There is something about the act of worship, about getting alone with God, of concentrating totally on His awesome holiness and majesty, and merging your spirit with His Spirit and your heart with His heart, that totally rejuvenates and recharges you. There's nothing else that compares to it on this earth! No drug or drink, no other relationships, nothing else will ever get you as "high" as entering His presence and immersing yourself in His glory and love. Worship is totally exhilarating!
this is the only life that i am guaranteed of because i am living in it, so i will not waste my time waiting for another one just because of our selfish human need for more than what we already have.....cherish the life you have and make the most of it, enjoy it and when the day comes...well its come
@avilesnba, Jesus said in John 10:10 "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." Christianity isn't wasting your life waiting for another one, it is living life abundantly. It is living life how we were created to live. The one who lives only for this life, getting all they can for themself, living to please themself because they think this is the only life they get is the selfish one.
@PoBoyX Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
wELL bRIAN IT MAY HAVE BIN THE ALBUM THAT SAVED MY LIFE.........i MET YOU IN oTTAWA I WAS THE PAIN IN EVERYBODY'S BUTT:)XXXXX BUT THANKS FAITHFUL SON OF gOD mOST HIGH AND BRO AND YOU HAVE ADOPTED KIDS AND A BOY WITH cp amen God is my adoptive Dad and that there is love for the prodigals:)xxx peace love and blessings to all of you and yours~
Thanks for your comment. I'm glad that this music has had such a positive and powerful impact on your life. I just wanted to clarify though that I am not Brian Doerksen. I'm just a fan of his music and decided to put together a slide show to one of my favorite songs of his. However, my cousin has played in Brian Doerksen's band for many years. I forwarded your comment on to my cousin and he told me he would send it on to Brian. Take care and God Bless.
@TheScienceFoundation, not sure if I got the right article or not, that link doesn't lead anywhere. At any rate, I know the difference between genotype and phenotype. The thing is, the genotype does contain information that is coded into a language that is interpretted by the organism into it's phenotype. That language (ordering of the codons in the DNA) is not determined simply by chemistry. It's similar to how ordering of letters on a page can't be reduced to the properties of ink and paper.
@PoBoyX It's not interpreted by the organism, it's expressed as the phenotype of the organism. DNA is not a language, it's more of a one-direction cipher.
'That language (ordering of the codons in the DNA) is not determined simply by chemistry'
You mean base pairs, and yes it is. Every interaction in the hydrogen bonding of nucleotides is explicable entirely through chemistry.
@TheScienceFoundation, the ordering of the nucleotides themselves is not simply chemistry. If it were, all DNA chains would order themselves in the exact same way under the exact same conditions and there would be no Human Genome project to decode it's language.
@PoBoyX The bonding of nucleotides is not only explicable through chemistry and biochemistry, but it's already explained.
There are different orders of the same base pairs because of replication and the inherent flaws that come with trying to organically reproduce 3 billion sets of bases.
@TheScienceFoundation, H2O is chemistry and it's always the same. CO2 is chemistry and again, always the same. Chemistry is ordered and predictable and always the same under the same conditions. DNA is unique for each and every individual (except twins) on the planet. That's not just straight simple chemistry. That's unique information.
@TheScienceFoundation, I googled "DNA the blueprint of life" and got 7.2 million results. A quick random flip through the first few pages found a plethora of secular scientists referring to DNA as being like the notes in a musical score, the the letters in a page of text, or the blueprint of a building.
I also googled "DNA the cake batter of life". I got 125,000 results and again I did a random sampling of the first few pages and found nothing at all supporting your above statement.
@PoBoyX Disregarding that argumentum ad populum, DNA is more like a cake batter because each individual sample is representative of the whole, a blueprint is not.
@TheScienceFoundation, I would think if your view was factual, it should be borne out in at least a few, and more likely a great deal of scientific websites. You like to quote the scientific community when they back up what you say but call it an argumentum ad populum when not a single source of any kind whatsoever can be found to support your view and millions upon millions that say the exact opposite. A video of a raving lunatic on a rant doesn't constitute a reputable source.
@TheScienceFoundation, if that was what was being meant by the term "blueprint for life", they would go on to explain that instead of going on to use the exact same types of terms I used (eg: notes in a score, letters of text) which you claim is demonstrably wrong. Where is your source for you view? I found millions of evolutionary sites that agree with what I'm saying about DNA and not one that agrees with yours.
@PoBoyX Those are analogies for the layperson, 'letters' in DNA are merely representative of nucleotide. You're aware that there are no actual letters in DNA, yes? The fact remains that any portion of DNA can represent the genotype of the organism, while any portion of a blueprint is not an accurate representation of the entire blueprint.
@TheScienceFoundation, Yes I am aware that ATCG are not actual physical letters in DNA. So, are you saying that the analogies for the lay person are demonstrably wrong? Are you saying that your analogy is better? If so, why has the scientific community not adopted your analogy in favor is communicating demonstrably wrong concepts?
@PoBoyX Not necessarily flat out wrong, just inapt for anything more than a discussion with the general public. I already told you, blue print sounds better and it gets the general message across.
@TheScienceFoundation, what about notes in a musical score or letters of text that make up words? Those are also EXTREMELY common descriptors which you have previously told me are demonstrably wrong.
@PoBoyX Again, in consideration the general public. You tell a mechanic that gene expression is the genotype expressing phenotype and he's going to be puzzled.
The fact remains there is no external interpretation required for gene expression so yes, it is ultimately an invalid analogy.
@TheScienceFoundation, maybe you should tell somebody about this because near as I can tell, 7.2 million websites are conveying the wrong idea about genetics and you have somehow cornered the market on the secret truth that no one else (even university genetics department websites) are saying.
@TheScienceFoundation, it seems like you've softened from calling it "demonstrably wrong" to "not as apt". I can understand simplication for the sake of the masses but I don't understand wrong simplification especially if a more correct simplification exists. I've got to admit it's a pretty hard sell when one random youtuber is claiming something affirmed by no other website dealing with the topic, even the human genome project site, and the only support you can offer is "ask a genetecist".
If you cut off a corner of a blueprint, can that corner be used to determine the plans on the rest of the blueprint?
If you dip out a spoonful of cake batter, can that be used to determine the composition of the rest of the cake batter?
If you take a drop of someones blood, can that be used to determine the composition of every other cell in their body or is it only representative of the area from which you drew it?
@TheScienceFoundation, your analogy isn't correct. A piece of a strand DNA is like a piece of a blueprint. If you take a piece of a strand of DNA, you cannot determine the composition of every other cell.
If you want to make your cake batter analogy fit with reality, the cake batter is the organism and DNA is the recipe that contains all the instructions to make the cake batter. If you do that, your analogy will fit and it will also affirm everything I've been saying so far about genetics.
@PoBoyX And if you take a piece of a blueprint, you can't determine the plans of the rest of the blueprint.
No, the cake would be the organism, the DNA is the cake batter. My analogy already fits and everything you've been saying regarding gene expression is demonstrably wrong.
@TheScienceFoundation, yes, that's why a piece of a blueprint is analagous to a fragment of DNA, the same way a complete strand of DNA is analagous to a complete blueprint.
Your version of the cake batter analogy makes no sense whatsoever and shows an incredible ignorance of a subject you claim superior knowledge for. How can you claim to know anything about genetics when you pose an analogy such as this? Are you serious or are you just messing with me?
@PoBoyX No, me and the entire genetics community. Ask any geneticist which is a better analogy, there are several on youtube that reply regularly, c0nc0rdance, cdk007, donexodus2.
@TheScienceFoundation, apparently no one has seen fit to publish any of this information and only a small group of youtubers know about it? Can you direct me to any reputable scientific website that supports your view?
@TheScienceFoundation, exactly. It is doubtful which is why I would put much more credence in the descriptions and analogies of DNA ascribed by reputable scientific websites rather than you who completely contradicts them. I don't believe in their evolutionary conclusions about the origin or DNA, but I do trust their ability to look at DNA in the present and describe it acurately where the interpretations of their observations are not biased by evolutionary assumptions..
@TheScienceFoundation, no, your cake batter analogy demonstrates this about you. That is why you can not find a single reputable (or even disreputable) source for your model of genetics while I can quote literally millions of them to support mine including the most respected genetics researchers on the planet. You are living in a fantasy world sir and you need to do some actual reading on genetics because this is starting to get laughable.
@martinsemrok, not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying those are examples of chemical evolution or of molecules with structural properties similar to DNA because they aren't. Elements can combine in various forms that are simply the expression of their atomic properties. The structure of DNA is not simply explained in terms of the properties of the elements it is comprised of but instead follows a definite language that is completely separate from the elements themselves.
