http://www.creationevidence.org/.../ se_carbon.html
RG | 06.29.05 - 3:35 pm | #

... and here ...

http://www.creationevidence.org/.../ cemframes.html
RG | 06.29.05 - 3:40 pm | #

RG, you posted a link critical of Carbon dating. This is irrelevant. Carbon dating is not used to date the earth or the universe. Carbon 14 has a half-life of ~5700 years. As a rule of thumb, radioactive decay is useful only for measuring times up to about six or seven times the half-life of the isotope in question, so carbon dating is useless beyond 35,000 years. Furthermore it only works on things that were alive and absorbing carbon.

It is totally irrelevant in the age-of-the-earth debate. The earth’s age is measured through other radio isotopes, which give consistent answers of billions of years. In addition, astrophysical and astronomical measurements give compatible ages (again, billions of years) for the age of the universe.

If you want to trade links, here is one (from a Christian astronomer) that gives accurate information on Carbon dating.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.29.05 - 4:10 pm | #

Personally, based upon reading your blog I would have classified you as an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) like Hugh Ross. I consider myself to be a "Middle-Earther" since the issue has not been settled either way to my satisfaction and I generally believe that debating the age of the universe is fruitless.

Your descriptions of Creationists near the top leaves a lot to be desired. I believe there are 2 types of Creationists. There is the misinformed Creationists like you describe who do not understand the science involved and all they know is "Evolution is Bad/Satanic" and they somehow equate atheistic arguments with Science. Then there are the Scientific Creationists and I do not think any of them would meet your description.

By the by, what do you think of the white hole cosmological model?
Gumpngreen | 06.29.05 - 4:37 pm | #

There are enormous, insurmountable problems with Humphrey's white-hole model. Among them, but not the only problem by any means, is that in Humphrey's model the farther we look into the universe, the older it should appear. This is just the opposite of what is observed.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.29.05 - 4:54 pm | #

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ new...RTICLE_ID=39733
RG | 06.29.05 - 7:10 pm | #

David, I just thought you'd want to know... I check your blog almost daily but only read theological posts. I hope you don't abandon the theological posts. I would suggest to keep any audience I might represent, that you still include theological posts regularly. Otherwise, people like me will tend to stop checking the blog after a while. Grace and peace to you.
Ann | 06.30.05 - 8:47 am | #

David,

Not trying to attack you but I believe (I might be wrong) that your opinion has mainly been formed by Hugh Ross, who is very critical of ANY alternative cosmological models. I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

Anyway:

http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people...er/ Spitzer.html

http://www.eso.org/outreach/pres...5/pr-04- 05.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/artic...30301/ bob10.asp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/t...ech/ 2566359.stm

A new instrument named DAZLE (Dark Age Redshift Lyman Explorer) on the Very large Telescope in Chile may soon be able to observe objects at redshift (z) 7.8, corresponding to 650 million years after the big bang in cosmological models. The technology may eventually reach back to z=8.8 or, in principle, even z=15, less than 300 million years after the big bang. It'll be interesting to see what they find.
Gumpngreen | 06.30.05 - 9:19 am | #

Oh, and what were the other problems you mentioned?

I've been following the debate and last I heard Humphreys responded to Ross' last criticisms and was waiting a reply...which hasn't come after several years. The one thing I didn't like was the overt hostility being displayed by both sides. The schism between OECs and YECs is such a waste...you'd think that fellow Christians would at least be able to put aside their differences and work together.
Gumpngreen | 06.30.05 - 9:42 am | #

Hi David,
I have responded to this post and linked via trackback. I wanted to add a one thing that I did not cover in that post.

You say that Humphrey's model is obviously wrong because of we don't observe the universe looking older the further we go out.

If You check out http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people...er/ Spitzer.html
then you will see that is just what we are finding.

As I also commented in my post, it is well worth reading - Davidson, Charlier, Hora, and Perlroth, “Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises,” Geology, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 29-32.

I am sure you understand the physics of radiometric decay very well. The assumptions and ad hoc explanations however don't seem to be your strong point.
Alan Grey | Homepage | 06.30.05 - 9:14 pm | #

Promoting ID as a ministry?

What next? Promoting illiteracy as a ministry? Championing math ilnumeracy? Advocacy of horoscopes as a way to figure out what Jesus thinks will happen to you today?
Ed Darrell | 07.01.05 - 10:37 am | #

The issue for what is taught in public schools remains as it has for many years, as it should have been under our federal and state constitutions: If it's science, it can be taught as science.

I would challenge you to try to write any ID curriculum, hewing close to the high standards curriculum writers use. You would quickly become convinced that ID is not science.

