Darwin vs DNA

[Hollie]

I have a question

Let say there is a mutation in an organism--does that mean all the organisms of that species also share that mutation? I tend to think not thus suggesting that you have few mutants that are trying to spread their genetic information and many more "original" organisms that share the majority of information with their ancestors. In competition for continuing their genetic information.

So how is it one can conclude that information is lost with the presence or arrival of a mutation? I don't see how this occurs since it is the continuance of the mutant strand that is in serious jeopardy here due to the lack of numbers.

Youwerecreated won't address this because he refuses to accept that there's a difference between "information" and "meaning." He demands that mutation ONLY destroys information. That's ALL it can do. It can't change information--oh no! It can't add information under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WHAT-SO-EVER.

This is because he holds the ridiculously baseless presumption that any information that derives from mutation is NECESSARILY meaningless, hence destructive to information--because he declares it so.

Let me clear it up, not all mutations cause change they are repaired or neutral. If a mutation does cause change,it changed the origional infiormation in the mutant gene. Mutations are copying errors. If not corrected they can and will change the information. It is like writing out a sentence,if you change letters in the sentence do you change the meaning of the sentence ? Or worse does it change the sentence enough to make the sentence where it is no longer understood. Either way the origional Dna information is lost.

When we breed animals what are we doing ? When We are breeding animals we are breeding for specific traits. This is how we created so many different new breeds whether it be dog's cat's or livestock. So in a sense what did we do ? we created a new breed and as long as we only breed the new breed with others of the same breed you don't see very much genetic change. What happened we bred out old genetic information and isolated the new genetic information. The new breed only possesses the genetic information to reproduce what the new breed is.

You have demonstrated at best, an 8th grade introductory class in biology. Even with that, you don't have a grasp of the science involved.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because a cell is complicated it thus must have been designed by your gods?

Please, no more videos from creationist ministries and definitely nothing from Harun Yahya.

Watch atleast three but a must is the first video.

Thanks, but I'd rather chew thumb tacks.

The first video was a showcase for Richard Milton. I'm familiar with his diseased meanderings.


Internet Bunk
The Alternative Science Pages of Richard Milton

Internet Bunk - the alternative science pages of Richard Milton - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Milton's book The Facts of Life is "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand." --Richard Dawkins

Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims.



the straw man

Milton's attack on natural selection is an attack on a position quite distinct from the theory of natural selection. Milton attacks an idea few, if any, hold today. He attacks an ideology he characterizes as a godless philosophy of materialism, embracing the meaningless of life in a dog-eat-dog world of brute aggression. Natural selection implies nothing about the existence of God or a spiritual realm. It implies nothing about a Creator who does or does not meddle in evolution. It implies nothing about the kind of social world we have or should have. An evolutionary biologist is certainly free to believe that God designed evolution.

So it don't matter who you hear the facts from ,they are screwy who disagree with you.

Funny he said people responded negatively to him and will continue but they can't give a rebuttal of the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Youwerecreated won't address this because he refuses to accept that there's a difference between "information" and "meaning." He demands that mutation ONLY destroys information. That's ALL it can do. It can't change information--oh no! It can't add information under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WHAT-SO-EVER.

This is because he holds the ridiculously baseless presumption that any information that derives from mutation is NECESSARILY meaningless, hence destructive to information--because he declares it so.

Let me clear it up, not all mutations cause change they are repaired or neutral. If a mutation does cause change,it changed the origional infiormation in the mutant gene. Mutations are copying errors. If not corrected they can and will change the information. It is like writing out a sentence,if you change letters in the sentence do you change the meaning of the sentence ? Or worse does it change the sentence enough to make the sentence where it is no longer understood. Either way the origional Dna information is lost.

When we breed animals what are we doing ? When We are breeding animals we are breeding for specific traits. This is how we created so many different new breeds whether it be dog's cat's or livestock. So in a sense what did we do ? we created a new breed and as long as we only breed the new breed with others of the same breed you don't see very much genetic change. What happened we bred out old genetic information and isolated the new genetic information. The new breed only possesses the genetic information to reproduce what the new breed is.

You have demonstrated at best, an 8th grade introductory class in biology. Even with that, you don't have a grasp of the science involved.

I had to dumb it down for some here Hollie. So tell me what I said that was not accurate ?

