in it; and may I remind you that you must use intelligence and words to refute it. God gave you that language and ability to know, will you use it to resist His words to you both in His word and in His creation?

How is chirality a problem for common descent?

It is not, a problem for reproduction, for the creator has designed those systems. But it is a problem for abiogenesis. If you disagree with that, you know nothing.

I will finish the rest of your post, but this section is long enough.

 

[xDICEx]

The case with ones idol hopes of abiogenesis whether of modern evolution or the authority of knowledge without the knowing creator, as in the current naturalistic (cause and effect without the designer of that cause and effect) redefinition of science, is forewarned of by the 17th century Bacon. In affirmation 46 he reminds still today of the power of negative demonstration or the force of those data which contradict. He says, "The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate. And therefore it was a good answer that was made by one who when they showed him hanging in a temple a picture of those who had paid their vows as having escaped shipwreck, and would have him say whether he did not now acknowledge the power of the gods, -- "Aye," asked he again, "but where are they painted that were drowned after their vows?" And such is the way of all superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, though this happen much oftener, neglect and pass them by. But with far more subtlety does this mischief insinuate itself into philosophy and the sciences; in which the first conclusion colours and brings into conformity with itself all that come after, though far sounder and better. Besides, independently of that delight and vanity which I have described, it is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human intellect to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives; whereas it ought properly to hold itself indifferently disposed towards both alike. Indeed in the establishment of any true axiom, the negative instance is the more forcible of the two." Thus has Mr. Lurker missed Bacons direct statements of the authority of scripture and it's supreme place of dispelling idols. What he affirms "certainly not" is certainly so: Aff.89 4th paragraph: "But any one who properly considers the subject, will find natural philosophy to be, after the word of God, the surest remedy against superstition, and the most approved support of faith."

History is subject to idol imaginations as well, and Lurker would have us reduced to his ignorance level. As I remind him of his own responsibility before his creator's inerrant word, he asserts his autonomy with a dash of historical revisionism:

History has shown us exactly the opposite is true - that when man bows to the Bible and rejects observed reality ignorance prevails. Clearly our understanding of scripture absolutely cannot impose itself upon reality - reality simply is.

And with such naked assertion we are supposed to consent and bow to his idol, and confess, reality simply is. That may seem sound to you, but its Creator says, and Bacon affirms, that his power is evident in it. And His word and His power do not contradict. Idols contradict. If "our interpretation" contrasted to God's own perspicuous meaning had been Lurkers point, I would have agreed with him. But such was not Lurkers point. His idol makes the very notion of divine revelation illegal. It impels him to hold all Bible believers as guilty of ignorance and violating the new laws of naturalism. God not only must not design and create natures laws, but he must not be allowed to speak truth either.

On the contrary, it did work in the past and is working now (The Book of God’s revelation will keep your minds from the idols of man’s imagination.) Yet you say:

Really? That certainly doesn't seem to have worked in the past.

Nay, It is what worked in the past and that brought about the modern scientific age.

Absolutely ridiculous. Reality is under no obligation to conform to your preferences.

True, nor yours either. But it must conform to its creators; that is the point at issue.

Listen to his idols speak in his next lines, lacking any sufficient Bacon like indication and having much contra-indication:

Your dramatic word salad is rather underwhelming. Evolution is a scientific theory and an observed fact. Dressing up your anti-science prejudice in colorful metaphors does not alter reality.
Except for the fact that you've yet to substantiate your claim that "The amazing order, inter working, and networking among the DNA/RNA/protein systems express a wisdom that is nothing less than an observation of the eternal power and divine nature of the Creator." with anything other than pointing to the complexity of modern cells and claiming that they couldn't have arisen through natural processes. , apparently ignoring the fact that scientists don't think MODERN cells arose out of nothing but instead that they evolved from very very simple proto-cells thus rendering your point about all those protein systems rather moot.