Your otherwise fine philosophy is tainted by your irrational defense of ID. There isn't a whit of science in the stuff that separates it from evolution, and in that case, evolution is the stuff to teach.

Your refusal to deal with the falsifiability issue is curious.
Ed Darrell | 07.01.05 - 12:20 pm | #

Ed,

I'm sorry to say that I haven't read David enough to know what he thinks should be taught in schools. I do know however that the Discovery Institute advocates not teaching ID in schools, but merely teaching problems along with the strengths of Darwinism.

MJ
Meta-jester | Homepage | 07.01.05 - 5:17 pm | #

A pertinent quotation from Augustine:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

(Clipped from my recent post, Critical Pruning, in which I comment further on the importance of getting the science right.)

MJ
Meta-jester | Homepage | 07.01.05 - 5:22 pm | #

Just thought you'd like to know that I read your blog on a regular basis (in fact, it is one of the only blogs I read on a regular basis). I find all the articles intriguing and informative.

Just one comment - could you possibly put a synopsis on your posts that give an overview

Keep up God's Work

David
David Bunce | Homepage | 07.02.05 - 3:51 pm | #

Once again liberal christians show how dumb they are, how can you believe in the christian god if the bible does not get it's history exactly correct? If god is omnipotent and the bible claims he cannot lie, he CANNOT ever have people record or engage in writing myths and falsehoods in the very first chapters of genesis and then not communiate it effectively enough so that people cannot misinterpret the books and believe them as literal history or not as the author intended, i.e. putting a simple disclaimer "these chapters are allegory not real history", simple once sentence fix would fix the 100's of not thousands of years of misunderstanding, pretty sloppy an ineffectively communicated for a being that's supposedly all knowing and more advanced then all human beings to ever exist throughout all time.

The bible would have to be perfectly accurate history, and perfectly accurate scientifically because a true scientific history is the real history there is no difference between "scientific" and "literally true".

Go read mathew 8 and come back and tell me how jesus was wise by casting out "demons" that don't exist.

The fact is Romans 5:14 mentions moses and and adam in the very same sentence: How can christian theology and actual historical trustworthyness be reconciled if the author is not speaking to us about real people?

Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come." - ASV

First of all non-literal characters can't transgress god's law if you are going to take the very first few chapters of genesis non-literally, second death can't reign fro ma fictional character (like adam) to a real character like moses who christ is recorded as believing was a real historical person who really wrote the "scripture" or the books of the old testament. You can't have it both ways, it's this blinkered thinking that christians find themselves in. Assume the bible is true and a message from god and that it can never be wrong BEFORE any evidence is presented or even considered against the veracity of the claim that the bible was inspired by an omnipotent being that cannot lie and who has perfect technologies far beyond the most advanced human civilization would have even if it populated the entire universe throughout all time.

You begin to see the incompetence of the deity in wasting 1000 years to write the bible and wasting 100's of thousands of years before the bible was written not bothering to tell mankind about himself and his saving message at all. It's the most stupid thing to ever believe in. The person who runs this blog is the most ignorant of all christians, at least teh fundies understand that if the bible is not historical work then it is not a work from any kind of omnipotent god that cannot lie.
Spinza | 07.03.05 - 9:24 am | #

Regarding the alleged superiority of physics as a scientific endeavor:

The comparisons made in the blog entry are largely apples and oranges. But let's explore this a tiny bit further. One (of many, many, I must emphasize) predictions that arose from evolutionary considerations was that malaria should be treatable with drugs that target a plant-specific (more accurately, chloroplast-localized) metabolic pathway. This prediction has been, and will be in even more dramatic terms, borne out - drugs related to fosmidomycin are going to find their ways into new, evolution-based treatments for malaria.

How can we compare this with, say, "Mercury's orbit should precess, look here to find it."? Wel, lets take a moral perspective. What are the moral or ethical consequences of the understanding of the orbit of Mercury? How many mouths does this feed? How many lives are saved? Heck, how many souls does it save?

By this standard, theoretical physics is puny, insignificant, even useless compared with the one evolutionary prediction I have hastily summarized here.

.....

OK, so that's a rant, and I'll admit it's intended to get Heddle to think a bit more carefully about his inaccurate representations of scientific fields he really knows nothing about. A different approach is to compare the physics of meterology with evolutionary biology. Others can ponder this and comment as needed, but I would assert that, from a theoretical POV, evolutionary biology is at least on a par with meteorology. And from an experimental perspective, evolutionary biology far, far outstrips meteorology (as well as any area of physics that deals with large populations of highly interconnected individuals).