I actually responded to a question that was asked not like yourself.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Evolution can't happen, *if* creation is the truth!
2. Jake keeps lobbying for both happening at same time, without a real conflict, he keeps pushing that snake oil.
3. I say no, one can't be true with the other, its either one or the other.
4. And I claim evolution never took place.
5. If it did other things would be evolving infront of our eyes, making it to our level of perfection, no other species has or is about to make a computer, or even start making hand tools, bow and arrows, or hammers.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is nothing for the thinking person to refute of ID, because ID is not science.

So it don't matter who you hear the facts from ,they are screwy who disagree with you. Funny he said people responded negatively to him and will continue but they can't give a rebuttal of the evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because ID is not science.

So tell me what I said that was not accurate ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Sure it can, and you apparently don't trust in God.
2. Refer to #1.
3. I say it is up to God.
4. Your claim does not matter.
5. Not science, sonny.,

Sorry bout that,


1. Evolution can't happen, *if* creation is the truth!
2. Jake keeps lobbying for both happening at same time, without a real conflict, he keeps pushing that snake oil.
3. I say no, one can't be true with the other, its either one or the other.
4. And I claim evolution never took place.
5. If it did other things would be evolving infront of our eyes, making it to our level of perfection, no other species has or is about to make a computer, or even start making hand tools, bow and arrows, or hammers.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Hollie]

Watch atleast three but a must is the first video.

Thanks, but I'd rather chew thumb tacks.

The first video was a showcase for Richard Milton. I'm familiar with his diseased meanderings.


Internet Bunk
The Alternative Science Pages of Richard Milton

Internet Bunk - the alternative science pages of Richard Milton - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Milton's book The Facts of Life is "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand." --Richard Dawkins

Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims.



the straw man

Milton's attack on natural selection is an attack on a position quite distinct from the theory of natural selection. Milton attacks an idea few, if any, hold today. He attacks an ideology he characterizes as a godless philosophy of materialism, embracing the meaningless of life in a dog-eat-dog world of brute aggression. Natural selection implies nothing about the existence of God or a spiritual realm. It implies nothing about a Creator who does or does not meddle in evolution. It implies nothing about the kind of social world we have or should have. An evolutionary biologist is certainly free to believe that God designed evolution.

So it don't matter who you hear the facts from ,they are screwy who disagree with you.

It's difficult to find facts in what is belched out by Milton.

Funny he said people responded negatively to him and will continue but they can't give a rebuttal of the evidence.

Similar to having difficulty finding facts offered by Milton, he's light on providing evidence.

Milton shares a common issue that plagues the creationist crowd in that they support a similar theme of ideas (supernaturalism), which they are careful not to offer for peer review by those who don't share their beliefs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ID crowd cannot scientifically defend their religious faith.

The ID crowd tries to mask their philosophy as science.

The ID crowd is not very honest.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Noway no how, does both go hand in hand Jake.
2. Everythings Up To God Jake.
3. Your claim is impossible, so you *think* it matters? lol!
4. You are my junior sonny.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1. Sure it can, and you apparently don't trust in God.
2. Refer to #1.
3. I say it is up to God.
4. Your claim does not matter.
5. Not science, sonny.,

Sorry bout that,


1. Evolution can't happen, *if* creation is the truth!
2. Jake keeps lobbying for both happening at same time, without a real conflict, he keeps pushing that snake oil.
3. I say no, one can't be true with the other, its either one or the other.
4. And I claim evolution never took place.
5. If it did other things would be evolving infront of our eyes, making it to our level of perfection, no other species has or is about to make a computer, or even start making hand tools, bow and arrows, or hammers.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[The Irish Ram]

Youw's many are few, and those few are uneducated fools.

As if a Christian can't believe in evolution.

As if evolution were a salvation issue.

As if these fools have anything worthy to say about either God or science.

As if . . .

Do you mean many at Harun Yahya? I'm sure that is true. But honestly, who cares?

What we do know is that many of the "scientists" at creationist ministries are those who have lost credibility among their peers for abandoning the discipline of science.

What are you afraid of Hollie ? you don't know the theories well enough to choose the right ones

There you go again, confusing Creation and Salvation.
Creation = the handwriting of God
Salvation = the handiwork of Jesus, the Christ.
Now go write that on the blackboard 100 times.

Matthew 5:22 - But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

 

[The Irish Ram]

TIR wants to live by faith claims, that science cannot replicate.

Jake, biochemists believe that it is possible that man lived that long. Due to our chemistry.

