Now if you replace "disbelieve" with "believe" and take out the "do not", you have my position.

 So you vote, you participate in our democracy.  Our democracy wiped out over 700 tribes and blew up half a country (and more).  Does that make our democracy "bad?"  Does that make you a homicidal maniac?  Not all Christians are Sola Scriptura junkies dude.  

Assigning the nature of God to the behavior of man is grad-ass philosophy.  

I'm Christian and I tell you to "fuck off" (sorry, not sure if this is the nice section), does that make God an asshole?  Uh. . . not that simple.  If I accuse you (actually most of you) of being bitter ex-Calvinists, does that make "atheism" a worthless club full of Randian grumpy Brits who are seeking self-justification?    

Every thread on this website pigeon holes Christianity into the Sola Calvinist paradigm, young earth creationists, and references 80's histography and archeology.  

Why would the Bible mention anything?  See above.

I will try one more time to point out that the assumptoin that "faith" in reference to ones belief in God, the bible, or things relating to ones religion must "necessarily" mean without evidence or without good reason is not logical.

I agree that definition #2 that specifically mentions religion refers to a weak and unsubstantiated faith. This is the type of faith that I do not support. This is the kind of faith that I would have to have to believe in origins by evolution, or to be an atheist.

Definition #1 "complete trust or confidence", and the 4th "strongly held belief or theory" are not limited to non-religious applications. They also do not eliminate the possibility of being based on reason or evidence.

Since there exists the possibility that the faith mentioned in the bible may not be definition #2 it is only logical to further examine the issue. The logical thing to do is to examine examples of the use of the word faith in the bible and see if it is being used to describe faith based on evidence, or lack thereof. Sound fair??

I apologize for refering to Romans 11 instead of Hebrews 11. Also mentioning Cain instead of Abel. My mistake. Grandpa must be getting old. Go ahead have a hayday with that one. Now go to Hebrews 11. You will see that it refers to the following people in reference to their "faith".

Abel - It only makes sense that Abel would have good evidence and reason to believe in and trust in God, since he was the direct son of Adam who talked to God face to face. Agree?

Enoch - The bible says that he walked with God. He was so close to God, that God translated him to heaven. Is it too much of a stretch to believe Enoch had good evidence and reason to believe?

Noah - God spoke to Noah and instructed him to build an ark. I don't think we have any trouble believing that Noah would have to believe "blindly without evidence". Agree?

Abraham -God also spoke to Abraham, and he went out not know where he was going. If God speaks to someone personally that seems like pretty good evidence he exists. Problem?

Sarah - Again, this time an angel came to Abraham and Sarah overheard the conversation. Problem?

Joseph - This refers to when Joseph was old and had witnessed the direct hand of God in his life. Ok so far?

Moses - God spoke to Moses out of a burning bush. Once again, face to face with God.

Rahab - A prostitute in the city of Jerico. It would not be hard to see how she probably would have heard of the israelites crossing the Jordan on dry land. She would probably have heard about the pillar of fire that accompanied them, if not seeing it for herself.

These are all examples of "faith" in the bible. There is also Paul who was knocked off his horse and blinded by God. He was than directed to a Christian who healed him of his blindness.

Do you still maintain that faith in a religious context can only mean without evidence or reason?

The belief that all Christian faith is without or contrary to evidence is irrational. It is a myth. I know many Christians, and not one of them believe that faith does not require evidence.

Now, if we can get this basic elimentary issue resolved than Grandpa can start focusing on the deeper issues that have been brought up. There have been some pretty big claims made, and I will be looking into each one of them.

And you say that Grandpa's answers are lame.

No, some of you are sola fidei, sola gratia junkies. You know the type - they're the ones that can do whatever reprehensible thing they desire because they know they can apologize to their sky-father and promise to try really hard not to do it again (until the next time they want to) and be forgiven.

I call them the "lather, rinse, repeat" Christians. They're not quite as bad as the "peek-a-boo" Calvinists who claim that God can't see any thing they do after they've accepted Christ because his blood is covering them.

Those babies were probably little bastards.  Next time my three year old mouths off I'm going to read the Bible to her, that should get her to quiet down...after all, God loves people even more than a parents loves a child, and he doesn't have any problems ordering his zealots to murder kids.

Does the Bible state that these are examples of faith?

Faith, in a religious context, means what the religious thinks it means.

I do not know of any good objective evidence that supports Christianity.

