You're citing the bible to prove the bible?
Didn't we establish that the bible isn't peer reviewed?
Or are you now a polytheist?
New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
- Thread starter Anita Meyer
- Start date
You're citing the bible to prove the bible?
Didn't we establish that the bible isn't peer reviewed?
Or are you now a polytheist?
sifreak21, is that where you get your information, from the Discovery channel?
Another deceptive attempt by evolutinist termed “reversing evolution“. And this is where a few genetic experiments have been done on chicks where “atavistic features” (genetic reappearances) have been turned back on during development, forming things such as teeth (which no modern bird has, but reptilian bird ancestors did) including long bony tails with scales (which no modern bird has either). This is very deceptive!
Firstly, many animals and insects alive today have atavistic features… some of the commonly known ones are dew claws in dogs, wings in earwigs which are normally wingless, extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders, and even various atavisms in humans including Siamese twins, cleft palates, harelips and human tail spine in which many evolutionists view this appendage as tail-like enough to be interpreted as evidence of man’s primitive evolutionary ancestry from ape/monkey. But let me reassure you that these types of things are not any sort of primitive reclusive genes that suggest evolution of any type. As for the atavistic characterizes of the chicks, these are things that “natural selection” originally selected as advantages at one time and later choose to disregard them when they became disadvantaged. If this were the case that animals have within them the genes to regress into their primitive forms, why than doesn’t a bird have the DNA that changes them back into a lizard, snake or a rodent type creature? (where are those genes?) Again, there is no new information here of any kind going on, nor can it truly be categorized as any old information either.
Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html
Ever heard of an axolotl? Rather than metamorphising into an adult salamander, this species remains aquatic with gills and a tail.
The thing is, you can give it a hormone and turn it artificially into an adult form! This never happens in nature. So, the axolotl evolved through neoteny, it advanced (adapted) by retreating to it's immature form. But it still retains the genes for turning into an adult given the application of a hormone. Why would God create an organism that never used it's adult genetic code and yet retained it still?
The thing is, you can give it a hormone and turn it artificially into an adult form! This never happens in nature. So, the axolotl evolved through neoteny, it advanced (adapted) by retreating to it's immature form. But it still retains the genes for turning into an adult given the application of a hormone. Why would God create an organism that never used it's adult genetic code and yet retained it still?
sifreak21, is that where you get your information, from the Discovery channel?
Another deceptive attempt by evolutinist termed “reversing evolution“. And this is where a few genetic experiments have been done on chicks where “atavistic features” (genetic reappearances) have been turned back on during development, forming things such as teeth (which no modern bird has, but reptilian bird ancestors did) including long bony tails with scales (which no modern bird has either). This is very deceptive!
Firstly, many animals and insects alive today have atavistic features… some of the commonly known ones are dew claws in dogs, wings in earwigs which are normally wingless, extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders, and even various atavisms in humans including Siamese twins, cleft palates, harelips and human tail spine in which many evolutionists view this appendage as tail-like enough to be interpreted as evidence of man’s primitive evolutionary ancestry from ape/monkey. But let me reassure you that these types of things are not any sort of primitive reclusive genes that suggest evolution of any type. As for the atavistic characterizes of the chicks, these are things that “natural selection” originally selected as advantages at one time and later choose to disregard them when they became disadvantaged. If this were the case that animals have within them the genes to regress into their primitive forms, why than doesn’t a bird have the DNA that changes them back into a lizard, snake or a rodent type creature? (where are those genes?) Again, there is no new information here of any kind going on, nor can it truly be categorized as any old information either.
Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html
no its not i just watch it becuas it has some good information on it.. not all but even if thats where i got all my information at its 10000% better than the bible
again anita you need to reread my post they have proven it and because of evolution no birds dont have long tails with scales on them. they dont know but they did so if we turn them on for them the features will change, hence more information that points twards evolution..
and again your ignoreing my question lets hear the list.. im not going to let this go i will keep asking until i get an answer so you might as well answer sooner than later
here anita ill quote this for you.. im looking for an answer you dodged it 1 time so far lets see how high we can get the counter shall we?
Anita: I notice you haven't said anything definitive about DNA information. What is DNA information and why doesn't it change? What would qualify as new information, if DNA doesn't change but every species always has the same genes, as you say.
Is the information the pairing of nucleotides? Or is it when DNA is copied, or translated into RNA? Is DNA an extremely stable kind of information store, or is it stable because of all the enzymes that repair it constantly?
And nothing says "high school dropout" louder than substituting an object "where", where there should be a verb "were", etc. If you left mistakes like that in your book, the world is safer.
Is the information the pairing of nucleotides? Or is it when DNA is copied, or translated into RNA? Is DNA an extremely stable kind of information store, or is it stable because of all the enzymes that repair it constantly?
And nothing says "high school dropout" louder than substituting an object "where", where there should be a verb "were", etc. If you left mistakes like that in your book, the world is safer.