@TheScienceFoundation, on my video, I get the last word. I have not allowed your most recent comments because they are simply repeating your misunderstanding of DNA. DNA is encoded in a language that cells read in order to control processes in the body. That language cannot be reduced to simple chemistry. It is orderly in a way that absolutely demands outside interpretation. Your refusal to accept this established fact of biology is what keeps the discussion from moving forward.
@TheScienceFoundation, your above post has little to no basis in reality. Google "the language of DNA" and you'll see that. I'm not censoring you because I'm afraid of anything you say, just that you keep saying the same wrong things over and over again.
@TheScienceFoundation, What I can't figure out though is why you care so much. Why do you care what anyone else believes and why do you take so much of your time trying to convince others that they are wrong? If I believed this life is all there was, I'd eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Why wouldn't you just live your life to make yourself happy and forget about correcting what anyone else believes? What difference does any of it make?
@PoBoyX It's not a matter of belief, your posts regarding gene expression are demonstrably wrong.
I care because as far as anything has indicated this IS the only life we get and it's vastly improved by science and technology, not willful ignorance.
@TheScienceFoundation, Why should you care about my life? You don't know me and likely never will know me. What difference does it make to you what I believe or don't believe about anything or if my life is improved or not? Why waste your time talking to me, trying to convince me that I'm wrong and that I should adopt your beliefs? Of what significance is it?
@PoBoyX Again, it's not a matter of belief, I don't care about your beliefs and I'm not trying to get you to change them. What I do care about is you posting information as factual that is completely inaccurate.
@TheScienceFoundation, that doesn't anwer my question. Why do you care about information being accurate or not? If it's wrong, you could simply discard it. How could other people reading it possibly effect you in any way? What difference does it make? Why waste your time on something that has absolutely no effect of any kind whatsoever on you?
@PoBoyX I know it's wrong and I know why it's wrong, others may not. Scientific literacy of the individuals of a society absolutely effects the society as a whole.
@TheScienceFoundation, I agree. Acceptance of evolution has had disatrous effects on our society which will eventally lead to its complete downfall. It's happening already.
@PoBoyX Actually every country that has a better understanding of real biology than the US has a higher citizen contentment rate. As for acceptance of evolution among first world countries, US is only trailed by Turkey.
@TheScienceFoundation, I'm not being antagonistic. You just appear to be appealing to some form of universal code of what consititues "good" and "bad". I'm just curious on what authority you are able to make those claims and to demand that I adhere to them. So, I ask, what makes enjoyment or pleasure "good"?
@TheScienceFoundation, so you take your ethics and morality from the dictionary? The dictionary is your source of authority in determining what is good and bad?
Does anyone know where solid hard-core proof exists for the 'ancestral receptor gene', seems to me, this was used to prove the 'just-so' simple to complex mechansim supporting evolution.
@pceBrge, I don't know anything about the ancestral receptor gene but here's an article that might be adressing what you're talking about: answersingenesis . org/articles/aid/v2/n1/ancient-protein-resurrected.
What I'd like to know is what causes life to evolve? I mean in order for life to survive evolution teaches life has to adapt, but what intelligent force brings about that change? If left to chance then life would have died out long ago!
@devonbiker, evolutionists would say that no intelligence is required, that mutation combined with natural selection and vast amounts of time can get the job done. It can't though. If Darwin had known as much about mutations as we do today, he would have never put it forth as the driving force behind his theory because they just cannot do the job. Darwin also believed that environmental factors themselves could produce hereditary traits which is know now to be totally false.
@PoBoyX Exactly, evolution is so far fetched it's rediculas! You have to have more faith in evolution than the God of the bible! Science for some is a religion in itself, so whatever science says [to some] must be the truth!!!
@TheScienceFoundation, not so. Evolution does require a signficant amount of faith. For example, you have faith that the present gives you the correct keys to interpretting the past. That claim is not provable and there's no way to tell if it is even reasonable because all we have are observations made in the present.
@PoBoyX You don't have to have faith in historical science, it's a matter of predictive power and testable mechanisms. Science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with the most supported falsifiable explanation, you're just trying to project the faith of creationism onto evolution.
@TheScienceFoundation, sure we have faith in historical science. You have faith that your methodology is correct. When it comes to a historical event for which there are no witnesses, you have no way of verifying if your conclusions are correct or not because you have no way of proving if conclusions made on the basis of observations in the present are actually representative of actual events in the past. Which testable mechanisms are you referring too? Evolution also is not falsifiable.
@PoBoyX Darwin didn't propose acquired traits, that was LeMarck.
Mutations are sufficient for explaining the addition of new genes, the addition of novel function and net increase in genetic material. Darwin would be more convinced he was correct if he could see modern genetics.
@TheScienceFoundation, again not so. Mutations have never ever been observed to create new genes or even increase information in existing ones. Mutations are a downward mechanism always result in a net loss. Never have they been shown to move an organism onward and upward and I challenge you to find even one example that demonstrates your claim to be so. No evolutionist I've challenged yet has been able to do so.
@TheScienceFoundation, the dude's a real idiot and hard to watch but despite his ignorant demeanor, he brings up some good points that I'll need to delve into further. I suspect the nylonase case might be similar to the citrate one which has also been touted as evolution in action but isn't.
@PoBoyX Not really, he's just sarcastic to begin with. I'm not sure what definition of 'evolution' you've learned from Kent Hovind or Duane Gish, but both Nylonase and Cit+ E. Coli are evolution in action because evolution is the change in heritable traits in populations.
@TheScienceFoundation, I'd heard the names before but had to Google Hovind and Gish to refresh my memory of who they are. Unless you have a Ph.D though, I'm guessing Gish has a lot more science education than you do. Anyway, with Cit+E. coli, the bacteria already had the ability in low oxygen levels. The mutation simply removed the regulating ability. For Nylonase, the ability likely already existed as well and was simply parasited off other bacteria. Neither example is evolution.
@PoBoyX Gish thought that life not appearing in peanut butter was a valid argument against abiogenesis.
One of the defining characteristics of E. Coli was the inability to metabolize citrate, Lenskis E. Coli developed it twice (only after a certain generation)
As for the nylonase, the mutation occurred again in Ohnos lab, it was definitively shown to be a frameshift of a duplicate gene.
Both examples are evolution because evolution is the change in heritable traits in populations.
@TheScienceFoundation,abiogenesis is another debate altogether. No, neither of your examples is evolution. Lensky's E.Coli could metabolize citrate in low oxygen conditions from the beginning. His mutation removed that regulatory ability. It created no new ability at all. Nylonase is similar and did not come about as the result of new genetic information being formed. Look up frameshift mutation or nylonase on wikipedia. Even that site denies that nylonase came about through frameshift.
@PoBoyX It goes to his understanding of organic chemistry/biology.
His cit+ E. Coli is able to metabolize citrate under oxic conditions, whereas wild type E. Coli cannot, that's a new ability.
Nylonase is not similar, as pointed out before, it was shown definitively to be the result of a frameshift of a duplicate gene, the article by Negoro cited on the wiki page is referring to the strain originally found in the disposal pond, there were also strains bred in Ohno's lab.
@TheScienceFoundation, The Cit+ E. Coli were already able to do it under low oxygen levels. The mutation removed the ability to regulate. It's a new ability in the same way that nailing your gas pedal to the floor so you can't regulate your engine's speed is a new ability. Nylonase has resulted from reduced enzyme specification that allows it to hydrolyze a wider range of oligamers including nylon oligamers. It's a new capability that only comes from the loss of specificity.
@PoBoyX Yes but it wasn't able to under aerobic conditions, that means it's a new trait. No, it's a new trait in the same way that humans being able to absorb oxygen out of water would be a new trait.
That was just one strain of nylonase, and evolution is not directional.
@TheScienceFoundation, But in each case, the "new" trait was caused by the degeneration of something that already existed in the organism, not the actual development of something new. What you are calling evolution is actually degeneration that happens to have a beneficial effect. This process is as much a part of the creation model and is the exact opposite of the "onward and upward" progession that is absolutely necessary to the evolutionary model.
@PoBoyX Not in the case of the lab bred nylonase, it was directly observed to be the result of a frameshift of a duplicate gene. Even the cit+ E. Coli technically developed a new trait because evolution is a tree not a ladder.
There is no empirical creation model because creationism offers no testable mechanisms and no falsifiable hypotheses or predictions, so it's inherently unscientific.
@TheScienceFoundation, all a frameshift is, is an insertion of a couple of random nucleotides that shoves everything else down the same number of positions. It either results in a degeneration as in the case of nylonase or has no effect.
