Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: . The Big Question AGAIN

Expand Messages
  • tc12358@hotmail.com
    ... [ ***THE BIG QUESTION*** ... [..resulted from a frame-shift mutation.] A frame shift such as this, or any change that does not produce novel code that
    Message 1 of 123 , Jan 1, 2001
      --- Brian van <brianvds@y...> wrote:

      [ ***THE BIG QUESTION***
      > I STILL ask for ANY documentation of such changes from
      > ANYONE? NOT just a 'new gene', BUT "new gene that
      > shows structural AND functional novelty due to new
      > code." Any other sort of 'new gene' is explainable by
      > creation theory.]
      [..resulted from a frame-shift mutation.]


      A frame shift such as this, or any change that does not produce novel
      code that results in novel structure and function is accepted in the
      creation model. This includes biochemical changes that result from
      some of the super bacteria. This includes disease and pesticide
      resistance. My question asks for new code leading to NEW STRUCTURE
      AND FUNCTION, that is predected by evolution, necessary for it to
      happen.

      In Christ, Tim
      ================
      Genesis 1:24 ΒΆ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
      creature after his kind
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:50 PM Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re:
      Message 123 of 123 , Jan 12, 2001
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <DNAunion@...>
        To: <creationevolutiondebate@egroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:50 PM
        Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Empirical Evidence for Ev. (was.. The
        Big Question AGAIN)


        > >>>Dave: There is not as yet any demonstration that an IC biological
        > system exists anywhere!
        >
        > >>> DNAunion: There is not as yet any demonstration that evolution
        > exists anywhere! So there!
        >
        > >>>Dave: This is incorrect.
        >
        > >>>DNAunion: Dave is obviously not familiar with sarcasm. I think
        > that most anyone with an elementary school education would clearly
        > realize that my remark was not meant to be taken literally. Sorry
        > Dave if you couldn't grasp onto something a 10-year-old could.
        >
        > >>>Someone: Whether or not there are things such as IC systems in
        > biology happens to be a question I am interested in. I wish you would
        > answer it instead of evading it with sarcasm.
        >
        > >>>DNAunion: The solution is simple (but neither you nor Dave have,
        > nor will you, take the time to look into it). READ BEHE'S BOOK.
        >
        > >>>Dave: Why bother? YOU have read it and you are a great genius.
        > After all, we have your own testimony to that. So YOU should be able
        > to show us that there actually is such a thing as a PROVABLY
        > irreducible biological system, shouldn't you? I mean if it's in the
        > book and you read the book you should be able to tell us what the
        > book says.
        >
        > **************************************
        > DNAunion: Logic which applies just as well to you.
        >
        > YOU claim that your fable is valid and that its events occur in

        1. It is not a fable.
        2. I make no other claim for it than that it exists as an algorithm and
        that you and Behe have made
        claims that, if true, imply it cannot.

        > **REAL** biological systems **EVERDAY**. Therefore, YOU should
        > easily be able to actually show us that it works. YOU should be able
        > to hit the books and find a REAL BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM that your fairy
        > tale models and give us the details. Why have you failed to do so
        > evern after my repeated requests?
        > **************************************

        Deal with my logic or admit that you cannot.

        So far, I would characterize your behavior as a rather rude and loud
        admission that you cannot.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.