Faith is without evidence if that is how it's defined. You are still confusing yourself with semantics. 

I highly doubt that you don't know any Christians who believe that faith is belief without evidence. Surely, you agree that many Christians use this definition, whether explicitly or implicitly. 

Anyways, I thought the point was what the Bible says, regardless of what Christians believe.  

This issue has already been resolved since before you came to this website. 'Tis boring, beating a dead horse.

Talk about something that we can really nail you on, like evolution.

OK. The examples above are people who had DIRECT contact with God. God spoke to them, walked with them, showed his face to them, knocked them off their horse or an angel appeared to them.  So, they didn't have to rely on someone else for evidence. There was no book they read but had a personal experience. A child jumping into his father's arms knows his father. The child has experienced being with his father. He can see, hear, smell, touch his father. Other people can clearly see the father as his child jumps into his arms.

Does this mean you have had DIRECT physical contact with God in one of these avenues? Have you heard God's voice clearly speaking to you as a human would or have you seen an angel? If so, please let us know how.

In Genesis he sounds like barney fife. He can't see the future and repents and grieves and says f*ck it I will destroy those miserable men I created. We are talking serious bad design. And not too bright, he has to destroy all the animals for what man has done to offend him. What did the animals do?  Later in the bible God becomes perfect. He must have hired a publicist.

Genesis 6:5-8

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Indeed he does. And then he goes from angsty teenager to sophisticated sadist. He's quite the piece of work, but not the kind of guy I'd want to spend forever and ever with. Especially after that whole "I'm gonna sacrifice myself to myself so that I don't have to set you on fire." At that point I think he might just have been getting senile. 

Did Noah's family not have to do the whole incest thing to repopulate the earth? Or what?

And why would god have created those people in the first place as, as you said, he can see into the future? Wouldn't he have saved a lot of time not creating them, and thus not have to wipe them out later?

The United States does not have infinite power. It has finite power. We wage war because we have limited options. God is supposedly omnipotent. He could just fart and make everything serene. But he would rather let things get out of hand until he is good and pissed off and then wipe everybody out, along with their unborn babies, their children, their wives, and their livestock. God could have corrected the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he would rather incinerate them. He's not willing to discipline them into good behavior. He's only willing to let them run rampant and then wipe them out. If the United States had the power to correct its enemies behavior, but chose to wipe them out instead, then yes, that would be evil.

I am sorry. Grandpa cannot allow you to jump to 3rd grade until you have demonstrated a basic understanding of 1st grade principles.

I do not know why you are "babbling" about "fictional characters". It is common knowledge that atheists believe the bible to be nothing more than a work of fiction, or fairy tale. What we are discussing is the biblical meaning of the word "faith".

A proper definition of a word is largely based upon it's use, and it's commonly perceived meaning. The atheist would like to beleive that the "only" valid meaning of the word "faith" as pertains to Christianity precludes the possibility of it being based on "reason" or "evidence". This is not true. It is also not logical or rational to believe that it is true.

Your perception of the word "faith" has been strongly tainted by your dogged persistance in believing it to only mean without evidence or reason. That would allow you to "win the battle" of logic by default. If the opponant does not believe in logic or evidence "he automatically loses". Grandpa cannot allow this illogical myth to stand. You, yourself are in essence exercizing the weak form of faith in insisting, against evidence and reason that the word "faith" precludes evidence.

For us to examine the meaning of the word "faith" in the bible we have no other choice than going to the bible and through simple logic see how it is used, and what it means in the bible. Whether or not the bible and it's characters are fictional or real is irrivelent to the study of the meaning of "faith" as used in scripture.

This is as simple as a 5th grade algebra equation. If a. God exists, and if God is great and powerful, than we can trust that God can do what He says he will do. It is clear, according to the bible, that the "characters" I quoted above would have had strong evidences for their "faith". Also when Jesus was on this earth (according to the bible) he called out to the multitudes to believe in him, if not for the evidence in old testament prophetic scriptures, to at least believe through the evidence of the miracles he was performing right in front of them. Hence, he is appealing them to have a strong belief (faith), not without evidence, but as a direct result of the strongest of evidence.

Again Paul, and the deciples "reasoned" with people regularly, appealing them to believe in Jesus based on the evidence. This includes eye witnesses of Jesus's miracles, and resurection. Paul also exhorted Timothy to be able to give reason or evidence for his "faith".