Spidergoat, you ask why would G-d create an organism that never used its adult genetic code and yet retained it still? Well its hard to say for sure, but that could have been decided by “natural selection”. But remember what I said, "natural selection" is not evolution. It does not change one creator into another since we're still dealing with the same DNA here. Its also possible that the axolotl had a loss of loss of DNA information.
Here is something else to think about… Did you know that if a poisonous snake is put in a hyperbaric chamber it poison (venom) can become nonpoisonous. This was also discovered with other poisonous insects and spiders.
Some speculate that the early atmosphere of the Earth was similar to a hyperbaric chamber. The Bible even gives us some clues about this when it talks about the “firmament”. This being the case such animals may not have been poisonous (well if you know your Bible) before the fall of Adam and Eve.
But natural selection IS evolution. That's what weeds out random junk mutations and preserves genuine advancements to the genetic code. What's your definition of a creature? There is a provisional scientific one, but the exceptions prove that this is just a human invention. There are no real barriers between species, they are only separated by reproductive, behavioral, or physical barriers. Even if you hate Dawkins, you should at least read him in order to debate intelligently.
Noodler, I’ll give you your answer! And this goes for you too Spidergoat since you hold onto the premise that natural selection is accountable for changing one creature into another over a long duration of time.
Did you know that they have traced all humans, from DNA (mitochondrial DNA), to one woman's chromosomes? Look it up, it's true, which is just another nail in the coffin of evolutionism.
But I’m going to end this conversation because its getting way out of hand!
DNA is proof that all living things were created by an “Intelligent Being”. It has been found to be so complex that is could not have come about by a random accident as Darwin’s or Dawkins theory suggests.
Every living thing on earth has it’s own DNA. DNA contains a language that uses only six basic components. Four chemical bases, a phosphate, and a sugar. It has this same combination of components in every living thing on earth. Just the existence of the language alone proves the hand of a very high intelligence. This language then maps out the information required to make almost a million types of animals and nearly a half million species of plants. Using just six simple components it is more powerful than the most high-powered computer made today. It is even known that a single cell bacteria (a living organism) has a DNA sequence so complex that it not only could not possibly be produced by accident or by modern science.
What Dawkins doesn’t tell you is that the odds of a random occurrence of even one protein strand of moderate length are dramatically less than one chance in 10 to the 150th power. 10 trillion is 10 to the 14th power. 10 to the 150th power is unimaginable!!! It’s hard to grasp how long these odds are - ten followed by 150 zeros. Even if the earth is 4.5 billion years old that is not long enough for something with that kind of odds to occur. In other words it is impossible! This should have ended the argument of the Evolutionist against Creationist ages ago. It should be obvious that all the living things on the earth were created by an “Intelligent Being” with a level of intelligence much, higher than human intelligence. This information comes from New Zealand geneticist Michael Denton.
Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but a mitochondrial eve is exactly what one would expect. One creature doesn't change into another. Rather, successive generations veer farther apart from their ancestors, and can split off into separate branches. There is nothing that holds the genetic code to any one body plan. The only limitation is on practicality, and each step in a particular direction must provide some advantage. At some point in human history, the population of our species was very small, and only the ancestors of one woman survived. Other homonid species could have survived in parallel, but they died off eventually.
You brag about how many millions of species our building blocks can create, but in fact, it is both infinite and one at the same time. We all descended from a single cell. It might have had brothers and sisters, but their descendants did not happen to survive.
What Dawkins tells us about proteins, is that they did not appear suddenly, fully formed, which would indeed be unlikely. Rather, there must have been a series of steps, each of them small, and each conferring some advantage to the creature. Evolution provides great explanatory power, it explains how gradual improvements can build up to extreme complexity. It only builds on previous complexity. Going backwards in time, we can see that it started simply, in the realm of chemistry. These proteins exist because they work, they are practical solutions to the problem of building a body. The evolutionary process is so effective, that computer programmers can make use of it to evolve programs much more effective at certain tasks than human designers could have imagined.
Your lack of knowledge concerning the full scope of evolution is unfortunately typical. Why don't you just read The Blind Watchman, or Climbing Mount Improbable? Are they so challenging to your worldview that you must avoid them? I've read the Bible (some of it), so what's the problem?
You brag about how many millions of species our building blocks can create, but in fact, it is both infinite and one at the same time. We all descended from a single cell. It might have had brothers and sisters, but their descendants did not happen to survive.
What Dawkins tells us about proteins, is that they did not appear suddenly, fully formed, which would indeed be unlikely. Rather, there must have been a series of steps, each of them small, and each conferring some advantage to the creature. Evolution provides great explanatory power, it explains how gradual improvements can build up to extreme complexity. It only builds on previous complexity. Going backwards in time, we can see that it started simply, in the realm of chemistry. These proteins exist because they work, they are practical solutions to the problem of building a body. The evolutionary process is so effective, that computer programmers can make use of it to evolve programs much more effective at certain tasks than human designers could have imagined.
Your lack of knowledge concerning the full scope of evolution is unfortunately typical. Why don't you just read The Blind Watchman, or Climbing Mount Improbable? Are they so challenging to your worldview that you must avoid them? I've read the Bible (some of it), so what's the problem?