Who are the biochemists which believe that?

Keep in mind that when Noah started building that boat in his yard there was no water nearby to float it in. Rain did not exist. The earth was sort of like a terrarium. Harmful rays were filtered by a layer of water, or firmament. The same water that flooded the earth.
God shortened man's life span at that time of the flood. Gen. 6:3
God did it. Biochemistry affirms it.

Have you written your own version of the bibile to make these claims?

Genome Size

Investigators from Glasgow University in the United Kingdom have recently uncovered a significant relationship between All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome size and longevity.37 The term All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome refers to the entire Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA makeup of an organism. Genomes consist of Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes—which encode the information needed for the cell to make Organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues.proteins and structural Ribonucleic acid: a chemical that directs the manufacture of proteins and sometimes codes for the genetic material within certain organisms.RNA molecules—and of noncoding Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA.

The Glasgow team surveyed 67 bird species and found that larger All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome sizes correlate with longer life spans. Birds are ideal models to characterize the effect of All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome size on life expectancy because of the substantial data for bird All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome size and longevity. No clear explanation yet exists for why larger All the DNA contained within species of organisms, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genomes lead to longer lifetimes. The scientists who carried out this study have speculated that larger All the DNA contained within species of organisms, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genomes may slow down the cell cycle (the time between cell divisions). Before a cell cycle can be completed— culminating in cell division—the cell's Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA must be replicated to produce duplicate copies of the All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome. The larger the All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome, the longer it takes for Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA replication to occur. This longer replication process results in a longer cell cycle and ultimately leads to longer life spans.

The correlation between All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome size and longevity is intriguing in light of the Human Genome Project (HGP). Humans have a large All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome—three billion base pairs (genetic letters). However, initial estimates from the HGP indicate that the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome possesses only 28,000 to 120,000 Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes.38 This means that noncoding Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA makes up roughly 97% of the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome. This prompts speculation, with Genesis 5 and 6 in mind, that quite possibly the large size of the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome—comprised of a large amount of noncoding Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA—may reflect God's original purpose for man. God might have designed the large human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome to allow life spans of 900 years. According to this suggestion, the noncoding Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA may have performed a critical function at one time. Perhaps God left the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome intact at the time of the Flood as He acted through astronomical events and other biochemical changes to limit man's life expectancy. Then the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome, as observed today, would be a carryover—and a possible testimony to—the time when God purposed for people to live longer.

Alternatively, the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome may have been even larger before the Flood. Given their relatively large body size and high level of activity, humans live considerably longer than members of other species. This combination of size and activity level may in itself explain humans' large All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome size, but the pre-Flood life spans may have required an even larger All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome.

Vela Supernova

A major astronomical event provides a partial explanation for how God may have acted to reduce the long pre-Flood human life spans. Cosmic radiation is one of the main factors that limits human life expectancy. The cosmic radiation coming down to Earth has not been uniform through time, and in fact, most of the deadliest cosmic radiation Earth experiences comes from a fairly recent and nearby (1300 light years away) event, the Vela supernova (A supernova is a rare celestial phenomenon, the explosion of most of the material in a star). About 20,000 to 30,000 years ago (roughly the time of the Genesis flood), the Vela supernova erupted.39, 40

Prior to the Vela supernova, only a fraction of the current level of deadly cosmic radiation bathed the Earth. Under these lower radiation conditions (coupled with complementary biochemical adjustments) life spans of up to 900 years might have been possible. Scientists do acknowledge that this higher-level radiation silently bombarding the Earth since Vela plays a significant role in limiting life expectancy. Moreover, a significant radiation event such as Vela would explain the mathematical curve, the gradual, exponential reduction in life spans, from about 900 to 120 years reported in Genesis 11.
Assessing Scientific Plausibility

Advances in the biology and biochemistry of aging have been remarkable, and, at the same time, they reveal that the aging process is, indeed, complex. Much remains to be learned and discovered about it. Recent discoveries do clearly indicate, however, that aging can result from subtle changes in the invisible realm of cosmic radiation and cellular chemistry. Given the subtly of these changes, investigators are gaining some hope and confidence that in the near future they will be able to slow the human aging process through drug treatment and dietary alteration.