Creationism believes in a fallen world where all of life is in a process of degeneration. This is consistent with what we see in nature because even your two best examples of "evolution" are in reality, degeneration.
@TheScienceFoundation, nope. The mutation caused a loss of sprecificity in an already existent enzyme. It was a loss of complexity that caused the ability, not an increase. It wasn't a new gene. It was a modification of an existing one. Try doing a frameshift mutation with a page of text in a book and see if your result is a "new page" of text. Like with the gene, all you've produced is gibberish that degrades the gene. This degradation just happened to have a benefit under certain conditions.
@PoBoyX 'The mutation caused a loss of sprecificity in an already existent enzyme.'
Possibly in the strain found in the waste pond, but even that is indeterminate. You're still ignoring the fact that the strain Ohno bred in his lab was directly observed to be a frameshift of a duplicate gene. It's a new gene, prior to the frameshift new start and stop codons were inserted.
The analogy to the book is invalid, genes express traits biochemically with no necessity for exterior translation.
@TheScienceFoundation, Where is the trait expressed? The gene must make sense to and be interpretted by the host organism or it will just be a pile of gibberish. A frameshift doesn't produce new information. It just adds a few extra nucleotides and then shifts everything else down that number of positions, usually turning it into garbage that has no effect or causes a degeneration of something just like every other type of mutation.
@TheScienceFoundation, we're just starting to repeat ourselves here but you are absolutely wrong. DNA has a very specific language that follows rules of syntax not unlike a human language. That language is interpretted by the host organism as blueprints to build and reproduce everything that comprises it, even the DNA itself.
@TheScienceFoundation, again, this novel function was caused by a degeneration, a losing of specificity. It's not unlike a key lock that starts off only able to be opened one specific key. As it wears over the years, it becomes less and less specified and eventually any key will open the lock. That's what happened with the nylon "eating" enzyme. It had been very specific but the mutation caused a degeneration that made it lose specificity. Yes, it was beneficial but it was a degeneration.
@PoBoyX 'This degradation just happened to have a benefit under certain conditions.'
Again, it's not a degradation because it was part of a repetitious gene sequence. A more apt analogy would be opening a .pdf, copying and pasting the text into a new file, then editing it in a way that has a new (even completely different) but still relevant meaning.
Even that analogy is not completely valid because it still requires outside translation but as far as the role of duplication it fits better.
@TheScienceFoundation, no, it's more like copying a page, turning that page into gibberish and then pasting that page of garbage back into the original document. DNA does require outside translation by the host organism. Random nucleotides are not new information any more than random characters in a page of text are new information. Playing musical chairs with nucleotides by shifting them all down a position or two may technically be "new DNA" but it doesn't generate useful new information.
@PoBoyX No, it's more like my analogy, because gene expression still isn't any more dependent on a persons interpretation of the base pairs now than it was 5 minutes ago.
'DNA does require outside translation by the host organism.'
No it doesn't, transcription and expression are fully genotypical processes
'may technically be "new DNA" but it doesn't generate useful new information.'
@TheScienceFoundation, I'm not saying it's dependent upon a person's interpretation of the base pairs. It's dependent upon how the host organism is able to interpret the base pairs and they must follow highly organized rules of syntax that transcend it's chemistry. This is well established fact. At any rate, this is getting too repetitious. Unless you can bring something new to the discussion, it will end here.
it was a pigs tooth that evelution based their evedence on a pigs tooth.pretty reliable eh.a pigs tooth made a monkey out all of us.my ancestor is not some ape in a forest somewhere
@jerry18291, the pig's tooth was the evidence used to reconstruct "piltdown man" which even evolutionists now admit was a hoax and now use as evidence for the "self-correcting" ability of science. The question though isn't if science corrects itself, but how many of the things science currently says are true are actually errors and also how we know the "corrections" aren't further errors. Without exhaustive knowledge, there's no way to know any of that.
@hawklord67, I don't find it strange that atheists/secularists believe it because it gives them a way to deny God while maintaining intellectual credibility, something they couldn't do before Darwin. What I don't understand is Christians believing it. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
@PoBoyX Here's a question I keep wanting to ask a creationist: how do you explain the fact that so many life forms reproduce sexually? What is the reason for that?
@Xezlec, not sure I understand why exactly you're asking this question. It's a form of reproduction that God designed. My question is why would evolution select this as an advantageous form of reproduction when assexual reproduction is clearly more effecient and more likely to result in the production of offspring.
@PoBoyX You haven't explained why sexual reproduction is so common. Science's explanation is that sexual reproduction allows advantageous traits that evolved in separate populations to be combined into new individuals, thereby speeding up evolution. Sexual reproduction is often used in genetic algorithms for exactly this reason: you end up with a good design much faster because traits can combine rather than only diverging.
@Xezlec, sexual reproduction exists in as many species as God designed to reproduce that way. Evolutionary assumptions do not prove an evolutionary explanation.
@PoBoyX Think about it though. Things happen to be exactly the way they would be if evolution were true. Christianity's answer is just "God wanted them that way. You haven't proven anything." That doesn't strike you as even a little bit contrived? Why would God happen to choose such an arbitrary mode of reproduction? What a random thing for him to do.
@Xezlec, not so. With some things, the only answer I know is that God made it that way but I don't explain everything that way. Both Creation and Evolution attempt to explain many things and I believe on the whole creation does a much better job of it.
Science cannot dismiss ANYTHING as impossible. All we can do with it is make assumptions based upon observation under particular circumstances. The circumstances could be flawed. There is always room for improvement of our knowledge of nature, which is the beauty of science.
Anybody who does not acknowledge the possibility of the others argument is not maintaining an objective view, either. You have to weigh up the chances. And on the whole, it seems to me that evolution is the best explanation
@ImrahilKing, and I don't think evolution makes any sense at all. It's a belief that requires the increase in information which simply doesn't happen. It's a belief that (at least in the atheist variety) requires a belief in chemical evolution which also does not happen. It's a belief that is based on some huge unproveable and unsupported assumptions (uniformitarianism for example). It's a belief that makes no sense unless one needs to have it in order to deny the Creator.
@RebelGuy95, I think you're splitting very minute hairs and making a big deal out of something that's a complete non-issue. You say you want planets mentioned. Where does it stop? How about comets or meteorites? The ancients would have had no concept of what a planet even is and would just see them as other "stars" or lights in the sky. Why bother making the distinction? The way creation is described is more than sufficient. Adding extra details that have no bearing on their lives is pointless.
It's interesting that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveal the existence of/attempt to explain the origin of any other planet. I sure am glad we have science working in pursuit of real answers. For example, we know why the Jovian Giants are situated where they are, they are beyond the 'snow line' and in the accretion disk, in which all of the planets formed, only light elements like H and He could condense at such low temperatures. Long Live Science
@RebelGuy95, so are you saying that the bible should also teach about relativity? How about mathematics? God gave us curiosity and brains so we can discover certain things on our own. Science is included in that. The truths revealed to us in the bible are things that we could not know any other way other than through divine revelation. You are drawing a false dichotomy between science and divine revelation. Both are needed to be able to understand our world.
@PoBoyX, divine revelation is something admittedly taken by faith...at best justified through analytic thinking. Conversely, the veracity of scientific claims is based solely upon the way in which those claims are reflected by the empirical (synthetic) data, in other words, reality. You and I both know that it would have merely taken an extra sentence to reveal the existence of other planets. Hence, it seems more likely the authors were simply ignorant of their existence, as man indeed was then.
@RebelGuy95, but what would be the point in God telling us about other planets when it's something we can figure out for ourselves? How does know about other planets fit anywhere at all into the plan of redemption? It doesn't.
As for science, answer me this, is there anything in science, any fact or theory of any kind (even the scientific method itself) that is not open to being questioned or that could not theoretically be debunked or completely replaced in the future?
@RebelGuy95, I think I accidentally deleted a comment of yours and of mine. Sorry, didn't mean to do that. Let me try to post what I just wrote and then accidentally deleted...
The bible actually does reveal some scientific facts long before science ever discovered them. For example:
Earth is round: Isaiah 40:22 (Hebrew didn't have a word for sphere at the time)
Earth suspended in space: Job 26:7
The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C. The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; 36:27-28; Amos 9:6.
@RebelGuy95, and with regard to your saying the bible incorrectly calls the moon of source of light, again, you're totally splitting minute hairs and missing the point that even today we use terms such as "moonlight" or "look how bright the moon is". Yes the moon doesn't have it's own light and is merely reflecting the sun's light but to say the bible is incorrect to call it a light for the night sky is more hair splitting because we still see it much the same today.