The passage about faith being the evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for does not preclude that faith being based on a foundation of evidence and reason. Much like a young woman who becomes engaged to a man she has known intimately for many years. She probably has a very strong belief (faith) that the marrage will take place. She probably cannot be convinced that it will not happen. She has not yet seen the marriage take place. But she is confident that it will happen. In her mind it is a solid fact, even though it is yet in the future, i.e. evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for. In this case her evidence is based on a rational, and consistant observation of the love and trustworthiness of her fiancee, and the observation of similar events taking place in the lives of others she knows personally.

One cannot let their dogged bias and falsly held beliefs, even though they do not promote their personal agenda, get in the way of coming to a logical conclussion based on evidence and reason.

All Grandpa is saying is that the word "faith" as it pertains to Christianity, does not necessarily preclude evidence and reason. To the contrary the majority of Christians believe just the opposite. That "faith" without evidence and reason is no faith at all.

This should be basic 1st grade logic relative to the topics discussed on this site. I would like to get to 3rd grade topics.

If you still cannot comprehend Grandpa's logic I would certianly hope that there is at least one atheist on this site that can understand, and has the moral courage to say so.

As I may in fact be older than you and also have grand kids myself you don't get to exalt yourself to the position of wise older scholar, at least not until you learn to use spell check.

The problem here with your position is this:

One can have faith that something will occur based on the evidence one has observed. This evidence gives your CPU (brain) highly probable odds that such and such has good basis. This works out well in your earlier example with the child and parent or in situations where you can interpolate data to give you a highly probable result. But this breaks down when we get into the religious & spiritual realm.

In the case of faith in regards to God and/or Jesus there is no hard evidence laying about - all the alleged witnesses alas are no more so we can't discuss what it is they have claimed to observe. In many cases these 100s of witnesses are nameless and have failed to come forward with a discussion of what they saw or experienced.

The supposed accounts of both the OT events and the NT events are pretty much hearsay evidence which have a multitude of contradictions and questionable problems which are really not much different than the stories of other cultures in regard to their own special gods and events. Thus, I know that Hercules was discussed multiple times in several ancient manuscripts but alas I have no actual proof he was the son of Zeus or even that Zeus existed at all. Contrast this to your young woman who has become engaged to a man she has known for sometime. She  knows the man exists, he gave her a ring, so she has a very high probability that she will eventually marry him or as you say, she has faith she will. 

Now, we have this stack of ancient manuscripts, some are clay tablets, some are papyrus, and some are many times copied over manuscripts. In these stacks we have the stories of the Gods of Sumer, Egypt, Greece, and of the Hebrews. All of them have similar appeals to have faith in the gods or god in question. All of them have many stories explaining in great details events of a very ancient archaic past in antiquity. None of these gods have been actually observed in the real world in current times. 

So what to do?

How can one have faith based on evidence for any of these gods. I know, there's this ancient writing that tells me about all the exploits he did. So I guess that means I'm justified in having faith in Enki or Ra using the archaic writing as evidence.

Several posters have been trying to get this across to you and you just let it zip by.

    Yes, an all-powerful God who created the vastness of space and time, a God who allegedly loves us more than we can comprehend yet when it involves such an incredibly small, by comparison, expression of physical healing  well ......nothing.   Please see http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

Sorry, but the rest of what you were saying doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that some Christians don't believe that part of the Bible?

No, Grandpa does not have to come up with a "wierd response" to answer this one. A brief look at ancient history, some simple understanding about bible prophecy, and some simple 3rd grade logic will do just fine.

At the time of Isaiah, Assyria was the cheif enemy of Babylon. In the year 689, Sennacherib did utterly destroy ancient Babylon as you say. But the Median kingdom was at that time a relatively insignificant power. It would have made sense, if Isaiah were a false prophet, for him to have predicted this and leave it at that, but he didn't. The heart of this prophecy was forecasting a time much later, when Media would play a prominent part in the overthrow of Babylon.

When Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539, the Medes cooperated with the Persians in bringing about its downfall. Isaiah also predicted the part that Cyrus was to play (Isa. 44:27, 28; 45: 1-3). However the final ruin of Babylon came centuries later.

This prophecy, as was not uncommon to do, compounded several events spanning down through the centuries.

Note the mention that the Medes would "not be interested in silver" vs 17. This refers to the fact that the Medes were not primarily interested in the riches of Babyloin, but in power. The phrase "The glory of kingdoms" rules out the possibility that this prophecy was referring to the earlier event. Babylon would hardly have fit this description at that time.

