Evidence for God from Science

gone

Jbuza wrote:I think you should file the study you quoted me in the garbage pail as the propaganda that it is. It is based on presuppositions, and is offered as proof of that presupposition. Length of days would have minimal impact on growth rates when compared to factors like quantity and type of minerals dissolved in the oceans at any particular time, the amount of cloud cover on any particular day, the temperature of the ocean at any particular time. The study isn't even remotely convincing of anything except the large bias of the researcher that is evident in his coming to nonsensical conclusions to support his presupposition. Rate of coral growth as I said before is another good example of the idiocy of uniformitarianism. Growth rate of coral is far more variable than the length of days has ever been.

I fail to see what your issue is, and do not see that the study of coral layers makes an error?

Furthermore you are missing the point, which is that measurements were made "using atomic clocks on the rate of deceleration of the rotation period of Earth." The result of which was a deceleration time of 0.000015 sec per day. This the fact these coral layers in question corroborated this measurement when analysed, shows coherent evidence that 1) the analysis of the coral layers was accurate; and 2) the rate of Earth's slow rotation appears uniform.

Kurieuo

Jbuza wrote:Uniformitarianism is Evolution.

Stability in natural laws is "Evolution"? How on earth does one ever draw that conclusion. Is gravity being uniform throughout time evolution? I just don't get it.

It should also be noted that:
1) I do not believe in "evolution," that we evolved from a common ancestor or what-have-you; and
2) evolution is suppose to work on random processes, albeit on uniform laws.

With regards to the second point, in showing the randomity of processes (i.e., that they aren't uniform), it could be said you are actually mustering support for evolutionary theories. Additionally, showing processes aren't uniform does not prove physical laws aren't uniform. For example, it seems to me absurd to think the the laws of gravity would have acted differently at some time in the past, or that the second law of thermodynamics hasn't always held. To postulate such things, supports an "anything can happen" policy (including evolution), and thus all scientific arguments against evolution fly out the door.

Kurieuo

gone

I will reiterate what I said earlier that I don't believe your issue is really with uniform processes or laws. This would be better tackled at the base of your beliefs which originate based on a certain theological interpretation of Genesis. If you were convinced that it was consistent with scripture to believe Earth had been around about 4 billion years, I doubt you would be trying to have this conversation, and nor would you be accusing me of propaganda tactics (something I do not appreciate).

Much of what I said I see still applies, and I see that the dependability of the physical laws which govern our universe reveals much about God's character. However, I am not interested in debating what I feel is quite obvious, and what I feel is ultimately irrelevent to your current beliefs which I believe is based upon other things.

Kurieuo

gone

gone

I found this link in a website linked by some other article [I'd credit them except it was a few days ago and I can't figure out whose post it was].
http://www.gsajournals.org/pdfserv/10.1 ... 2.0.CO%3B2
and followup at http://www.gsajournals.org/pdfserv/10.1 ... 2.0.CO%3B2
If anyone cares and can't access them, I can probably send pdf versions.

Here is some more on the matter regarding evolutionary thought in regards to medicine.

While evolution is to be taught in state schools, we believe it is wise for teachers to encourage their pupils to examine Darwinism critically. Henderson, while claiming to endorse “critical thinking,” actually shows what he really thinks about the scientific method when he stated that such a critical attitude to evolution “must be resisted.” My seventeen years of teaching science in state comprehensive schools3 were motivated by encouraging children to think scientifically and critically. The uncritical acceptance of unproven (indeed, unprovable) evolution is contrary to scientific methodology and good science teaching.

Here is another link on Uniformitarianism and how one might confuse its actual meaning without a proper historical context.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Here is some more on the matter regarding evolutionary thought in regards to medicine.

While evolution is to be taught in state schools, we believe it is wise for teachers to encourage their pupils to examine Darwinism critically. Henderson, while claiming to endorse “critical thinking,” actually shows what he really thinks about the scientific method when he stated that such a critical attitude to evolution “must be resisted.” My seventeen years of teaching science in state comprehensive schools3 were motivated by encouraging children to think scientifically and critically. The uncritical acceptance of unproven (indeed, unprovable) evolution is contrary to scientific methodology and good science teaching.

Here's another quote from this article.

The antibiotic resistance of the MRSA bacteria (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, sometimes known as the “Superbug”) is due to mutations destroying the information that allows it to resist antibiotics. There is no increase in information.

How does that work? Destroying information leads to resistance?

That is clearly not what occurs. Find out how here.
http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/12/1693

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Here is another link on Uniformitarianism and how one might confuse its actual meaning without a proper historical context.