@PoBoyX, I don't see it as splitting hairs with respect to the planets. I wasn't going to ask about comets or asteroids because they are literally debris, left over from the formation of the solar system. I don't see how ancient man's understanding is relevant. After all, you just said some things in the bible were supposedly ahead of their time and I thought the bible was written for all generations to come? I mean, why not speak to us in our era as well as to people 2,000 years ago...
Ok, so you are into astrophysics and want planets mentioned. Your buddy who is into biology wants DNA and photosynthesis mentioned and your other budy who likes mathematics wants the bible to teach calculus. Where does it end? The bible does speak to everyone in all eras but it's purpose is not to lay down exhaustive scientific knowledge that we are fully capable of discovering ourselves. It give some (like the examples I sited) but it doesn't cater to everyone's pet topic of choice.
@PoBoyX, I would agree that calculus is asking too much. But we are talking about the supposed creation account here. There are 7 other planets plus pluto in our solar system and hundreds of confirmed others orbiting other stars, which is indicative that there are about as many planets as there are stars. Most stars in our 'neighborhood' have planets, they are common. All that I seek is a general mention, seeing as genesis makes a general mention to animanl life and stars, etc.
@RebelGuy95, again, astronomy is your pet topic and the purpose of the bible is to reveal God's redemptive plan in history, not to cater to your pet topic or that of anyone else. The bible tells us some things about science but not everything. On day four "lights in the sky" were created and that's exactly how stars AND planets would have appeared to the ancients. I see no point at all in mentioning that some of those "lights" are actually other planets. God left that for us to discover.
@PoBoyX, the book was already touching on astronomy, I'm not trying to be picky. Further, that would have cleared up a big misunderstanding because ancients did indeed think that 'planets' were actually just awkwardly behaving stars. God could have easily said, 'hey, there are also other worlds,' providing further evidence that this knowledge came from a non-human source. This is a deal breaker for me but I'm not going to bother you anymore with this, so thanks for the discourse.
@RebelGuy95, I don't see why this is such a deal breaker for you. The bible could have cleared up 1000's of ancient misunderstandings (blood circulation for example) that have nothing at all to do with it's purpose just like what you are asking. You are simply picking one little axe to grind and complaining that it doesn't address one very specific issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with why it was written. If planets had been mentioned, I'm sure you would find lacking in some other area.
@RebelGuy95, and, I already did show you several other passages that address other issues of scientific knowledge that were well beyond it's time which DO demonstrate the knowledge came from a non-human source. Your problem is that they don't address your favored topic to the level of scientific precision you want. You are placing unrealistic expectations on the bible that it was never even intended to fulfill.
@PoBoyX, yes, well I understand that there are some discrepancies with at least some of these so-called facts that the bible reveals, such as those regarding wind patterns and the spheroid nature of the earth. I recall another passage, I believe in the book of Isaiah, that speaks of the 'four corners of the earth' too. I am not being unrealistic because planets and stars are the main bodies of the universe, suspiciously only one is mentioned, which coincides with mans' ignorance of planets.
@RebelGuy95, Four corners of the earth is an obvious figure of speach and is not indicative of a flat earth (especially when I've already shown where the bible says the earth is round and suspended in space). We even use language like that today, for example: I would go to the ends of the earth to prove my love. Figures of speach are common today and they were common back then. You are expecting a totally unrealistic level of scientific precision that you don't even expect from modern writers.
@PoBoyX, I am not saying that the bible says the world was flat. Contrary to popular belief, it was a fairly well known fact that the earth was certainly not flat amongst the Greeks and Romans about this very time. As for genesis, I see irreconcilable issues in that foundational book. I am not an Atheist mind you and I wouldn't even say Agnostic. I am more of a Deist of sorts, but I keep my mind open. I just don't see biblical statements connecting with reality, not with astronomy or biology.
@RebelGuy95, I'm not sure what you're referring to with regard to "irreconcilable differences" or with "biblical statments not connecting with reality" but if you're talking about trying to harmonize Genesis with evolution, I totally agree with you. The two cannot be harmonized which is why I believe God on this one and don't believe evolution is representative of reality. If you truly do keep your mind open, you must admit there are a lot of serious flaws in the evolutionary model.
@RebelGuy95, I too see problems in genesis with respect to biology, namely evolution of course. I mean, we have billion dollar industries working almost solely on the basis of evolution; there are no serious flaws with evolution and that's why I am not a christian myself but there are problems with the origin of life as a whole. However, I am curious to know what your problems are with genesis with respect to astronomy other than just not mentioning the planets, or is that it?
@1stLtDavis, I don't see any problems in Genesis but I do see some serious flaws with evolution though with a 500 character limit it's a bit tough to get into them. For starters, evolution depends upon mutations bringing about completely new genetic information in order to move the complexity of life uphill. This does not happen. Not one alleged example of evolution that is given (eg, dog breeds, peppered moth, bacterial resistance) actually is evolution but is actually a downward move in DNA.
@PoBoyX, evolution is not trying to make things more complex, mainly because its not a conscious force, but also because it is simply increasing diversity. New base pairs cannot be created because that would constitute a violation of the conservation laws. The base pairs we see in DNA are all that we know of that are capable of using energy, energy can't be created or destroyed. New information arises out of existing base pairs and this has been documented, as with the Pupfish.
@1stLtDavis, in order to go from single-celled life to humans as evolution claims, completely new genetic information must come about. That is an upward climb for DNA and it simply does not occur. I'm not sure what you're talking about with regard to the pufish but if it's with regard to it's fresh/salt water adaptability, that is also not evolution but yet another example of an organism expressing the genetic variance already existant within it's DNA. It's not an increase in information.
@PoBoyX Ok DNA is a lot like binary for a computer or the alphabet. As you know binary only consists of 1 and 0s and the alphabet of 26 letters. The variety of information that they can represent is infinite and thats because they can be arranged in many different ways. DNA is the same. The number of combinations the bases are capable of is great. So when a species evolves and gains a new trait it doesn't gain new info it still uses the same base pairs just in a different combination.
What an amazing video and its very realistic video. I just
wanted to say that i really enjoyed watching your video. Thank
you very much for providing us such an informative video.
timmy5527 3 weeks ago
There is something about the act of worship, about getting alone with God, of concentrating totally on His awesome holiness and majesty, and merging your spirit with His Spirit and your heart with His heart, that totally rejuvenates and recharges you. There's nothing else that compares to it on this earth! No drug or drink, no other relationships, nothing else will ever get you as "high" as entering His presence and immersing yourself in His glory and love. Worship is totally exhilarating!
Shashi11962 4 months ago
like this if your a christian :)
sassinebernadette 5 months ago
this is the only life that i am guaranteed of because i am living in it, so i will not waste my time waiting for another one just because of our selfish human need for more than what we already have.....cherish the life you have and make the most of it, enjoy it and when the day comes...well its come
avilesnba 6 months ago
@avilesnba, Jesus said in John 10:10 "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." Christianity isn't wasting your life waiting for another one, it is living life abundantly. It is living life how we were created to live. The one who lives only for this life, getting all they can for themself, living to please themself because they think this is the only life they get is the selfish one.
PoBoyX 6 months ago
@PoBoyX Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@5tonyvvvv, Agreed!
PoBoyX 3 months ago
GLORY TO OUR LORD GOD!! YOUR ARE SO WONDERFUL! AND A MAGNIFICENT ARTIST!
ICarnagezI 7 months ago
wELL bRIAN IT MAY HAVE BIN THE ALBUM THAT SAVED MY LIFE.........i MET YOU IN oTTAWA I WAS THE PAIN IN EVERYBODY'S BUTT:)XXXXX BUT THANKS FAITHFUL SON OF gOD mOST HIGH AND BRO AND YOU HAVE ADOPTED KIDS AND A BOY WITH cp amen God is my adoptive Dad and that there is love for the prodigals:)xxx peace love and blessings to all of you and yours~
Tia.
Frostflower1 9 months ago
Hi Tia,
Thanks for your comment. I'm glad that this music has had such a positive and powerful impact on your life. I just wanted to clarify though that I am not Brian Doerksen. I'm just a fan of his music and decided to put together a slide show to one of my favorite songs of his. However, my cousin has played in Brian Doerksen's band for many years. I forwarded your comment on to my cousin and he told me he would send it on to Brian. Take care and God Bless.
Joel
PoBoyX 9 months ago
very nice
dunnbaseball696 10 months ago
@dunnbaseball696, thanks.
PoBoyX 10 months ago
Oh this is just so fine.
