>Why do you need me to explain it to you - I thought you were
>supposed to be a biochem guy? It is explained in the excerpt
>I posted; if you have a biochem background then you should
>be able to understand what the article is saying, and if it
>is wrong or if its conclusions are of dubious validity, you
>should be able to refute them with more convincing arguments
>than some bogus painting analogy.

Because I don't think you understand the article. They DON'T have have proof. They are ASSUMING that since they share common genomic code that there must be a common ancestor. You don't like paintings, fine cars. It's all the same concept.

It's like saying all cars evolved from the model T. No the ideas may have evolved, but each car is a creation. If we weren't the creators of our cars, buildings, whatever--by evolutionists' logic they would all be proof of evolution. You see all computers evolved from this Babbage Computer and then about blah years ago there was an event that caused a phylogenic split resulting in risc and cisc architectures...

>>Evidence without proof isn't evidence.
>
>??? I think you are having a little difficulty with
>semantics there.

The "evidence" is all circumstanstial. There is no proof. They don't have the bacteria's common ancestor...and they sure haven't found man's.


>I thought you said Adam and Eve were mythical? Well, which
>is it? If they're mythical, then the bible is wrong.

Mythical adj. 2. Of or existing in myth.
Myth n. 1a. A traditional story originating in a preliterate society dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heros that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world.

That sense of the word says nothing about truth or fiction...like I said earlier, get a dictionary. Nobody has proved the bible to be false.

>Funny how you deride genomic mapping which shows strong
>scientific evidence for reductive evolution as invalid
>proof, yet you think this hand-waving argument is somehow
>"proof" of creationism - that is not very objective, now is
>it?

Evolution makes all things possible, you can get rid of genes/sequences you don't need...yet Eukarotic cells seem to have lost that ability all those damn introns. We have life growing in areas that we would never had thought life could survive...yet we can't find proof of life on our closest neighbors.

The reasons for life and the reasons for no life doesn't add up when you look at the world through the eyes of evolution. It sounds more like something made a conscious decision on bounds and limits of life. I ask why aren't there different ways to get energy from sucrose and you say:

>Maybe bc it worked fine and there was no need to change from
>an evolutionary standpoint.

All that energy in sucrose and all we can get is a net of 36 ATP/GTP molecules per mole. You mean to tell me there's no other process to match that effieciency, it certainly isn't very efficient. Sounds more like a decision rather than an evolutionary standpoint.

>>This is what I said:
>>>What a funny world, we don't believe
>>>in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers
>>>that work on the same principles.
>
>Right - you said it works on the "same principles" (plural)
>of "an omniscient God"; you did not specify that it was only
>the principle (singular) of being ominiscient - RIF.

Only because I was going to also post about an experiment that showed a particle being in two places at once, but I couldn't find the link...so I removed omnipresent.
>It cannot store "every possible outcome", just a great,
>great # of outcomes - however, it is not an infinite #. And
>anyway, being able to store a great # of multiple values at
>the same time does not equate to infinite knowledge of all
>things everywhere; therefore "omniscience" is quite a
>misnomer for this.

From the computer's pov, which is what I said, a zero or an one are the only outcomes. Every qubit would have both outcomes already, so from the computer's pov it would know all the outcome...the principle is what I said it would posses.