Thanks Bgood! I didn't know that "Uniformitarianism is unique to geology" So it appears that uniformitarianism holds geologic rates that were constant across time without any catastrophic events. Is that a good description?

I was trying to further Jbuza's post pointing out the fact that evolution is as much a religion as any. Meh

Evolution ignores that which it cannot explain, because it isn't interested in sincere discovery, and is only committed to itself and the explanations of life without God. Morality and the goodness of man comes from the Spirit of God and this world is hurrying down a path toward acceptance of behavior and rejection of constraint. This journey is more important than discovery of TRUTH.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:How does that work? Destroying information leads to resistance?

Another mechanism of resistance is what occurs when a mutation takes place that might, for example, cause a defect in the bacteria's ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell, thus rendering the bacteria resistant to that particular antibiotic. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the cell, thus rendering it unable to kill the cell. What is never brought up, however, is the fact that any mutation will result in a loss of information due to the change in genetic material. Even in the very unusual occurrence of a so-called “beneficial” mutation, there is an ultimate loss of genetic information available to succeeding generations.

Robert T. (Tommy) Mitchell, M.D., is a graduate of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and practices Internal Medicine in Gallatin, Tennessee. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians.

link

For example, bacteria may become resistant to to macrolides (erythromycin, azithromycin, clarithromycin, dirithromycin, troleandomycin, etc.) by producing a slightly altered 50S ribosomal subunit that still functions but to which the antibiotic can no longer bind (see Fig. 3A). Bacteria may become resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics (penicillins, monobactams, carbapenems, and cephalosporins) by producing altered transpeptidases (penicillin-binding proteins) with greatly reduced affinity for the binding of beta-lactam antibiotics. Bacteria may become resistant to vancomycin by producing altered cross-linking peptides in the peptidoglycan to which the antibiotic no longer bonds. Bacteria may become resistant to fluoroquinolones (norfloxacin, lomefloxacin, fleroxacin, ciprofloxacin, enoxacin, trovafloxacin, etc.) by producing altered DNA gyrase or topoisomerases

link

IRQ Conflict wrote:
Thanks Bgood! I didn't know that "Uniformitarianism is unique to geology" So it appears that uniformitarianism holds geologic rates that were constant across time without any catastrophic events. Is that a good description?

No, the list is a list of misconceptions. Unifomitarianism is not unique to geology and is not constant across time without catastrophic events.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Another mechanism of resistance is what occurs when a mutation takes place that might, for example, cause a defect in the bacteria's ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell, thus rendering the bacteria resistant to that particular antibiotic. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the cell, thus rendering it unable to kill the cell. What is never brought up, however, is the fact that any mutation will result in a loss of information due to the change in genetic material. Even in the very unusual occurrence of a so-called “beneficial” mutation, there is an ultimate loss of genetic information available to succeeding generations.

Robert T. (Tommy) Mitchell, M.D., is a graduate of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and practices Internal Medicine in Gallatin, Tennessee. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians.

This statement is misleading, your second source cleary shows this is not the case. Loss of information here is from the perspective of the antibiotic, but why take this perspective?

But even without the second source why call it a defect to a trasport mechanism? Does the mechanism exist to transport a substance which is lethal to the bacteria? How can this be so?

IRQ Conflict wrote:

For example, bacteria may become resistant to to macrolides (erythromycin, azithromycin, clarithromycin, dirithromycin, troleandomycin, etc.) by producing a slightly altered 50S ribosomal subunit that still functions but to which the antibiotic can no longer bind (see Fig. 3A). Bacteria may become resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics (penicillins, monobactams, carbapenems, and cephalosporins) by producing altered transpeptidases (penicillin-binding proteins) with greatly reduced affinity for the binding of beta-lactam antibiotics. Bacteria may become resistant to vancomycin by producing altered cross-linking peptides in the peptidoglycan to which the antibiotic no longer bonds. Bacteria may become resistant to fluoroquinolones (norfloxacin, lomefloxacin, fleroxacin, ciprofloxacin, enoxacin, trovafloxacin, etc.) by producing altered DNA gyrase or topoisomerases

link

These are several of the many ways in which bacteria may develop resistance.

However were we not specifically talking about MRSA bacteria? In this case resistance is due to a change in the protein which the antibiotic binds to. This isn't a loss of information. It's like changing the locks on your front door.

Is your door now defective because the keys which you lost can no longer open your door? Is there a loss of information because the locks have been changed?