As for the total destruction of Babylon, this did come. I did become a forsaken city. The term Arabian, commonly referring to the nomadic Bedouins, not pitching his tent there, describes their avoidance of the place of ancient Babylonian ruins out of superstition and /or horror.

The ending statement "near to come" likely referred to the 1st destruction which Isaiah was around to witness personally. This one was an utter and violent destruction.

Concerning the prophecy about Cyrus made a century and a half before his birth (see above) that mentions him by name. This one is very specific. Imagine Cyrus' amazement to find a Jewish population that was expecting him, due to a prophecy made a century and a half back, mentioning him by name, and describing his capture of the city, and predicting his policy towards the Jews. Yes, Cyrus was welcomed as a liberator. Especially by the Jews.

Isa. 44:28 "my shephard", refers to God raising up Cyrus to accomplish His purpose of liberating the Jews from their Babylonian captors just at the time predicted in the bible. "Thou shalt be built". Soon after capturing the city, Cyrus issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland, and rebuild their Temple.

In regards to Nabonidus, this issue has long been resolved. For a considerable time, critics have "blasted" this prophecy as well as the book of Daniel, noting that there was no evidence that Belshazzar mentioned by name in the book of Daniel even existed, and that history mentions only Nabonidus as the ruling king, and that he was not killed in the overthrow. Since, much evidence has emerged that sheds light on this subject. Some examples are: Theophilus G. Pinches, the Nabonidus Chronicle. This text describes the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and states also that Nabonidus stayed in Tema for several years while his son Belshazzar was in Babylonia. From a study of ancient history, it appears that Nabonidus and Belshazzar were probably coregents. In this case it would not be uncommon to refer to both as king. See also Babylonian ancient texts translation by Oppenheim in Ancient near east texts.

Scholars are at a loss to explain how a later writer for the books of Daniel, or Isaiah could have know about Belshazzar before this evidence was uncovered from ancient ruins (as many bible critics claim). All records of Belshazzar are believed to have been lost by the end of the 5th century since the Persian records only mention Nabonidus. This has become a problem for the critics of Daniel ,especially since an early date for this book makes his prophecies even the more credible.

If I were an atheist, I would not be using this example. It is just too embarrassing. This was resolved some 60 years ago. Not even a "this century" issue. But it is not that uncommon for the critics of the bible to keep dragging up thoroughly debunked arguments from the last century, and pretending that they have proven something. Time after time the critics of the bible have to retreat to another "island" of folly when the one they are standing on "sinks".

Archeology is indeed the Christian's best friend. The more we learn, the better we can establish the existence of God, and the reliability of his word.

I have left out countless more references that give evidence and shed light on this due to the fact that I do not want to write a book right now, and others probably do not want to read one. Look in to the above, it should suffice.

And just in case "granny" is reading, yes I am sure there are many spelling and grammatical errors. And I intend to keep it that way.

Grandpa.

  Yes, and one could travel to Mt Carmel outside of Waco, Texas and find all kinds of archeological evidence that David Koresh and the Branch Davidians actually existed, built a compound, stockpiled weapons and fought a pitched battle with the Federal government and after 51 days subsequently perished in a massive fire  ...but does any of the archelogical evidence validate their peculiar religious beliefs or prove that Koresh was some sort of actual messiah ?

Um, okay, so you know more about the history and the text than me.

That's great, but I don't see where you addressed the verse in question.

"She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations" Isaiah 13:20

Where did you resolve this apparent contradiction with reality? I don't see it.

good question, hence the quotation marks i put around it. 

er, i mean, hence the quotation marks iwbiek put arou--aw, fuck it, i can't keep that stupid third person shit up...

First I will clarify the obvious. You are still missing the point being made. The claim "trumpeted loudly" by atheists and evolutionists on a very large scale is that Christian "faith", by definition necessarily means "without evidence or reason". The critics of the bible frequently make the mistake of "reading in" to scripture what is not there. The examples I gave were not addressing the evidence or lack thereof for having such faith. It was simply "debunking" the ridicules notion that faith and evidence or reason are incompatible.

I am often criticized for comparing those who are too incompetent to understand something as basic as this, and too incompetent to even comprehend what is being discussed to 1st or 3rd graders, but to use a phrase the readers here can relate to WTF, are all atheists idiots.