To make one final illustration - what experiment can be done to test the hypothesis that there is absolutely no combination of physical constants (known or otherwise) that can yield an existence that includes sentience? This is the essence of fine-tuning, and it falls far, very VERY far short of the standard for experimental exploration that we have available in evolutionary biology.

Not to diss physics - I've no quibble or argument with the field and it's approaches. I do have a big argument with those misguided souls who think physics is in some way scientifically or esthetically superior to biology.
Art | 07.03.05 - 12:38 pm | #

Art 'The comparisons made in the blog entry are largely apples and oranges. But let's explore this a tiny bit further. One (of many, many, I must emphasize) predictions that arose from evolutionary considerations was that malaria should be treatable with drugs that target a plant-specific (more accurately, chloroplast-localized) metabolic pathway. This prediction has been, and will be in even more dramatic terms, borne out - drugs related to fosmidomycin are going to find their ways into new, evolution-based treatments for malaria.'
For those who don't know much about this, you can read this paper http://www.nature.com/nature/ jou...ature01099.html

Basically, whenever someone claims great evolutionary predictions, they miss the point. Similarities between species being used to predict and create drugs is not an evolutionary prediction. It is a prediction based on the observed similarities. Those same observed similarities are explained by evolution, however this does not make any advances based on those similarities an 'evolutionary' advance. As David said 'No prediction—there is just the sense that whatever is found will be accommodated into the framework'.

'Wel, lets take a moral perspective. What are the moral or ethical consequences of the understanding of the orbit of Mercury? How many mouths does this feed? How many lives are saved? Heck, how many souls does it save?'
Let me ask you this question....how many of biology's advances could have been made without the advances in physics and chemistry?

Physics is a precise and predictive science. Evolutionary biology is a story for explaining observations.
Alan Grey | Homepage | 07.03.05 - 8:51 pm | #

"Basically, whenever someone claims great evolutionary predictions, they miss the point. Similarities between species being used to predict and create drugs is not an evolutionary prediction. It is a prediction based on the observed similarities. Those same observed similarities are explained by evolution, however this does not make any advances based on those similarities an 'evolutionary' advance."

Hi Alan. I think it is you who missed a very important point re: the use of fosmidomycin as an antimalarial. The similarities between Apicomplexans and plants are not very obvious - in fact, it was not until we had access to lots of sequence data that once could make the prediction that fosmidomycin would be a useful antimalarial. The progression of science in this particular case - hypothesizing that the apicoplast might be some sort of vestigial plastid (vestigial in a loose sense, meaning "not photosynthetic"), testing and confirming this hypothesis, then making the totally evolution-based prediction that the malarial parasite, in contrast to all conventional wisdom at the time, would possess and require the plant-like biosynthetic pathway that fosmidomycin targets - seethes with risky, radical evolutionary predictions. If we were to rely on "it looks like" or "this makes sense to me", then we would be nowhere when it comes this particular antimalarial strategy.

None of the important steps forward here relied on similarities, and in fact were unlikely, based on gross similarity. The apicoplast is too different (morphologically and biochemically, especially biochemically) to have been considered a plastid-like organelle, and was not until someone figured out to look for DNA in the organelle. Even then, there was no assurance that the DNA that was discovered would be indicative of a plastidial affinity. The ancestry of Apicomplexans with plants was (and is today, frankly) not an obvious or safe one. The fosmidomycin-targeted metabolic pathway is not something that any similarity of Plasmodium with anything else would suggest. That it was found was due to the judicious and informed pursuit of interesting evolutionary predictions. Not the superficial excuse that you are making in trying to minimize the contributions that evolutionary theory makes to science.
Art | 07.03.05 - 10:10 pm | #

The "HeLives" blogger writes:
"Sadly, the most insidious approach, in my opinion, comes from fundamentalists ... [who postulate] that independent radiometric dating methods are not just wrong, but they somehow conspire to give the same wrong answer. ... The bottom line is that they postulate a God who is tricking us."

Sadly, the blogger does not seem to understand modern Creationist thought.

First, modern Creationists do not postulate a God who is tricking us. In fact, I've never known of any Creationist who postulates this, although I hear it a LOT as a caricature of Creationist thought.

Secondly, it is my understanding that different radiometric dating methods do not produce consistent results. It is my understanding that the general procedure is as follows:

1. Send a sample for age-dating.

2. The lab asks you how old you think the sample is. (This should raise some major red flags; if the methods are so reliable, why does the lab need to know what result is expected?)

3. Several different methods are applied, with several different results.

4. The researcher picks a result (or two) which are consistent with his pre-concieved notion, and publishes that result.

5. That results "fits" in with the mainstream thought of how old the sample should be, and "voila", the date is "independently" confirmed.