So it is upon bare idealistic assertion, that his opponent in thought is just "word salad"/"anti-science", and that the display of a wonderful order and complexity he merely reviewed in the literature linking it to the revealed creative decrees in Gen.1 is somehow altering reality for him. And a double confirmation he imagines is delivered by his fictional "scientists" concerted belief (an assertion of faith without evidence) that imagined proto-cells were at the start: their consent thus, for him, rendering firm experiment not necessary and contra-indication not relevant. So I ask you, How is that not dogma? and idols of the mind?

On your last statement, all I can say is your book keeps changing:

In addition, you keep going off on odd rants about "dogma", "priests", and the like apparently without feeling the need to actually understand the evidence upon which modern biology is built. That ranks as a rather substantial problem in my book. Enjoy.

In sum, let me say of the Bible, that it is not a science book (they change regularly), neither is it a theology book, or a history book for that matter. Rather it has a much higher claim for itself. It claims to be truth, such that whatever it touches on, (science, theology, history, morals, or any other intellectual discipline), its propositional statements are accurate and true. There are many creation oriented scientists who work from the scriptural principal (the truth of scripture), but if you consistently deny their operating principal it makes it easier for you to dismiss their work. "My little children, keep yourselves from idols." (last words in 1st John, and Francis Bacon's best wishes for you)

 

[xDICEx]

I think that one of the most revealing things about science and the proof of God's exestence came from Albert Einstien.

Diring a time of his approaching death, he was asked from all his studies in science and physics and all the wonderful things that he himself had learned, what was the most important thing that he had discovered, he simple said : " That there was a God" .

Dear RJ, I know that your post has been called into question. It is not really of any of too great a point, for if the God were in need of proof from Einstein or any one else he would not be the God who has revealed himself in the Bible. And science generally considered quite frankly needs the the Biblical God and the authoritative revelation He makes of His works of creation for a sure (non-arbitrary, non-contradictory, and consistent) basis for it's own effort in understanding His works in nature. If any thing The Bible supports and grounds the scientific methodology, at least the assumptions that methodology presupposes are only rationally consistent in the world-view that is informed of in its pages.

As for men in their cogitations, I myself do not know all of what Einstein may or may not have said in his lifetime. But in this kind of an exchange of information, in any contested case, I should hope some form of documentation might be provided. I have not seen that from either party yet. So this whole consideration of Einstein's possible statement seems to have only a historical significance. On the one hand it is of no value in proving God were it true, and on the other, were it false, it has no weight in any refutation of Biblical Christianity. Sharing a thing is simple enough; I understand that. But to nitpick and bicker has no point. Your critic seems to have a bone to pick, and no civility will stand in his way of his idol. And for you, I recommend you to the sure book that shall never change until all shall be fulfilled. I leave you with a statement by Charles H Spurgeon, "The word of God is like a lion, no one defends a lion: you just turn him loose."

 

[xDICEx]

Albert Einstien deeply regretted giving nuclear theory to mankind.

Mankind created nuclear weapons as a result of this theory.

For this Albert felt responsible so he spent the rest of his life working on the disarmament of nuclear weapons and the peace movement.

Poor fellow, Albert had no real understanding of human nature.

Dear David777, Thank you for your response. I assume you read my post on the Design of living things; I would really appreciate a comment on what you thought of it. Research in the past 60 years has literally blossomed in regard to the elucidating of the DNA/RNA/Protein systems in living cells. And I do think there is a quantity of data evident there that is quite nullifying to the evolutionary hypothesis, data that need to be considered with an open mind. But much more than that: I do believe that mankind can perceive the power of life's creator and the wisdom of his engineering, things we can make good use of in our rule over the works of his hands. And I must say, it is true that all things can be used for evil as well as good purposes. And though mankind's nature is corrupt, his creator is able to restrain evil and work all things out for what good pleases Him. As F. Bacon said, if we are to rule over nature, we must first become its servant. How it works leads us to how to work it. How it should be worked is in the book that never changes.