AlgisKemezys 11 months ago
NICE........greetings from italy
zioband 1 year ago
@zioband, thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
PoBoyX 11 months ago
I think this article will clear up your misunderstanding
en(.)wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Genotype-phenotype_distinction
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, not sure if I got the right article or not, that link doesn't lead anywhere. At any rate, I know the difference between genotype and phenotype. The thing is, the genotype does contain information that is coded into a language that is interpretted by the organism into it's phenotype. That language (ordering of the codons in the DNA) is not determined simply by chemistry. It's similar to how ordering of letters on a page can't be reduced to the properties of ink and paper.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX It's not interpreted by the organism, it's expressed as the phenotype of the organism. DNA is not a language, it's more of a one-direction cipher.
'That language (ordering of the codons in the DNA) is not determined simply by chemistry'
You mean base pairs, and yes it is. Every interaction in the hydrogen bonding of nucleotides is explicable entirely through chemistry.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, the ordering of the nucleotides themselves is not simply chemistry. If it were, all DNA chains would order themselves in the exact same way under the exact same conditions and there would be no Human Genome project to decode it's language.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX The bonding of nucleotides is not only explicable through chemistry and biochemistry, but it's already explained.
There are different orders of the same base pairs because of replication and the inherent flaws that come with trying to organically reproduce 3 billion sets of bases.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, H2O is chemistry and it's always the same. CO2 is chemistry and again, always the same. Chemistry is ordered and predictable and always the same under the same conditions. DNA is unique for each and every individual (except twins) on the planet. That's not just straight simple chemistry. That's unique information.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Water and carbon dioxide don't replicate with variation.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, would you agree with the statement that DNA is the blueprint for all of life?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX It's not really a blueprint it's more of a cake batter
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, I googled "DNA the blueprint of life" and got 7.2 million results. A quick random flip through the first few pages found a plethora of secular scientists referring to DNA as being like the notes in a musical score, the the letters in a page of text, or the blueprint of a building.
I also googled "DNA the cake batter of life". I got 125,000 results and again I did a random sampling of the first few pages and found nothing at all supporting your above statement.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Disregarding that argumentum ad populum, DNA is more like a cake batter because each individual sample is representative of the whole, a blueprint is not.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, I would think if your view was factual, it should be borne out in at least a few, and more likely a great deal of scientific websites. You like to quote the scientific community when they back up what you say but call it an argumentum ad populum when not a single source of any kind whatsoever can be found to support your view and millions upon millions that say the exact opposite. A video of a raving lunatic on a rant doesn't constitute a reputable source.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX It's just a colloquial term, blueprint sounds better than cake batter, but a blueprint is not a fractal, DNA is.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, if that was what was being meant by the term "blueprint for life", they would go on to explain that instead of going on to use the exact same types of terms I used (eg: notes in a score, letters of text) which you claim is demonstrably wrong. Where is your source for you view? I found millions of evolutionary sites that agree with what I'm saying about DNA and not one that agrees with yours.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Those are analogies for the layperson, 'letters' in DNA are merely representative of nucleotide. You're aware that there are no actual letters in DNA, yes? The fact remains that any portion of DNA can represent the genotype of the organism, while any portion of a blueprint is not an accurate representation of the entire blueprint.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, Yes I am aware that ATCG are not actual physical letters in DNA. So, are you saying that the analogies for the lay person are demonstrably wrong? Are you saying that your analogy is better? If so, why has the scientific community not adopted your analogy in favor is communicating demonstrably wrong concepts?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Not necessarily flat out wrong, just inapt for anything more than a discussion with the general public. I already told you, blue print sounds better and it gets the general message across.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, what about notes in a musical score or letters of text that make up words? Those are also EXTREMELY common descriptors which you have previously told me are demonstrably wrong.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Again, in consideration the general public. You tell a mechanic that gene expression is the genotype expressing phenotype and he's going to be puzzled.
The fact remains there is no external interpretation required for gene expression so yes, it is ultimately an invalid analogy.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, maybe you should tell somebody about this because near as I can tell, 7.2 million websites are conveying the wrong idea about genetics and you have somehow cornered the market on the secret truth that no one else (even university genetics department websites) are saying.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Again, it's not completely wrong it's just not as apt as comparing DNA to another fractal.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, it seems like you've softened from calling it "demonstrably wrong" to "not as apt". I can understand simplication for the sake of the masses but I don't understand wrong simplification especially if a more correct simplification exists. I've got to admit it's a pretty hard sell when one random youtuber is claiming something affirmed by no other website dealing with the topic, even the human genome project site, and the only support you can offer is "ask a genetecist".
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX
'I've got to admit it's a pretty hard sell...'
If you cut off a corner of a blueprint, can that corner be used to determine the plans on the rest of the blueprint?
If you dip out a spoonful of cake batter, can that be used to determine the composition of the rest of the cake batter?
If you take a drop of someones blood, can that be used to determine the composition of every other cell in their body or is it only representative of the area from which you drew it?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, your analogy isn't correct. A piece of a strand DNA is like a piece of a blueprint. If you take a piece of a strand of DNA, you cannot determine the composition of every other cell.
If you want to make your cake batter analogy fit with reality, the cake batter is the organism and DNA is the recipe that contains all the instructions to make the cake batter. If you do that, your analogy will fit and it will also affirm everything I've been saying so far about genetics.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX And if you take a piece of a blueprint, you can't determine the plans of the rest of the blueprint.
No, the cake would be the organism, the DNA is the cake batter. My analogy already fits and everything you've been saying regarding gene expression is demonstrably wrong.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, yes, that's why a piece of a blueprint is analagous to a fragment of DNA, the same way a complete strand of DNA is analagous to a complete blueprint.
Your version of the cake batter analogy makes no sense whatsoever and shows an incredible ignorance of a subject you claim superior knowledge for. How can you claim to know anything about genetics when you pose an analogy such as this? Are you serious or are you just messing with me?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX love it!
butterfly197305 1 year ago
@butterfly197305, Thanks, and yes I am a Christian.
PoBoyX 1 year ago 4
@PoBoyX I cite scientific articles based on actual evidence, not popularity.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, evidence that apparently you are the only one privy to.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX No, me and the entire genetics community. Ask any geneticist which is a better analogy, there are several on youtube that reply regularly, c0nc0rdance, cdk007, donexodus2.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, apparently no one has seen fit to publish any of this information and only a small group of youtubers know about it? Can you direct me to any reputable scientific website that supports your view?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX No, everyone who studies genetics in depth is aware of it and is aware that 'blue print' is just a term used for the public, again.
Once again, DNA is fractal, and once again, a blue print is not. It's that simple fact that makes my analogy more apt.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, yet nobody uses it.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX They're obviously behind.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, yes, again you a lonely youtuber are the only one of the scientific community who knows this hidden truth.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Doubtful
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, exactly. It is doubtful which is why I would put much more credence in the descriptions and analogies of DNA ascribed by reputable scientific websites rather than you who completely contradicts them. I don't believe in their evolutionary conclusions about the origin or DNA, but I do trust their ability to look at DNA in the present and describe it acurately where the interpretations of their observations are not biased by evolutionary assumptions..
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX What you would rather believe is irrelevant, you've already shown your understanding of genetics barely approaches mediocre.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, no, your cake batter analogy demonstrates this about you. That is why you can not find a single reputable (or even disreputable) source for your model of genetics while I can quote literally millions of them to support mine including the most respected genetics researchers on the planet. You are living in a fantasy world sir and you need to do some actual reading on genetics because this is starting to get laughable.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX , I am sorry I meant to put thumbs up! are you a christian??
butterfly197305 1 year ago
@PoBoyX What about heavy water? Isn't that H20 but different? There are many isotope
variations of chemicals in the Periodic Table.
martinsemrok 13 hours ago
@martinsemrok, not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying those are examples of chemical evolution or of molecules with structural properties similar to DNA because they aren't. Elements can combine in various forms that are simply the expression of their atomic properties. The structure of DNA is not simply explained in terms of the properties of the elements it is comprised of but instead follows a definite language that is completely separate from the elements themselves.
PoBoyX 10 hours ago
At least have the decency to accept my last round of comments so it doesn't appear as if I didn't try correcting your misunderstanding one last time.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, on my video, I get the last word. I have not allowed your most recent comments because they are simply repeating your misunderstanding of DNA. DNA is encoded in a language that cells read in order to control processes in the body. That language cannot be reduced to simple chemistry. It is orderly in a way that absolutely demands outside interpretation. Your refusal to accept this established fact of biology is what keeps the discussion from moving forward.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX 'DNA is encoded in a language that cells read'
No, genotype expresses phenotype
'That language cannot be reduced to simple chemistry'
Yes it can, it's made up of chemicals, it must obey the laws of chemistry
'It is orderly in a way that absolutely demands outside interpretation'
No, it's not because it expresses traits though biochemistry, not through external interpretation.