They have traced the mitochondrial chain, yes, but not the actual human genome, to an ancestral Eve (who is NOT an individual, but probably a small cluster of females, sisters or otherwise closely related).Anita Meyer said:
Do you know that the entire span of modern humans is supposed to be traceable to a small group that survived major climate changes, somewhere in East Africa? Do you know what these humans were like, or what their physical appearance was?
So, is that figure some kind of estimate of the information content of DNA, or what exactly?
If it is that unlikely then DNA must contain a lot more information than just amino acid sequences you might think, since, despite the odds there are protein strands, with moderate and more than moderate lengths. Protein folding perhaps, is the extra information...
The problem with this theory Spidergoat is what I had said earlier… there is no way for science to test “genetic change” in fossils. So we can never truly have any positive proof or way of relating fossil organisms to one another or to modern ones genetically. Thus there is NO PROOF of evolution. Sure one can surmise (guesswork and suspicion) all they want about a theory, but that’s all that it is a theory and nothing more. Its route is a dead-end alley.
Believing in “evolution” (like religion) takes a step of “faith”. One can even say that being a atheist (believing in no G-d) is a religion in itself too - since it is based on “faith” as well.
Even having “morals” is based on “faith”. One simply cannot take-out the G-d equation.
Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html
No it isn't. It's called "balance of probabilities".
What?
No it isn't.
There's no need for god in the first place.
Creationist Bloopers, take #n
Oops.
p.s. I typed "fossil DNA" into google's search bar, and got over 2 million hits.
Researched this much?Anita... said:
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_DNA#Ancient_DNA_studies
--http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=DNATestingOnFossils
Oops.
p.s. I typed "fossil DNA" into google's search bar, and got over 2 million hits.
Noodler et al
Trying to make a fundamentalist religious fanatic like Anita represent evolution in an honest or factual way is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
You get nowhere and it upsets the pig
Trying to make a fundamentalist religious fanatic like Anita represent evolution in an honest or factual way is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
You get nowhere and it upsets the pig
Last edited:
as others have stated you keep ignoring posts, I will still quote it for you so you dont have to look very fall
counter is up to 2 now, i think its funny that you thought i was joking..:bawl: i will keep posting this until you answer
you yourself said:
"After all He did design you and the world around you and there are many evidences for this"
im calling you out straight up.. I want to know what evidences there are:shrug:
Anita,
Could you please stop posting your URL and email address at the end of each of your posts. You've posted this on your opening post, it doesn't need to be retained with every post individually, if you continue to do so then it would appear that this "debate/discussion" isn't designed to go anywhere and it's actual reason for being here is just the exploitation of sciforums search engine ranks to get publicity.
[edit] This is again made suspect by a user only posting on their thread, okay there is one other thread where a post has been made to date. I'd suggest perhaps involving yourself in other forums/threads without the self-promotive footer to each post, as this as an exercise would allow you to be seen as a real human with realworld opinions than just a self-promotionist.[/edit]
I'll thank you in advance for your consideration on posting method change and a more engrossing interaction with the forum, rather than just your own "bubble" (which is not meant offensively)
Incidentally, people who write "thesis" books should really undergo a peer review outside of friends and family before looking at publication, otherwise the book itself can be undermined after it's gone to press. (best way to work kinks out)
Could you please stop posting your URL and email address at the end of each of your posts. You've posted this on your opening post, it doesn't need to be retained with every post individually, if you continue to do so then it would appear that this "debate/discussion" isn't designed to go anywhere and it's actual reason for being here is just the exploitation of sciforums search engine ranks to get publicity.
[edit] This is again made suspect by a user only posting on their thread, okay there is one other thread where a post has been made to date. I'd suggest perhaps involving yourself in other forums/threads without the self-promotive footer to each post, as this as an exercise would allow you to be seen as a real human with realworld opinions than just a self-promotionist.[/edit]
I'll thank you in advance for your consideration on posting method change and a more engrossing interaction with the forum, rather than just your own "bubble" (which is not meant offensively)
Incidentally, people who write "thesis" books should really undergo a peer review outside of friends and family before looking at publication, otherwise the book itself can be undermined after it's gone to press. (best way to work kinks out)
Asserting there is no proof does not make it so. Fossil studies and genetic studies of modern animals both confirm evolution INDEPENDENTLY.
You can't study the DNA of a fossil, but you can study it's morphology, and the fossil record can be arranged into a nested hierarchy that perfectly mirrors the Theory of Evolution.
Independently, DNA studies of living things also shows the same sort of nested hierarchy. In fact, one can calculate the amount of time that has passed since a living thing branched from a common ancestor.
You need to catch up on about 50 years of scientific research confirming evolution before you can even pretend to know what you're talking about.
You wouldn't get a 'thesis' (ie doctorate) if you hadn't got work out into the community and passed peer review. In some disciplines this doesn't require journal publication but in science its very rare to get a PhD without a published paper. Anita is claiming there's something in the numbers and letters but I bet she wouldn't pass peer review in either history or mathematics.