Conquer Club

bryguy wrote:hmmm, strange how all the evolutionist here avoid the question i told them to ask themselves.

Perhaps thats because you post urban legends as fact.

bryguy wrote:hmmm, strange how all the evolutionist here avoid the question i told them to ask themselves.

admittedly i havent followed this thread but ill provide a little insight as to why thats not happening.

For the "evolutionist" or perhaps more accurately the non creationist, its not a definining issue. I dont personally believe the biblical creation story so im not tied into finding proofs for it. I know theres a fair amount of scientific evidence out there which supports evolution as a viable and the credible theory. I dont therefore, since its not an important issue to my sense of self, have to go find that information.

However on the other side of the coin, if you choose to believe in the creation story, its probably because you are close to if not a biblical inerrantist. Therfore its vitally important to your religious beliefs and its a very important thing to wager on in a sense. Therefore you are much more compelled to know all of hte relavant information. Unless someone comes in with that type of drive, the average evolutionist is not going to be compelled to run as deep as you want to go in this thread.

bryguy wrote:Something had to have created the stuff that created the big bang (if there ever was one) so what created that stuff? and what created the stuff that created that stuff? this question can go on forever, until u have nothing. All in all, only God can create something from nothing.

Sorry, evolution does not cover the big bang nor is it a theory on the origin of life.

The Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are not even in the same branch of science.

Evolution is an operational model for how life changed over millions of years, not how it all started.


You lose.

Oh, THAT was the question? I answered that on page 11.

re-post:

bryguy wrote:2. Charles Darwin, the man who came up with the idea of evolution, renounced it on his deathbed, because he did not want it to be taken as that there is no God, he just thought that was how God made it. (oh, and Darwin was also a Christian)

This Sunday School story is an unfounded urban legend. This following is from www.christiananswers.com no less!

"The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on February 8, 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was "false and without any kind of foundation," and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had "no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view." Charles's daughter (Henrietta Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, dated February 23, 1922,

"I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … The whole story has no foundation whatever." [The Darwin Legend]

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

bryguy wrote:Something had to have created the stuff that created the big bang (if there ever was one) so what created that stuff? and what created the stuff that created that stuff? this question can go on forever, until u have nothing. All in all, only God can create something from nothing.

Why is it that infinity is perfectly OK when dealing with gods, but suddenly preposterous when gods are taken out of the equation? The universe is infinite and has always been here. No gods necessary.

Backglass wrote:

bryguy wrote:hmmm, strange how all the evolutionist here avoid the question i told them to ask themselves.

Perhaps thats because you post urban legends as fact.

u didnt even see my question did u?

vtmarik wrote:

bryguy wrote:Something had to have created the stuff that created the big bang (if there ever was one) so what created that stuff? and what created the stuff that created that stuff? this question can go on forever, until u have nothing. All in all, only God can create something from nothing.

Sorry, evolution does not cover the big bang nor is it a theory on the origin of life.

The Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are not even in the same branch of science.

Evolution is an operational model for how life changed over millions of years, not how it all started.


You lose.

actually, the big bang theroy is needed for the theory of evolution to be possible. so

you lose

How is the "Big Bang theory" necessary for the theory of evolution to exist?

bryguy wrote:

vtmarik wrote:

bryguy wrote:Something had to have created the stuff that created the big bang (if there ever was one) so what created that stuff? and what created the stuff that created that stuff? this question can go on forever, until u have nothing. All in all, only God can create something from nothing.

Sorry, evolution does not cover the big bang nor is it a theory on the origin of life.

The Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are not even in the same branch of science.

Evolution is an operational model for how life changed over millions of years, not how it all started.



You lose.

actually, the big bang theroy is needed for the theory of evolution to be possible. so

you lose

this is actually not a correct assumption within scientifc circles...

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began

that is from this...

Isaak, Mark (2005). Claim CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis

bryguy wrote:

vtmarik wrote:

bryguy wrote:Something had to have created the stuff that created the big bang (if there ever was one) so what created that stuff? and what created the stuff that created that stuff? this question can go on forever, until u have nothing. All in all, only God can create something from nothing.