I'm not the one ignorant of biology in this discussion, if I were there would be need reason to censor.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, your above post has little to no basis in reality. Google "the language of DNA" and you'll see that. I'm not censoring you because I'm afraid of anything you say, just that you keep saying the same wrong things over and over again.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, What I can't figure out though is why you care so much. Why do you care what anyone else believes and why do you take so much of your time trying to convince others that they are wrong? If I believed this life is all there was, I'd eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Why wouldn't you just live your life to make yourself happy and forget about correcting what anyone else believes? What difference does any of it make?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX It's not a matter of belief, your posts regarding gene expression are demonstrably wrong.
I care because as far as anything has indicated this IS the only life we get and it's vastly improved by science and technology, not willful ignorance.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, Why should you care about my life? You don't know me and likely never will know me. What difference does it make to you what I believe or don't believe about anything or if my life is improved or not? Why waste your time talking to me, trying to convince me that I'm wrong and that I should adopt your beliefs? Of what significance is it?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Again, it's not a matter of belief, I don't care about your beliefs and I'm not trying to get you to change them. What I do care about is you posting information as factual that is completely inaccurate.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, that doesn't anwer my question. Why do you care about information being accurate or not? If it's wrong, you could simply discard it. How could other people reading it possibly effect you in any way? What difference does it make? Why waste your time on something that has absolutely no effect of any kind whatsoever on you?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX I know it's wrong and I know why it's wrong, others may not. Scientific literacy of the individuals of a society absolutely effects the society as a whole.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, I agree. Acceptance of evolution has had disatrous effects on our society which will eventally lead to its complete downfall. It's happening already.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Actually every country that has a better understanding of real biology than the US has a higher citizen contentment rate. As for acceptance of evolution among first world countries, US is only trailed by Turkey.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, and what makes contentment "good"?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX The definition of it ; feeling or showing satisfaction with one's possessions, status, or situation
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, and why is satisfaction with one's posessions, status, or situation "good"?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX You're kidding right?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, nope. Dead serious. Why is satisfaction with those things "good"?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX satisfaction : fulfillment of a need or want ; a source or means of enjoyment.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, still not an answer to the question. Why is the fulfillment of a need or want or a source of enjoyment "good"?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX It is actually, you're just being antagonistic at this point. Enjoyment is by definition pleasurable.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, I'm not being antagonistic. You just appear to be appealing to some form of universal code of what consititues "good" and "bad". I'm just curious on what authority you are able to make those claims and to demand that I adhere to them. So, I ask, what makes enjoyment or pleasure "good"?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX And I say, again, the definition of enjoyment and pleasure.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, the definition doesn't answer the question. Why is enjoyment "good"? Why is pleasure "good"?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX One of the sub-definitions of 'good' is actually satisfactory.
Good: agreeable, pleasant
Enjoyment : to take pleasure or satisfaction in
I don't see what's so hard to understand.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, so you take your ethics and morality from the dictionary? The dictionary is your source of authority in determining what is good and bad?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX You could've been less vague and saved some time by just saying moral or immoral.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, whatever, I guess putting the words "good" and "bad" weren't enough of a clue?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
check out this link - worth doing more research into cell biology icr.org/article/5703
pceBrge 1 year ago
@pceBrge, thanks for the links. I'll check 'em out.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
I've gotta do a somethingy on this in about 2 weeks!!!
Djraj10 1 year ago
Does anyone know where solid hard-core proof exists for the 'ancestral receptor gene', seems to me, this was used to prove the 'just-so' simple to complex mechansim supporting evolution.
pceBrge 1 year ago
@pceBrge, I don't know anything about the ancestral receptor gene but here's an article that might be adressing what you're talking about: answersingenesis . org/articles/aid/v2/n1/ancient-protein-resurrected.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
I just found this video, loved it.
pceBrge 1 year ago
@pceBrge, thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
What I'd like to know is what causes life to evolve? I mean in order for life to survive evolution teaches life has to adapt, but what intelligent force brings about that change? If left to chance then life would have died out long ago!
devonbiker 1 year ago
@devonbiker, evolutionists would say that no intelligence is required, that mutation combined with natural selection and vast amounts of time can get the job done. It can't though. If Darwin had known as much about mutations as we do today, he would have never put it forth as the driving force behind his theory because they just cannot do the job. Darwin also believed that environmental factors themselves could produce hereditary traits which is know now to be totally false.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Exactly, evolution is so far fetched it's rediculas! You have to have more faith in evolution than the God of the bible! Science for some is a religion in itself, so whatever science says [to some] must be the truth!!!
devonbiker 1 year ago
@devonbiker No, evolution requires no faith, only a minor understanding of biology.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, not so. Evolution does require a signficant amount of faith. For example, you have faith that the present gives you the correct keys to interpretting the past. That claim is not provable and there's no way to tell if it is even reasonable because all we have are observations made in the present.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX You don't have to have faith in historical science, it's a matter of predictive power and testable mechanisms. Science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with the most supported falsifiable explanation, you're just trying to project the faith of creationism onto evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, sure we have faith in historical science. You have faith that your methodology is correct. When it comes to a historical event for which there are no witnesses, you have no way of verifying if your conclusions are correct or not because you have no way of proving if conclusions made on the basis of observations in the present are actually representative of actual events in the past. Which testable mechanisms are you referring too? Evolution also is not falsifiable.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Darwin didn't propose acquired traits, that was LeMarck.
Mutations are sufficient for explaining the addition of new genes, the addition of novel function and net increase in genetic material. Darwin would be more convinced he was correct if he could see modern genetics.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, again not so. Mutations have never ever been observed to create new genes or even increase information in existing ones. Mutations are a downward mechanism always result in a net loss. Never have they been shown to move an organism onward and upward and I challenge you to find even one example that demonstrates your claim to be so. No evolutionist I've challenged yet has been able to do so.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX 'Mutations have never ever been observed to create new genes or even increase information in existing ones'
'I challenge you to find even one example that demonstrates your claim to be so'
Thats easy enough; /watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk
^New gene, new trait, net gain of genetic material.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, the dude's a real idiot and hard to watch but despite his ignorant demeanor, he brings up some good points that I'll need to delve into further. I suspect the nylonase case might be similar to the citrate one which has also been touted as evolution in action but isn't.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Not really, he's just sarcastic to begin with. I'm not sure what definition of 'evolution' you've learned from Kent Hovind or Duane Gish, but both Nylonase and Cit+ E. Coli are evolution in action because evolution is the change in heritable traits in populations.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, I'd heard the names before but had to Google Hovind and Gish to refresh my memory of who they are. Unless you have a Ph.D though, I'm guessing Gish has a lot more science education than you do. Anyway, with Cit+E. coli, the bacteria already had the ability in low oxygen levels. The mutation simply removed the regulating ability. For Nylonase, the ability likely already existed as well and was simply parasited off other bacteria. Neither example is evolution.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Gish thought that life not appearing in peanut butter was a valid argument against abiogenesis.
One of the defining characteristics of E. Coli was the inability to metabolize citrate, Lenskis E. Coli developed it twice (only after a certain generation)
As for the nylonase, the mutation occurred again in Ohnos lab, it was definitively shown to be a frameshift of a duplicate gene.
Both examples are evolution because evolution is the change in heritable traits in populations.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation,abiogenesis is another debate altogether. No, neither of your examples is evolution. Lensky's E.Coli could metabolize citrate in low oxygen conditions from the beginning. His mutation removed that regulatory ability. It created no new ability at all. Nylonase is similar and did not come about as the result of new genetic information being formed. Look up frameshift mutation or nylonase on wikipedia. Even that site denies that nylonase came about through frameshift.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX It goes to his understanding of organic chemistry/biology.
His cit+ E. Coli is able to metabolize citrate under oxic conditions, whereas wild type E. Coli cannot, that's a new ability.
Nylonase is not similar, as pointed out before, it was shown definitively to be the result of a frameshift of a duplicate gene, the article by Negoro cited on the wiki page is referring to the strain originally found in the disposal pond, there were also strains bred in Ohno's lab.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, The Cit+ E. Coli were already able to do it under low oxygen levels. The mutation removed the ability to regulate. It's a new ability in the same way that nailing your gas pedal to the floor so you can't regulate your engine's speed is a new ability. Nylonase has resulted from reduced enzyme specification that allows it to hydrolyze a wider range of oligamers including nylon oligamers. It's a new capability that only comes from the loss of specificity.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Yes but it wasn't able to under aerobic conditions, that means it's a new trait. No, it's a new trait in the same way that humans being able to absorb oxygen out of water would be a new trait.
