yall ever see this machine? tbombz doing "''crossfit"''

[Natural Man]

He created the potential for us to chose to sin or not to sin.

or maybe we created it.... 

[Man of Steel]

or maybe we created it.... 

Don't know what that means.

[Necrosis]

there are hundred of writers on that site, and they do often cite eachother.

they are bias in the sense that they start with The Word of God as the ultimate authority, and then interpret the evidence based according to his first hand account of what happened. yeah.

evolutionists are biased in the sense that they start from the point of view that The Biblle is a lie and that they are able to figure out the unobservable past, and then interpret the evidence based on that point of view.

 You have been conned, science constantly changes because it has no starting point. You can't discover truth when you have the conclusion in mind. God may exist, I just won't accept shit others tell me, I want reproducible evidence, aka science. That's how you know something, when you can predict things, evolution predicts all sorts of things, they come true also. It predicted fossils in a particular layer, we found it, it predicted gene anomalies in chimpanzee's, found it. This means it most likely true, or approaching the truth.

We can go back in the past because the universe is predictable. Like a detective on a crime scene.

[Nordic Beast]

cant waste anymore energy arguing with these dullards with a 16th century intelligence and viewpoint---"the bible is real because in the bible it says..."

hahaha they have no facts only subjective fantasies, when they get backed into a corner they spout dumb shit like taylor did saying," the truth is the truth is the truth" or MOS's, "my faith is rock solid because I absolutely know his reality".  Just look at those statements, utter garbage.

[tbombz]

An article from a popular science magazine, concerning this antibiotic-resistence showed that Reinikainen had it wrong. Increase of information and new structural complexity has been observed in not just some, but in fact, many cases.

As will be shown, you have failed to demonstrate this in even one case!

The original magazine (which is not at hand now) was a Finnish popular scientific magazine Tiede 2000 i.e. Science 2000. It had some non-technical examples of antibiotic resistance which however showed clearly that in many cases we cannot honestly call the evolution of antibiotic resistance, "a loss of information". Instead, I have put (as an attachment) an article by Petrosino, Cantu and Palzkoll, titled “β-Lactamases: protein evolution in real time”
This was Trends in Microbiology 6(:323–327, August 1998. Some bacteria produce β-Lactamases to destroy β-Lactam antibiotics, which include penicillin.

You may “judge” it and check if it’s always about “loss of information” as frequently claimed by some creationists. (Or maybe you accept increased information by evolution in this case without any further problems … your original article was about poisonous newts, indeed.)


Right, I read this paper as you requested. But despite its title, it does not support your points, but ours! For example, one mechanism featured in the article was acquisition of genes from other bacteria. I.e. the genes already existed—hopefully it should be obvious that this is irrelevant to the origin of these genes in the first place, which is what goo-to-you evolution is supposed to explain! The other clue is the statement ‘many of the mutations located around the active site pocket result in increased catalytic activity for hydrolysis of extended-spectrum substrates.’ Mutations far from the active site also increase extended spectrum catalysis. This provided an advantage to the bacteria containing these mutations, because they could destroy more types of antibiotics. But here was yet another example of an information loss conferring an advantage.

To understand this properly, it’s necessary to realize enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate), and this fine-tuning is necessary for living cells to function. Mutations reduce specificity and hence would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates too. But this loss of specificity means loss of information content. Dr Spetner analyzes this with rigorous mathematics using standard definitions of information. He presents the two extremes:

An enzyme has activity for only one substrate out of n possible ones and zero for the others—here the information gain is log2n.
The second is where there is no discrimination between any of the substrates—here the information gain is zero.
Comparison of ribitol, xylitol and arabitol activities of wild and mutant ribitol dehydrogenase
Comparison of ribitol, xylitol and arabitol activities of wild and mutant ribitol dehydrogenase (from Lee Spetner, True Origins website).

Real enzymes are somewhere in between, and Dr Spetner shows how to calculate their information. As explained above, living organisms require enzymes to do a specific job, so their information content is very close to the maximum in case 1. Quite close to the other extreme are ordinary acids or alkalis, which hydrolyse many compounds. These have wonderful extended-spectrum catalytic activity, but are not specific, so have low information content, so would be useless for the precise control required for biological reactions. All observed mutations reduce the specificity and trend towards the second extreme case. The trend described in the β-Lactamases is just the same as that described in ribitol dehydrogenase, the enzyme some bacteria use to metabolize ribitol, a derivative of a type of sugar (left). That is, the mutant acquired the new ability to metabolize xylitol, so it was thought to be an example of new information arising, and that it could trend towards a highly specific xylitol dehydrogenase. But on further inspection, it turned out not only to reduce its ability to perform its original specific function of metabolizing ribitol, but also to increase the ability to synthesize lots of other things, including arabitol. The trend is towards loss of specificity and producing an ordinary broad-spectrum catalyst, i.e. from case 1 to case 2. A graph of wild v. mutant β-Lactamase activity on various antibiotics would be essentially the same as this graph of wild v. mutant ribitol dehydrogenase activity on the different types of sugars.