Sorry, evolution does not cover the big bang nor is it a theory on the origin of life.

The Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are not even in the same branch of science.

Evolution is an operational model for how life changed over millions of years, not how it all started.


You lose.

actually, the big bang theroy is needed for the theory of evolution to be possible. so

you lose

No it's not.

You lose.

bryguy wrote:actually, the big bang theroy is needed for the theory of evolution to be possible. so

you lose

Wow...you believe everything you hear in Sunday School don't ya kid.

When you turn 18 and move out on your own into the big bad world, perhaps you will finally open your eyes and look around instead of living in your fairy tale world of demons & magicians.

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Where is the documentation of this "story"?

I think my ironymeter just exploded.

evolution cant be proven and creation cant be proven.im a creationist.but the fact is faith you got to decide what your going to base your life on hugh things are at risk if the evolutionist is wrong though while as a creationist what do i lose if im wrong? nothing im just wrong and i become dust when i die

THORNHEART wrote:evolution cant be proven and creation cant be proven.im a creationist.but the fact is faith you got to decide what your going to base your life on hugh things are at risk if the evolutionist is wrong though while as a creationist what do i lose if im wrong? nothing im just wrong and i become dust when i die

See i think part of the problem with our good old friend Pascal and his wager, is this does not for the multitude of religions out there. Should christianity (and specifically more fundamental chrisitanity) be the only path to heaven (should that exist), then yes one could make the argument. But what if islam is the true faith and thats the only way, then christians, for being polytheists (in the eyes of islamic interpretation) arent following the true faith. What if it is something else entirely, then do we both miss our chance to end up in the elysian fields?

To decide to base your faith on such things is not really my business to dictate to you. And if we all respected each others choices then i dont think anyone would have a huge problem (besides the fact you think im going to be burning in hell for all eternity). But when people try to (lets use teh word) compell others to pick their faith for such a justification there should probably be a rendering of pascals wager as a quaint but no longer useful concept.

bryguy wrote:

vtmarik wrote:

bryguy wrote:Something had to have created the stuff that created the big bang (if there ever was one) so what created that stuff? and what created the stuff that created that stuff? this question can go on forever, until u have nothing. All in all, only God can create something from nothing.

Sorry, evolution does not cover the big bang nor is it a theory on the origin of life.

The Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are not even in the same branch of science.

Evolution is an operational model for how life changed over millions of years, not how it all started.


You lose.

actually, the big bang theroy is needed for the theory of evolution to be possible. so

you lose

Not at all. Evolutions says that if you put a donkey on an island far away from everything else it will look very different in a few million years. Big Bang says that the universe is ever-expanding, which it is BTW. Everything is getting farther away.

Issue. Nylonase. Best part is that there is no speculation necessary, the facts speak for themselves.

FACTS:

Scientists discovered bacteria capable of eating nylon and it's byproducts. Nylon was invented in 1935.

Speculation:

You'd have to be an idiot not to connect the dots.

unriggable wrote:You'd have to be an idiot not to connect the dots.

Not necessarily true.

For example, if the dots aren't numbered then you might screw up the image of the dog making it look like something that Picasso threw up on.

vtmarik wrote:

unriggable wrote:You'd have to be an idiot not to connect the dots.

Not necessarily true.

For example, if the dots aren't numbered then you might screw up the image of the dog making it look like something that Picasso threw up on.

I'll connect the dots for you all.

Something EVOLVED and ADAPTED to the world and realized it has to eat nylon.

THORNHEART wrote:evolution cant be proven and creation cant be proven.im a creationist.but the fact is faith you got to decide what your going to base your life on hugh things are at risk if the evolutionist is wrong though while as a creationist what do i lose if im wrong? nothing im just wrong and i become dust when i die

EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE.

i think i can sum up this thread with

"creationists don't understand either side of the argument"

neoni wrote:i think i can sum up this thread with

"creationists don't understand either side of the argument"

Well done, I think we can close on that note.

vtmarik wrote:

neoni wrote:i think i can sum up this thread with

"creationists don't understand either side of the argument"

Well done, I think we can close on that note.

good call.

vtmarik wrote:

unriggable wrote:You'd have to be an idiot not to connect the dots.