Now I, being an arm-chair scientist, have no real experience in the field or in the lab, and thus have no authority for making these claims. However, this basic procedure is what I've read in Creationist literature[1] as "the norm".

This Creationist literature does not claim that "God is tricking us"; instead, they are making falsifiable/verifiable claims about the process. This same literature has also claimed that they have on numerous occasions sent in samples to be age-dated, and thus have real-life experience of the process.

In other words, the blogger's implication that different radiometric dating techniques result in consistent results is disputed by Creationists. It seems to me that the blogger's implication thus is open to question, rendering his implication suspect until the issue is settled one way or the other.

Also, on a related point, this same Creationist literature contains results of these sorts of tests, and of others, such as the finding of Carbon-14 in diamonds (which should not exist if the sample is more than about 40K years old)[2], or of helium in rocks from which the helium should have long ago diffused out[3], which are inconsistent with the idea of millions/billions of years as commonly applied to these rocks.

The blogger also writes that "[t]he earth is about 4.5 billion years old, not six thousand." Presumably the blogger also believes that 4.499 billion (and change) years passed before Man appeared on the scene. Jesus claimed otherwise: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). Jesus was telling the truth, or he was lying, or he had a strange sense of what the phrase "from the beginning of the creation" means. I tend to think he was telling the truth. But that's just me.

And finally, I've never met or heard of any scientist who believes in a multi-billion year-old Earth who also believes that Noah's flood was a globe-encompassing flood. Any belief in a global flood would wreak havoc on the idea of uniformitarianism, which is the bedrock upon which evolutionary geology/history is based. Again, Jesus refers to Noah's flood as an historical event (Matt 24:38-39, Luke 17:27). Peter also believed in the global nature of Noah's flood (1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5). If Jesus and Peter were right about the flood, then modern-day uniformitarians who deny the reality of the flood are wrong.

The short end of all this is that I don't believe the blogger is really familiar with the claims of the leaders in the Creationist movement, but has instead merely become familiar with caricatures of what those leaders are saying, and is in essence repeating those caricatures here.

Footnotes:
1. Most literature I've read is from either the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) or Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org).

2. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ ...radiometric.asp

3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ ...radiometric.asp
Anonymous | 07.03.05 - 11:45 pm | #

Art - I never assumed the similarity was in morphology. You seem to think I have missed the point, but your response clearly shows I was correct. The DNA similarities were used to predict a similar response. Thank you for validating what I have said.
Alan Grey | Homepage | 07.04.05 - 2:27 am | #

" Art - I never assumed the similarity was in morphology. You seem to think I have missed the point, but your response clearly shows I was correct. The DNA similarities were used to predict a similar response. Thank you for validating what I have said."

Hi again, Alan. I still think you are making claims that are incorrect. In this case, you are suggesting that the existence of the non-MVA pathway in Plasmodium was inferred on the basis of DNA sequence, presumably encoding the relevant enzymes. (This is what I get from your link, which otherwise is only marginally relevant to the issue I have raised). Your suggestion is wrong.
Art | 07.04.05 - 9:23 am | #

Art said 'I think it is you who missed a very important point re: the use of fosmidomycin as an antimalarial. The similarities between Apicomplexans and plants are not very obvious - in fact, it was not until we had access to lots of sequence data that once could make the prediction that fosmidomycin would be a useful antimalarial.'

and then art said
'Alan. I still think you are making claims that are incorrect. In this case, you are suggesting that the existence of the non-MVA pathway in Plasmodium was inferred on the basis of DNA sequence, presumably encoding the relevant enzymes'

Perhaps you should check your own claims before posting next time
Alan Grey | Homepage | 07.04.05 - 9:08 pm | #

Hi again, Alan.

I think that once you grasp the fact that both of my quoted statements are correct, then you will begin to understand what I am talking about. (A hint - the "lots of sequence data" I refer to had nothing to do with non-MVA pathway enzyme-encoding genes.)

It would help to know if you were aware of just what sequence information I am speaking of. I rather suspect that you don't, and this is causing you to leap to some unwarranted conclusions.
Art | 07.04.05 - 11:23 pm | #

Art. No. I am suggesting the prediction was made on the basis of similarity. What I said FROM the start. You have admitted this in your first statement I posted above and yet continue to pretend as if I was in error.
Alan Grey | Homepage | 07.04.05 - 11:59 pm | #

David -

Amen.
Jared | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 12:04 pm | #

Ed wrote: "There isn't a whit of science in the stuff that separates it from evolution, and in that case, evolution is the stuff to teach."

How about predicting High information IC and CSI in Biology?

Or sudden appearance of forms and genetic information.

