Re: . The Big Question AGAIN
- --- Brian van <brianvds@y...> wrote:
[ ***THE BIG QUESTION***
> I STILL ask for ANY documentation of such changes from[..resulted from a frame-shift mutation.]
> 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.]
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
In Christ, Tim
Genesis 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind
----- Original Message -----
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.