In conclusion, there is nothing to support any information gain at all. But evolution posits that the information content of the simplest living organisms, the mycoplasma with 580,000 ‘letters’ (482 genes), was increased to, say, the 3 billion letters equivalent in man. If this were so, we should be able to observe plenty of examples of information gain without intelligent input. But we have yet to observe even one, including the example you cited.

[Necrosis]

He created the potential for us to chose to sin or not to sin.

So who created sin? the concept of it? the practices that are sinful, who decides that?

[Natural Man]

things are just what they are and we invented stuff to describe, give a meaning to them, as simple as that.

[Nordic Beast]

You have been conned, science constantly changes because it has no starting point. You can't discover truth when you have the conclusion in mind. God may exist, I just won't accept shit others tell me, I want reproducible evidence, aka science. That's how you know something, when you can predict things, evolution predicts all sorts of things, they come true also. It predicted fossils in a particular layer, we found it, it predicted gene anomalies in chimpanzee's, found it. This means it most likely true, or approaching the truth.

We can go back in the past because the universe is predictable. Like a detective on a crime scene.

exactly----don't tell me I cant live my life freely because an imaginary guy in the sky will condemn me to an eternity of punishment, yet have no proof or any shred of evidence to back it up.

scientific knowledge is gained through rigid, empirical, experimental processes.  

[tbombz]

one of the worlds leading experts on sickle cell anemia..

http://creation.com/dr-felix-konotey-ahulu

[Necrosis]

An article from a popular science magazine, concerning this antibiotic-resistence showed that Reinikainen had it wrong. Increase of information and new structural complexity has been observed in not just some, but in fact, many cases.

As will be shown, you have failed to demonstrate this in even one case!

The original magazine (which is not at hand now) was a Finnish popular scientific magazine Tiede 2000 i.e. Science 2000. It had some non-technical examples of antibiotic resistance which however showed clearly that in many cases we cannot honestly call the evolution of antibiotic resistance, "a loss of information". Instead, I have put (as an attachment) an article by Petrosino, Cantu and Palzkoll, titled “β-Lactamases: protein evolution in real time”
This was Trends in Microbiology 6(:323–327, August 1998. Some bacteria produce β-Lactamases to destroy β-Lactam antibiotics, which include penicillin.

You may “judge” it and check if it’s always about “loss of information” as frequently claimed by some creationists. (Or maybe you accept increased information by evolution in this case without any further problems … your original article was about poisonous newts, indeed.)


Right, I read this paper as you requested. But despite its title, it does not support your points, but ours! For example, one mechanism featured in the article was acquisition of genes from other bacteria. I.e. the genes already existed—hopefully it should be obvious that this is irrelevant to the origin of these genes in the first place, which is what goo-to-you evolution is supposed to explain! The other clue is the statement ‘many of the mutations located around the active site pocket result in increased catalytic activity for hydrolysis of extended-spectrum substrates.’ Mutations far from the active site also increase extended spectrum catalysis. This provided an advantage to the bacteria containing these mutations, because they could destroy more types of antibiotics. But here was yet another example of an information loss conferring an advantage.

To understand this properly, it’s necessary to realize enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate), and this fine-tuning is necessary for living cells to function. Mutations reduce specificity and hence would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates too. But this loss of specificity means loss of information content. Dr Spetner analyzes this with rigorous mathematics using standard definitions of information. He presents the two extremes:

An enzyme has activity for only one substrate out of n possible ones and zero for the others—here the information gain is log2n.
The second is where there is no discrimination between any of the substrates—here the information gain is zero.
Comparison of ribitol, xylitol and arabitol activities of wild and mutant ribitol dehydrogenase
Comparison of ribitol, xylitol and arabitol activities of wild and mutant ribitol dehydrogenase (from Lee Spetner, True Origins website).