That was just one strain of nylonase, and evolution is not directional.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, But in each case, the "new" trait was caused by the degeneration of something that already existed in the organism, not the actual development of something new. What you are calling evolution is actually degeneration that happens to have a beneficial effect. This process is as much a part of the creation model and is the exact opposite of the "onward and upward" progession that is absolutely necessary to the evolutionary model.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Not in the case of the lab bred nylonase, it was directly observed to be the result of a frameshift of a duplicate gene. Even the cit+ E. Coli technically developed a new trait because evolution is a tree not a ladder.
There is no empirical creation model because creationism offers no testable mechanisms and no falsifiable hypotheses or predictions, so it's inherently unscientific.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, all a frameshift is, is an insertion of a couple of random nucleotides that shoves everything else down the same number of positions. It either results in a degeneration as in the case of nylonase or has no effect.
Creationism believes in a fallen world where all of life is in a process of degeneration. This is consistent with what we see in nature because even your two best examples of "evolution" are in reality, degeneration.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX 'It either results in a degeneration as in the case of nylonase or has no effect.'
It's not a degeneration, it increased complexity, added an entirely new gene and created a completely novel function.
'Creationism believes in a fallen world where all of life is in a process of degeneration'
No, you've just asserted that a new gene expressing a new trait is 'degeneration'
If a brand new gene and a brand new trait is degeneration, what *wouldn't' be degeneration?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, nope. The mutation caused a loss of sprecificity in an already existent enzyme. It was a loss of complexity that caused the ability, not an increase. It wasn't a new gene. It was a modification of an existing one. Try doing a frameshift mutation with a page of text in a book and see if your result is a "new page" of text. Like with the gene, all you've produced is gibberish that degrades the gene. This degradation just happened to have a benefit under certain conditions.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX 'The mutation caused a loss of sprecificity in an already existent enzyme.'
Possibly in the strain found in the waste pond, but even that is indeterminate. You're still ignoring the fact that the strain Ohno bred in his lab was directly observed to be a frameshift of a duplicate gene. It's a new gene, prior to the frameshift new start and stop codons were inserted.
The analogy to the book is invalid, genes express traits biochemically with no necessity for exterior translation.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, Where is the trait expressed? The gene must make sense to and be interpretted by the host organism or it will just be a pile of gibberish. A frameshift doesn't produce new information. It just adds a few extra nucleotides and then shifts everything else down that number of positions, usually turning it into garbage that has no effect or causes a degeneration of something just like every other type of mutation.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX 'Where is the trait expressed?'
In the genotype
'The gene must make sense to and be interpretted by the host organism or it will just be a pile of gibberish.'
No, genetic expression is not dependent on any sort of non local interpretation
'A frameshift doesn't produce new information'
Yes it does, information as defined by information theory mathematics is at its base 'distinguishing characteristics'
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, we're just starting to repeat ourselves here but you are absolutely wrong. DNA has a very specific language that follows rules of syntax not unlike a human language. That language is interpretted by the host organism as blueprints to build and reproduce everything that comprises it, even the DNA itself.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX 'usually turning it into garbage that has no effect or causes a degeneration of something just like every other type of mutation.'
That may be true, but the fact remains this frameshift produced a novel function, falsifying the notion of 'no new information'
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, again, this novel function was caused by a degeneration, a losing of specificity. It's not unlike a key lock that starts off only able to be opened one specific key. As it wears over the years, it becomes less and less specified and eventually any key will open the lock. That's what happened with the nylon "eating" enzyme. It had been very specific but the mutation caused a degeneration that made it lose specificity. Yes, it was beneficial but it was a degeneration.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX 'This degradation just happened to have a benefit under certain conditions.'
Again, it's not a degradation because it was part of a repetitious gene sequence. A more apt analogy would be opening a .pdf, copying and pasting the text into a new file, then editing it in a way that has a new (even completely different) but still relevant meaning.
Even that analogy is not completely valid because it still requires outside translation but as far as the role of duplication it fits better.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, no, it's more like copying a page, turning that page into gibberish and then pasting that page of garbage back into the original document. DNA does require outside translation by the host organism. Random nucleotides are not new information any more than random characters in a page of text are new information. Playing musical chairs with nucleotides by shifting them all down a position or two may technically be "new DNA" but it doesn't generate useful new information.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX No, it's more like my analogy, because gene expression still isn't any more dependent on a persons interpretation of the base pairs now than it was 5 minutes ago.
'DNA does require outside translation by the host organism.'
No it doesn't, transcription and expression are fully genotypical processes
'may technically be "new DNA" but it doesn't generate useful new information.'
It did in this case.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, I'm not saying it's dependent upon a person's interpretation of the base pairs. It's dependent upon how the host organism is able to interpret the base pairs and they must follow highly organized rules of syntax that transcend it's chemistry. This is well established fact. At any rate, this is getting too repetitious. Unless you can bring something new to the discussion, it will end here.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
What an intelligent and marvelous video !!!
Fantastic !
Pretty as beautiful as the video made by andiesisle.c o m/creation/magnificent.h t m l
Jive51 1 year ago
@Jive51, thank you so much. Glad you enjoyed it.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
it was a pigs tooth that evelution based their evedence on a pigs tooth.pretty reliable eh.a pigs tooth made a monkey out all of us.my ancestor is not some ape in a forest somewhere
jerry18291 1 year ago
@jerry18291, the pig's tooth was the evidence used to reconstruct "piltdown man" which even evolutionists now admit was a hoax and now use as evidence for the "self-correcting" ability of science. The question though isn't if science corrects itself, but how many of the things science currently says are true are actually errors and also how we know the "corrections" aren't further errors. Without exhaustive knowledge, there's no way to know any of that.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
lovely
MyQuakers 1 year ago
I find it strange how society believes in a flawed human theory, that is less than 250 years old! Don't you? :)
hawklord67 1 year ago
@hawklord67, I don't find it strange that atheists/secularists believe it because it gives them a way to deny God while maintaining intellectual credibility, something they couldn't do before Darwin. What I don't understand is Christians believing it. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX its actually less than 162 years old Darwin's origin of species was published in November of 1859. bunch of craziness.
JLC71775 1 year ago
@JLC71775 thanks for the clarification.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Here's a question I keep wanting to ask a creationist: how do you explain the fact that so many life forms reproduce sexually? What is the reason for that?
Xezlec 1 year ago
@Xezlec, not sure I understand why exactly you're asking this question. It's a form of reproduction that God designed. My question is why would evolution select this as an advantageous form of reproduction when assexual reproduction is clearly more effecient and more likely to result in the production of offspring.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX You haven't explained why sexual reproduction is so common. Science's explanation is that sexual reproduction allows advantageous traits that evolved in separate populations to be combined into new individuals, thereby speeding up evolution. Sexual reproduction is often used in genetic algorithms for exactly this reason: you end up with a good design much faster because traits can combine rather than only diverging.
Xezlec 1 year ago
@Xezlec, sexual reproduction exists in as many species as God designed to reproduce that way. Evolutionary assumptions do not prove an evolutionary explanation.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Think about it though. Things happen to be exactly the way they would be if evolution were true. Christianity's answer is just "God wanted them that way. You haven't proven anything." That doesn't strike you as even a little bit contrived? Why would God happen to choose such an arbitrary mode of reproduction? What a random thing for him to do.
Xezlec 1 year ago
@Xezlec, not so. With some things, the only answer I know is that God made it that way but I don't explain everything that way. Both Creation and Evolution attempt to explain many things and I believe on the whole creation does a much better job of it.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
Science cannot dismiss ANYTHING as impossible. All we can do with it is make assumptions based upon observation under particular circumstances. The circumstances could be flawed. There is always room for improvement of our knowledge of nature, which is the beauty of science.
Anybody who does not acknowledge the possibility of the others argument is not maintaining an objective view, either. You have to weigh up the chances. And on the whole, it seems to me that evolution is the best explanation
ImrahilKing 1 year ago
@ImrahilKing, and I don't think evolution makes any sense at all. It's a belief that requires the increase in information which simply doesn't happen. It's a belief that (at least in the atheist variety) requires a belief in chemical evolution which also does not happen. It's a belief that is based on some huge unproveable and unsupported assumptions (uniformitarianism for example). It's a belief that makes no sense unless one needs to have it in order to deny the Creator.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
\o/ - hallelujahhhhhhhh! - our God reigns for HE alone is Creator of all that is seen and unseen. He is worthy of all praise and worship!!