Scientists' success in altering the life span of selected organisms (such as worms, yeast, and fruit flies) and their emerging ability to increase human life expectancy through biochemical manipulation lend scientific plausibility to the long life spans recorded in Genesis 5. If humans with their limited knowledge and power can alter life spans, how much more so can God? He could have used any of four (or more) subtle alterations in human biochemistry to allow for long life spans. He could have used the Vela supernova or other astronomical events, in combination with complementary biochemical changes, to shorten human longevity.

Exactly how God altered human life spans no one knows. However, recent discoveries in the biochemistry of aging continue to build the case for the reliability of Scripture—even of Genesis 5 and 6. Researchers stand on the threshold of additional breakthroughs in understanding the aging process. Further advances are anticipated in the endocrinology and hormonal control of aging, and in deciphering Werner's syndrome (a disorder that leads to premature aging).41, 42, 43, 44 One can look forward to these and other discoveries in the biochemistry of aging with the confidence that they will continue to lend credibility to the biblical record.

Not that you'll read that, or understand it if you do, but here are a few biochemists that
do:
Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Richard Deem, M. S.
And I can't add to or take away from the Bible. So:
Gen. 1:6,7
2 Pete 3:5
Gen. 2:5-6
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

If you are going to argue the Bible, you gotta read it Jake.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Youw, read this from Scientific American about random mutations and evolution, you'll learn something:

If mutations occur at random over the entire sequence of a species' genome, how can a complex organ such as an eye evolve? How can all the mutations that direct the development of that organ be concentrated in the right places?: Scientific Ameri

Sorry to disappoint you but I did get my degree and did work in the field. I studied genes and mutations for 11 years.

Yes. And you also command the French forces at Waterloo.

Typical response Hollie,you have nothing worth saying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is nothing for the thinking person to refute of ID, because ID is not science.

So it don't matter who you hear the facts from ,they are screwy who disagree with you. Funny he said people responded negatively to him and will continue but they can't give a rebuttal of the evidence.

What does the theory of ID have to do with my explanation ? Something you should understand there is a difference between ID proponents and creationism. I am a creationist.I agree with ID proponents,yes on many points.

Most ID proponents believe in a old earth and I do not. I believe no one knows how old the earth is because I don't trust the dating methods for many reasons. Not even positive if the bible gives us an age of the earth many do however.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. Sure it can, and you apparently don't trust in God.
2. Refer to #1.
3. I say it is up to God.
4. Your claim does not matter.
5. Not science, sonny.,

Sorry bout that,


1. Evolution can't happen, *if* creation is the truth!
2. Jake keeps lobbying for both happening at same time, without a real conflict, he keeps pushing that snake oil.
3. I say no, one can't be true with the other, its either one or the other.
4. And I claim evolution never took place.
5. If it did other things would be evolving infront of our eyes, making it to our level of perfection, no other species has or is about to make a computer, or even start making hand tools, bow and arrows, or hammers.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

God is the one who said he created man in his image. So he allowed us to evolve into something superior to himself ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

1.Yup, evolution and salvation do not go hand in hand. Those who believe so have little faith.
2.Agree with you.
3.My claim is impossible because you cannot scientifically give evidence. OK.
4.On these matters, every real Christian is your senior.

1. Noway no how, does both go hand in hand Jake.
2. Everythings Up To God Jake.
3. Your claim is impossible, so you *think* it matters? lol!
4. You are my junior sonny.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thanks, but I'd rather chew thumb tacks.

The first video was a showcase for Richard Milton. I'm familiar with his diseased meanderings.


Internet Bunk
The Alternative Science Pages of Richard Milton

Internet Bunk - the alternative science pages of Richard Milton - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Milton's book The Facts of Life is "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand." --Richard Dawkins

Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims.



the straw man

Milton's attack on natural selection is an attack on a position quite distinct from the theory of natural selection. Milton attacks an idea few, if any, hold today. He attacks an ideology he characterizes as a godless philosophy of materialism, embracing the meaningless of life in a dog-eat-dog world of brute aggression. Natural selection implies nothing about the existence of God or a spiritual realm. It implies nothing about a Creator who does or does not meddle in evolution. It implies nothing about the kind of social world we have or should have. An evolutionary biologist is certainly free to believe that God designed evolution.

It's difficult to find facts in what is belched out by Milton.

Funny he said people responded negatively to him and will continue but they can't give a rebuttal of the evidence.

Similar to having difficulty finding facts offered by Milton, he's light on providing evidence.