Real enzymes are somewhere in between, and Dr Spetner shows how to calculate their information. As explained above, living organisms require enzymes to do a specific job, so their information content is very close to the maximum in case 1. Quite close to the other extreme are ordinary acids or alkalis, which hydrolyse many compounds. These have wonderful extended-spectrum catalytic activity, but are not specific, so have low information content, so would be useless for the precise control required for biological reactions. All observed mutations reduce the specificity and trend towards the second extreme case. The trend described in the β-Lactamases is just the same as that described in ribitol dehydrogenase, the enzyme some bacteria use to metabolize ribitol, a derivative of a type of sugar (left). That is, the mutant acquired the new ability to metabolize xylitol, so it was thought to be an example of new information arising, and that it could trend towards a highly specific xylitol dehydrogenase. But on further inspection, it turned out not only to reduce its ability to perform its original specific function of metabolizing ribitol, but also to increase the ability to synthesize lots of other things, including arabitol. The trend is towards loss of specificity and producing an ordinary broad-spectrum catalyst, i.e. from case 1 to case 2. A graph of wild v. mutant β-Lactamase activity on various antibiotics would be essentially the same as this graph of wild v. mutant ribitol dehydrogenase activity on the different types of sugars.

In conclusion, there is nothing to support any information gain at all. But evolution posits that the information content of the simplest living organisms, the mycoplasma with 580,000 ‘letters’ (482 genes), was increased to, say, the 3 billion letters equivalent in man. If this were so, we should be able to observe plenty of examples of information gain without intelligent input. But we have yet to observe even one, including the example you cited.

Nevermind dude, I can't continue with this. You just keep copy and pasting bullshit from some creation website.

[Natural Man]

exactly----don't tell me I cant live my life freely because an imaginary guy in the sky will condemn me to an eternity of punishment, yet have no proof or any shred of evidence to back it up.

scientific knowledge is gained through rigid, empirical, experimental processes.  

the point of life for any life form is to survive, freedom doesnt exist, all choices are limited and are about adapting or disapearing until we cant adapt anymore. We dont even choose to be born. Your only real freedom is to stop playing the game.

[Man of Steel]

So who created sin? the concept of it? the practices that are sinful, who decides that?

Sin is an offense against God.  God is the law, God is uncreated and therefore the law is uncreated...the law is part of God's essence.  We break the law which is inherent in God's nature and we defy and offend him.  Break his law and you have sinned....his concept.   He set the standards for us to live by, but he gave us the ability to choose to follow his standard or not to follow it.  He gave us both his standards (the law) and choice.  You and I came up with a myriad number of ways to defy those standards and all that falls under his term "sin".  What God doesn't give you is an instruction manual on how to break his law....we do that all by ourselves.....he just gives us his law and choice.....the potential for sin.  

[Necrosis]

one of the worlds leading experts on sickle cell anemia..

http://creation.com/dr-felix-konotey-ahulu

he doesn;t believe it's evidnece of protzoa to people evolution, a made up term, a made up argument. Also, sickle cell anemia is simply a mutation in RBC's that makes malaria difficult to infect the host. Are you suggesting that this painful disease, that some people get who aren't even in danger of malaria was planned? to me pain, death etc from teh disease seems like a shitty trade in for avoiding infection. God works in mysterious ways? or it's a fucking mutation and the outcome to the person is irrelevant?

[Necrosis]

Sin is an offense against God.  God is the law.  We break the law which is inherent in God's nature and we defy and offend him.  Break his law and you have sinned....his concept.   He set the standards for us to live by, but he gave us the ability to choose to follow his standard or not to follow it.  He gave us both his standards (the law) and choice.  You and I came up with a myriad number of ways to defy those standards and all that falls under his term "sin".  What God doesn't give you is an instruction manual on how to break his law....we do that all by ourselves.....he just gives us his law and choice.....the potential for sin.  

I think we are miscommunicating. I am saying that god created everything, evil, good etc, the alpha and omega, do you beleive sin exists outside of god? that it is not in his control? coudl he not make sinful things fine if he so choosed?

[Mawse]

And the CA taxpayer pays NOTHING for all this? Is this correct?

[tbombz]

You have been conned, science constantly changes because it has no starting point. You can't discover truth when you have the conclusion in mind. God may exist, I just won't accept shit others tell me, I want reproducible evidence, aka science. That's how you know something, when you can predict things, evolution predicts all sorts of things, they come true also. It predicted fossils in a particular layer, we found it, it predicted gene anomalies in chimpanzee's, found it. This means it most likely true, or approaching the truth.

We can go back in the past because the universe is predictable.
thats philosophical conjecture, its not science

Like a detective on a crime scene.

The irony of the position taken by Cuvierists, neo-Cuvierists, and standard evolutionary-uniformitarians is the fact that fossil succession is a reality only to a limited extent. As we shall see, the Flood-related mechanisms discussed above need not have been overly efficient to account for only the limited degree of fossil succession that does exist. Successive episodes of time, however conceived, also are completely unnecessary to explain the limited degree of fossil succession.