Not necessarily true.

For example, if the dots aren't numbered then you might screw up the image of the dog making it look like something that Picasso threw up on.

that's sig-worthy. . . pity I don't have the room

WidowMakers wrote:CATEGORY: GEOLOGY
ISSUE: IRIDIUM LAYER
FACTS:
Iridium is rare on earth and common in foreign objects.
=========================================
Evolution Assumptions:
-Iridium levels in the huge IMPACT crater in the Yucatan peninsula.

-There is a thin layer between the Mesozoic dirt samples and Cenozoic dirt samples which contains high levels of Iridium. There are dinosaur fossils below iridium layer no dinosaur fossils above. Quick transition.

-Larger meteors, on the other hand, while losing more meteor substance still manages to hit the earth. The result is a huge crater because the meteor explodes upon impact, sending dirt and soot, and more importantly iridium in all directions. It is carried by the wind. The amount of iridium in this layer increases as we get closer to the crater.

Evolution Conclusion:
-Since the iridium layer separates the dinosaur and dinosaur-less layers, it would be beyond coincidence to think the asteroid did not cause them to die. This means that a flood is not the source of death thus the Bible is wrong.

I'm pretty sure there were only dinosaur bones on top of the iridium layer...I just watched a show called Comets: Prophets of Doom (something like that) and I remember it talking about that. I recorded it so I can go back and check but I'm pretty sure about what I said...

Here is my response to the Nylon eating bacteria issue. Please give me your insight and information so I can properly include it in the notes.

CATEGORY: BIOLOGY
ISSUE: Does Nylon eating bacteria prove evolution?
FACTS:
1) In 1975, Japanese scientists discovered bacteria that could live on the waste products of nylon manufacture as their only source of carbon and nitrogen.
Two species, Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87, were identified that degrade nylon compounds.

Source:Kinoshita, S., Kageyama, S., Iba, K., Yamada, Y. and Okada, H., Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of ε-aminocapronoic acid by Achromobacter guttatus K172, Agric. Biol. Chem. 39(6):1219–1223, 1975. Note: A. guttatus K172 syn. Flavobacterium sp. K172

2) Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. The genes for these enzymes are located on plasmids: plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in Pseudomonas.

A plasmid is an extra-chromosomal loop of DNA in a bacterium. Such loops of DNA, unlike the chromosomal DNA, can be swapped between different species of bacteria. An individual bacterium can have several types of plasmid, and multiple copies of each

=========================================
Evolution Assumptions:

Evolution Conclusion:
=========================================
Creation Assumptions:
- Designed to Adapt - The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.

Source A:Prijambada, I.D., Negoro, S., Yomo, T. and Urabe, I., Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5):2020–2022, 1995.

- Designed to Adapt-There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress. (see source B)
-Very Low Probability of Mutation derived adaptaion. All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible. (see Source B)

Source B:Truman, R., Protein mutational context dependence: a challenge to neo-Darwinism theory: part 1, TJ 17(1):117–127; Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? TJ 15(3):115–127.

-Bacteria is still the same bacteria-P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872. It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is huge—equivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional change—stasis rules, not progressive evolution. This alone should cast doubt on the evolutionary paradigm. Flavobacterium was first named in 1889 and it likewise still has the same characteristics as originally described.

Source D:Bacterial Nomenclature Up-to-date, Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany. <www.dsmz.de/bactnom/bactname.htm>, 18 September 2003

Creation Conclusion:
- It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism.
Hence Not Evolution!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

Since the chemical is not naturally found prior to the creation of nylon, it makes sense that the bacterium evolved to allow itself to take full advantage of the food source.