Milton shares a common issue that plagues the creationist crowd in that they support a similar theme of ideas (supernaturalism), which they are careful not to offer for peer review by those who don't share their beliefs.

A man like myself who shares what he knows and this is your opinion of him and myself without you having the ability to refute what has been shared with you to me that is at the very least willful ignorance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not angry with you, my friend, I am laboring in God for you.

As if evolution is a salvation issue.

Youw's many are few, and those few are uneducated fools.

As if a Christian can't believe in evolution.

As if evolution were a salvation issue.

As if these fools have anything worthy to say about either God or science.

As if . . .

What are you afraid of Hollie ? you don't know the theories well enough to choose the right ones

There you go again, confusing Creation and Salvation.
Creation = the handwriting of God
Salvation = the handiwork of Jesus, the Christ.
Now go write that on the blackboard 100 times.

Matthew 5:22 - But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your philosophy of science, much of it in error, is still philosophy.

You cannot replicate your philosophy.

A major astronomical event provides a partial explanation for how God may have acted to reduce the long pre-Flood human life spans. Cosmic radiation is one of the main factors that limits human life expectancy. The cosmic radiation coming down to Earth has not been uniform through time, and in fact, most of the deadliest cosmic radiation Earth experiences comes from a fairly recent and nearby (1300 light years away) event, the Vela supernova (A supernova is a rare celestial phenomenon, the explosion of most of the material in a star). About 20,000 to 30,000 years ago (roughly the time of the Genesis flood), the Vela supernova erupted.39, 40

Prior to the Vela supernova, only a fraction of the current level of deadly cosmic radiation bathed the Earth. Under these lower radiation conditions (coupled with complementary biochemical adjustments) life spans of up to 900 years might have been possible. Scientists do acknowledge that this higher-level radiation silently bombarding the Earth since Vela plays a significant role in limiting life expectancy. Moreover, a significant radiation event such as Vela would explain the mathematical curve, the gradual, exponential reduction in life spans, from about 900 to 120 years reported in Genesis 11.
Assessing Scientific Plausibility

Advances in the biology and biochemistry of aging have been remarkable, and, at the same time, they reveal that the aging process is, indeed, complex. Much remains to be learned and discovered about it. Recent discoveries do clearly indicate, however, that aging can result from subtle changes in the invisible realm of cosmic radiation and cellular chemistry. Given the subtly of these changes, investigators are gaining some hope and confidence that in the near future they will be able to slow the human aging process through drug treatment and dietary alteration.

Scientists' success in altering the life span of selected organisms (such as worms, yeast, and fruit flies) and their emerging ability to increase human life expectancy through biochemical manipulation lend scientific plausibility to the long life spans recorded in Genesis 5. If humans with their limited knowledge and power can alter life spans, how much more so can God? He could have used any of four (or more) subtle alterations in human biochemistry to allow for long life spans. He could have used the Vela supernova or other astronomical events, in combination with complementary biochemical changes, to shorten human longevity.

Exactly how God altered human life spans no one knows. However, recent discoveries in the biochemistry of aging continue to build the case for the reliability of Scripture—even of Genesis 5 and 6. Researchers stand on the threshold of additional breakthroughs in understanding the aging process. Further advances are anticipated in the endocrinology and hormonal control of aging, and in deciphering Werner's syndrome (a disorder that leads to premature aging).41, 42, 43, 44 One can look forward to these and other discoveries in the biochemistry of aging with the confidence that they will continue to lend credibility to the biblical record.

Not that you'll read that, or understand it if you do, but here are a few biochemists that
do:
Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Richard Deem, M. S.
And I can't add to or take away from the Bible. So:
Gen. 1:6,7
2 Pete 3:5
Gen. 2:5-6
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

If you are going to argue the Bible, you gotta read it Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Creationism and ID are philosophies of science, not science.

There is nothing for the thinking person to refute of ID, because ID is not science.

So it don't matter who you hear the facts from ,they are screwy who disagree with you. Funny he said people responded negatively to him and will continue but they can't give a rebuttal of the evidence.

What does the theory of ID have to do with my explanation ? Something you should understand there is a difference between ID proponents and creationism. I am a creationist.I agree with ID proponents,yes on many points.

Most ID proponents believe in a old earth and I do not. I believe no one knows how old the earth is because I don't trust the dating methods for many reasons. Not even positive if the bible gives us an age of the earth many do however.