When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period.2

Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in ‘wrong’ places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day.3,4,5 And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence.6

Furthermore, extension of stratigraphic ranges occurs not only for individual fossils, but also for presumed grade of biologic complexity (that is, so-called stratomorphic intermediates). A stratomorphic intermediate is supposed to reflect a certain grade of complexity attained by all living things up to a certain point in the geologic time scale. An example would be the first appearance of vertebrate legs in the stratigraphic record. I will discuss stratomorphic intermediates shortly. Let us now consider some recent examples of stratigraphic range extension.

[Natural Man]

The irony of the position taken by Cuvierists, neo-Cuvierists, and standard evolutionary-uniformitarians is the fact that fossil succession is a reality only to a limited extent. As we shall see, the Flood-related mechanisms discussed above need not have been overly efficient to account for only the limited degree of fossil succession that does exist. Successive episodes of time, however conceived, also are completely unnecessary to explain the limited degree of fossil succession.

When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period.2

Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in ‘wrong’ places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day.3,4,5 And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence.6

Furthermore, extension of stratigraphic ranges occurs not only for individual fossils, but also for presumed grade of biologic complexity (that is, so-called stratomorphic intermediates). A stratomorphic intermediate is supposed to reflect a certain grade of complexity attained by all living things up to a certain point in the geologic time scale. An example would be the first appearance of vertebrate legs in the stratigraphic record. I will discuss stratomorphic intermediates shortly. Let us now consider some recent examples of stratigraphic range extension.

you forgot to copy and paste the source of your quote.

[tbombz]

you forgot to copy and paste the source of your quote.

would you prefer that i do like necrosis and pretend as if my ideas are ones that i came up with all on my own?

[tbombz]

So who created sin? the concept of it? the practices that are sinful, who decides that?

Satan created sin, he is the father of it.  God knows what is sin and what isnt sin, he doesnt choose what is sin and what isnt. he just lets us know what is good for us, because he loves us.

[Necrosis]

The irony of the position taken by Cuvierists, neo-Cuvierists, and standard evolutionary-uniformitarians is the fact that fossil succession is a reality only to a limited extent. As we shall see, the Flood-related mechanisms discussed above need not have been overly efficient to account for only the limited degree of fossil succession that does exist. Successive episodes of time, however conceived, also are completely unnecessary to explain the limited degree of fossil succession.

When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period.2

Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in ‘wrong’ places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day.3,4,5 And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence.6

Furthermore, extension of stratigraphic ranges occurs not only for individual fossils, but also for presumed grade of biologic complexity (that is, so-called stratomorphic intermediates). A stratomorphic intermediate is supposed to reflect a certain grade of complexity attained by all living things up to a certain point in the geologic time scale. An example would be the first appearance of vertebrate legs in the stratigraphic record. I will discuss stratomorphic intermediates shortly. Let us now consider some recent examples of stratigraphic range extension.

No it;s not conjecture, just like evidence in a crime scene is not conjecture. This is also another copy and paste.

[Natural Man]

Satan created sin, he is the father of it.  God knows what is sin and what isnt sin, he doesnt choose what is sin and what isnt. he just lets us know what is good for us, because he loves us.

if god created everything, it means he created satan too, is he dumb or something, why create something, someone, that will piss you off?

you re so fucking ignorant it's sad. Satan is only the bad guy found in any religion , philosophy since man is man. There is no satan living underground and no god living in the clouds with the carebears.

[Natural Man]

would you prefer that i do like necrosis and pretend as if my ideas are ones that i came up with all on my own?

necrosis doenst copy and paste shit, moron.

[Archer77]

Satan created sin, he is the father of it.  God knows what is sin and what isnt sin, he doesnt choose what is sin and what isnt. he just lets us know what is good for us, because he loves us.

How can Satan create anything without the consent of an omnipotent god?  Only god has the power of creation

[Necrosis]

Satan created sin, he is the father of it.  God knows what is sin and what isnt sin, he doesnt choose what is sin and what isnt. he just lets us know what is good for us, because he loves us.

Who created Satan?

[Nordic Beast]

No it;s not conjecture, just like evidence in a crime scene is not conjecture. This is also another copy and paste.

HEY TAYLOR stop copy and pasting...its only weakening your argument and making you look foolish

Necrosis doesn't copy and paste taylor----that is as obvious to me as your real lack of scientific knowledge is to me.  He's killing you in the discussion and all you can do is blindly copy and paste or come up with, "the truth is the truth is the truth"