Or the non-existence of the alleged "junk dna"?
Timothy L | Homepage | 07.12.05 - 7:17 pm | #

Timothy, do you have evidence of the sudden appearance of forms and genetic information? Behe's IC systems so far have not stood up. Dembski's CSI is ill-defined and his design detection filters register false positives, and he admits that false positives render it useless. Also, we don't know yet whether "junk dna" is truly junk or not AFAIK.

But, even if we gave all of that to you, please, come up with a hypothesis that starts with ID and leads to those conclusions and tell us why ID leads to those conclusions.
GCT | 07.13.05 - 6:19 am | #

"Regarding the alleged superiority of physics as a scientific endeavor:

The comparisons made in the blog entry are largely apples and oranges. But let's explore this a tiny bit further. One (of many, many, I must emphasize) predictions that arose from evolutionary considerations was that malaria should be treatable with drugs that target a plant-specific (more accurately, chloroplast-localized) metabolic pathway. This prediction has been, and will be in even more dramatic terms, borne out - drugs related to fosmidomycin are going to find their ways into new, evolution-based treatments for malaria.

How can we compare this with, say, "Mercury's orbit should precess, look here to find it."? Wel, lets take a moral perspective. What are the moral or ethical consequences of the understanding of the orbit of Mercury? How many mouths does this feed? How many lives are saved? Heck, how many souls does it save?"

Even if you are correct that modern evolutionary theory, specifically common descent, informed the research on malaria (I have my doubts) how would you even begin the research without the lab equipment and synthesis techniques that only modern mathematics, physics, and chemistry make possible?


"Not to diss physics - I've no quibble or argument with the field and it's approaches. I do have a big argument with those misguided souls who think physics is in some way scientifically or esthetically superior to biology."

Count me as one who firmly believes that biology is a poor cousin of mathematics, physics, and chemistry.
Robert OBrien | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 5:56 pm | #

If the heavens and the earth are billions of years old, then why does God say that he took only six days to create them? Here's Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Note how God made a direct comparison between our days and His days. How would the original Hebrew hearers have understood this? Would they have thought, "Well, when God says 'days,' for him it's millions of years, but for us it's 24 hours'?

God certainly had a great opportunity here to say, "It took me six eons, and I rested one eon, so you work six days and rest one, to follow my pattern for work and rest." But God chose not to express Himself that way.

True, "day" can mean "a long period of time," but only if the context requires it. Here, clearly, the context requires that the "days" of Exodus 20 are ordinary days, whether referring to man's days or God's days.
John Stebbe | 07.18.05 - 1:02 pm | #

Physics is a great subject. I love it. On the universe being put in place as is...when Adam was created, how old did he look at 1 second? How old did he look at 1 day? Was Adam like a newborn baby as we know it? Or, was Adam a fully developed adult human? Based on the thinking in the blog with stars and lights, wouldn't Adam had to undergo puberty as we see teenagers do today? So, wouldn't Adam being a fully grown adult if observed today be assumed to have gone through hormonal changes to become an adult? Why can't the universe (stars) have the same thing that Adam (micro-level) on a macro-level?
Elvis | 07.25.05 - 9:50 pm | #

Hi, David,

Maybe a question that is not in your field, but I suspect you have some thoughts on the subject of gravel.

Have you noticed that water washed sand and gravel are everywhere? Erosion and floods seem to produce small volumes of mixed rocks, sand and soil, but I don't know of any place where banks of sand and gravel hundreds of feet thick are being formed. What is the conventional explanation? Is it adequate?

Merlin
Merlin | 08.14.05 - 10:34 pm | #

Scientists who believe in Gospel of Jesus Christ live in a very strange place. As scientists, they are trained to be seekers of knowledge. As Christians, they are encouraged by God to seek Him out, because if they do so with all their heart, they will find Him. It would seem like the same scientific training that is useful in understanding the physical world could just as easily be applied to understanding the apparent contradictions between the bible and science. Does God want us to be seekers in this capacity? I like to think that he does, but He has left out some big parts of how science fits into Genesis. He hasn’t told us why. The mind of a scientist believer will always be trying to fill in the gaps, and the science that emerges will be imperfect and incomplete. Maybe the point is not to fill in the gaps, but to engage as many people as possible in the thinking (and ultimately, the seeking).
John | 08.16.05 - 12:49 am | #

"Timothy, do you have evidence of the sudden appearance of forms and genetic information?"

Yes, life. From a starting point of an environment having no nucleic acids, much less nucleic acids with protein encoding functions, cells replete with encoding genomes result. How is that predicted by MET or abiogenesis?
William Bradford | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 11:58 pm | #