Shinkansen91 1 year ago
Beautiful Song. I see God in everything. Everywhere I go. God is amazing.
RexRecordingStudio 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, I think you're splitting very minute hairs and making a big deal out of something that's a complete non-issue. You say you want planets mentioned. Where does it stop? How about comets or meteorites? The ancients would have had no concept of what a planet even is and would just see them as other "stars" or lights in the sky. Why bother making the distinction? The way creation is described is more than sufficient. Adding extra details that have no bearing on their lives is pointless.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
It's interesting that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveal the existence of/attempt to explain the origin of any other planet. I sure am glad we have science working in pursuit of real answers. For example, we know why the Jovian Giants are situated where they are, they are beyond the 'snow line' and in the accretion disk, in which all of the planets formed, only light elements like H and He could condense at such low temperatures. Long Live Science
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, so are you saying that the bible should also teach about relativity? How about mathematics? God gave us curiosity and brains so we can discover certain things on our own. Science is included in that. The truths revealed to us in the bible are things that we could not know any other way other than through divine revelation. You are drawing a false dichotomy between science and divine revelation. Both are needed to be able to understand our world.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX, divine revelation is something admittedly taken by faith...at best justified through analytic thinking. Conversely, the veracity of scientific claims is based solely upon the way in which those claims are reflected by the empirical (synthetic) data, in other words, reality. You and I both know that it would have merely taken an extra sentence to reveal the existence of other planets. Hence, it seems more likely the authors were simply ignorant of their existence, as man indeed was then.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, but what would be the point in God telling us about other planets when it's something we can figure out for ourselves? How does know about other planets fit anywhere at all into the plan of redemption? It doesn't.
As for science, answer me this, is there anything in science, any fact or theory of any kind (even the scientific method itself) that is not open to being questioned or that could not theoretically be debunked or completely replaced in the future?
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, I think I accidentally deleted a comment of yours and of mine. Sorry, didn't mean to do that. Let me try to post what I just wrote and then accidentally deleted...
PoBoyX 1 year ago
The bible actually does reveal some scientific facts long before science ever discovered them. For example:
Earth is round: Isaiah 40:22 (Hebrew didn't have a word for sphere at the time)
Earth suspended in space: Job 26:7
The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C. The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; 36:27-28; Amos 9:6.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, and with regard to your saying the bible incorrectly calls the moon of source of light, again, you're totally splitting minute hairs and missing the point that even today we use terms such as "moonlight" or "look how bright the moon is". Yes the moon doesn't have it's own light and is merely reflecting the sun's light but to say the bible is incorrect to call it a light for the night sky is more hair splitting because we still see it much the same today.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX, I don't see it as splitting hairs with respect to the planets. I wasn't going to ask about comets or asteroids because they are literally debris, left over from the formation of the solar system. I don't see how ancient man's understanding is relevant. After all, you just said some things in the bible were supposedly ahead of their time and I thought the bible was written for all generations to come? I mean, why not speak to us in our era as well as to people 2,000 years ago...
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
Ok, so you are into astrophysics and want planets mentioned. Your buddy who is into biology wants DNA and photosynthesis mentioned and your other budy who likes mathematics wants the bible to teach calculus. Where does it end? The bible does speak to everyone in all eras but it's purpose is not to lay down exhaustive scientific knowledge that we are fully capable of discovering ourselves. It give some (like the examples I sited) but it doesn't cater to everyone's pet topic of choice.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX, I would agree that calculus is asking too much. But we are talking about the supposed creation account here. There are 7 other planets plus pluto in our solar system and hundreds of confirmed others orbiting other stars, which is indicative that there are about as many planets as there are stars. Most stars in our 'neighborhood' have planets, they are common. All that I seek is a general mention, seeing as genesis makes a general mention to animanl life and stars, etc.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, again, astronomy is your pet topic and the purpose of the bible is to reveal God's redemptive plan in history, not to cater to your pet topic or that of anyone else. The bible tells us some things about science but not everything. On day four "lights in the sky" were created and that's exactly how stars AND planets would have appeared to the ancients. I see no point at all in mentioning that some of those "lights" are actually other planets. God left that for us to discover.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX, the book was already touching on astronomy, I'm not trying to be picky. Further, that would have cleared up a big misunderstanding because ancients did indeed think that 'planets' were actually just awkwardly behaving stars. God could have easily said, 'hey, there are also other worlds,' providing further evidence that this knowledge came from a non-human source. This is a deal breaker for me but I'm not going to bother you anymore with this, so thanks for the discourse.
Best Regards
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, I don't see why this is such a deal breaker for you. The bible could have cleared up 1000's of ancient misunderstandings (blood circulation for example) that have nothing at all to do with it's purpose just like what you are asking. You are simply picking one little axe to grind and complaining that it doesn't address one very specific issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with why it was written. If planets had been mentioned, I'm sure you would find lacking in some other area.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, and, I already did show you several other passages that address other issues of scientific knowledge that were well beyond it's time which DO demonstrate the knowledge came from a non-human source. Your problem is that they don't address your favored topic to the level of scientific precision you want. You are placing unrealistic expectations on the bible that it was never even intended to fulfill.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX, yes, well I understand that there are some discrepancies with at least some of these so-called facts that the bible reveals, such as those regarding wind patterns and the spheroid nature of the earth. I recall another passage, I believe in the book of Isaiah, that speaks of the 'four corners of the earth' too. I am not being unrealistic because planets and stars are the main bodies of the universe, suspiciously only one is mentioned, which coincides with mans' ignorance of planets.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, Four corners of the earth is an obvious figure of speach and is not indicative of a flat earth (especially when I've already shown where the bible says the earth is round and suspended in space). We even use language like that today, for example: I would go to the ends of the earth to prove my love. Figures of speach are common today and they were common back then. You are expecting a totally unrealistic level of scientific precision that you don't even expect from modern writers.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX, I am not saying that the bible says the world was flat. Contrary to popular belief, it was a fairly well known fact that the earth was certainly not flat amongst the Greeks and Romans about this very time. As for genesis, I see irreconcilable issues in that foundational book. I am not an Atheist mind you and I wouldn't even say Agnostic. I am more of a Deist of sorts, but I keep my mind open. I just don't see biblical statements connecting with reality, not with astronomy or biology.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, I'm not sure what you're referring to with regard to "irreconcilable differences" or with "biblical statments not connecting with reality" but if you're talking about trying to harmonize Genesis with evolution, I totally agree with you. The two cannot be harmonized which is why I believe God on this one and don't believe evolution is representative of reality. If you truly do keep your mind open, you must admit there are a lot of serious flaws in the evolutionary model.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95, I too see problems in genesis with respect to biology, namely evolution of course. I mean, we have billion dollar industries working almost solely on the basis of evolution; there are no serious flaws with evolution and that's why I am not a christian myself but there are problems with the origin of life as a whole. However, I am curious to know what your problems are with genesis with respect to astronomy other than just not mentioning the planets, or is that it?
1stLtDavis 1 year ago
@1stLtDavis, I don't see any problems in Genesis but I do see some serious flaws with evolution though with a 500 character limit it's a bit tough to get into them. For starters, evolution depends upon mutations bringing about completely new genetic information in order to move the complexity of life uphill. This does not happen. Not one alleged example of evolution that is given (eg, dog breeds, peppered moth, bacterial resistance) actually is evolution but is actually a downward move in DNA.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX, evolution is not trying to make things more complex, mainly because its not a conscious force, but also because it is simply increasing diversity. New base pairs cannot be created because that would constitute a violation of the conservation laws. The base pairs we see in DNA are all that we know of that are capable of using energy, energy can't be created or destroyed. New information arises out of existing base pairs and this has been documented, as with the Pupfish.
1stLtDavis 1 year ago
@1stLtDavis, in order to go from single-celled life to humans as evolution claims, completely new genetic information must come about. That is an upward climb for DNA and it simply does not occur. I'm not sure what you're talking about with regard to the pufish but if it's with regard to it's fresh/salt water adaptability, that is also not evolution but yet another example of an organism expressing the genetic variance already existant within it's DNA. It's not an increase in information.
PoBoyX 1 year ago
@PoBoyX Ok DNA is a lot like binary for a computer or the alphabet. As you know binary only consists of 1 and 0s and the alphabet of 26 letters. The variety of information that they can represent is infinite and thats because they can be arranged in many different ways. DNA is the same. The number of combinations the bases are capable of is great. So when a species evolves and gains a new trait it doesn't gain new info it still uses the same base pairs just in a different combination.
CrazyC1456 1 year ago