Sorry for that outburst. Grandpa's blood was up. 

Now concerning faith. I recently stated that it is very rare to find someone who actually believe that faith should be, or even can be legitimate without reason or evidence. Since, I have been searching for examples of actual people and how they view, and validate their faith. Much to  my amazement, I found abundant examples of well educated and intelligent people that hold on to their beliefs without evidence or reason. In fact they readily admit that there is no scientific reason for their beliefs, but they must hold on to them anyway. It, to them is a belief, or religion they ardently hold, and are committed to regardless of evidence or reason. As previously stated Grandpa views this kind of dogmatic faith as nothing more than blatant stupidity.

I will present just a few of the dozens of examples I ran into. Many of the quotes are pared down to save space, not to change their context or meaning. References are listed for your convenience.

Hubery Yockey, a non-creationist information theorist: "Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted... . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

Ref: Yockey, H.P. A calculation of the probability of sponaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377-398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

Again Yockey, much more recent. "although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self deception on the ideology of its' champions. Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative.

Hubert Yockey, 1992 Information theory and molecular biology, Cambridge University Press, UK,, p.336

Professor Jerome Lejeune, an internationally recognized geneticist, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco. "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact..."

Atheist, Isaac Asimov, Counting the Eons, Grafton Books (Collins), London, p.9. "I have faith and belief myself. I believe that the universe is comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I believe that nothing beyond those natural lawn is needed." "I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe."

Dr Scott Todd, immunologist at Kansas State University: correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and leader in evolutionary biology, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p.31, 9 Jan 1997. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ...failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises...in spite of the tolerance...unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. ... we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive...Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Yes, indeed "blind faith" is abundant and flourishing out there. The dogmatic resolve to hold on to something one believes, not because of evidence, but in spite of evidence. Not because of reason, but counter to reason. Why? merely because one wants to believe that which is not rational and is not supported by evidence.

It is ironic that the very ones who hold on to their man made myths at all costs are the ones "trumpeting" loudly that it is the Christian who is ignorant and holding on to a baseless faith.

Yes, every rational human if well informed will agree that in the broader sense does take place, and is observable. This is also part of the creationist model. It is the particles-to-people evolution that is at best an unsubstantiated hypothesis, or conjuncture at best.

Yes, I do agree that beneficial mutations (as well as numerous non-beneficial ones) are observed to take place regularly. What we do not see is mutations that increase genetic information which should be abundant.

New species have also been observed to form. Rapid speciation is a necessary part of the creation model as well. But, it is observed to take place within it's kind and involves once again no new genetic information.

As for transitional forms, there are only a few highly disputable examples. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would reveal an abundance of examples. 140 later almost nothing here.

Micro and Macro evolution (small vs large changes) Both occur. However, we only have been able to observe a sorting and overwhelming loss of information. We are hard pressed to find examples of even "micro" increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if the evolutionary model were to be true.

For the particles to people model to be considered as viable, there would have to be abundant examples of gradual changes that involve new genetic information observable presently as well as in the fossil record. It simply does not exist.

As for the "lame" explanation that when a change was produced the "new pair" became isolated from the main population, thus not having those changes "diluted", and retaining their newly obtained features to pass on to the next generation. This one is lame indeed. One better change that billions of years into quintillions. Even that would be insufficient to explain this.

As for your example of "designs" that don't make sense, the creation model includes the high probability that at this time in the worlds history, many genetic defects would certainly exist. This world and it's creation is a lot different than it was originally created.

Now for pineapples. Please, I'm amazed you dragged up that one. To imply that the fact that we share D.N.A. with a pineapple is evidence we have a common ancestor, is like claiming that my house is related to the public library since they both contain materials from the same batch and manufacturer. It simply shows that the designer used the same building materials.

Particles-to-people evolution is a broken model. It does not make sense. It defies logic and evidence. It is a dead horse. There are many in the field of science that have the common sense to realize this. Much to their dismay, they know that they are without any viable explanation for our origins.

Yes, God is the only solid rock we have to stand on. If something does not make sense. If it defies reason and evidence. It should be discarded no matter how badly you "want to believe".

Since God is purely a concept in our mind, it is the most insubstantial thing on which to base our world-view. 'God' absolutely "defies reason and evidence."

Every fossil, every creature, is 'transitional' apart from those which were or are destined to be the last of their line.

Genetic studies support the idea that all life is related and is entirely consistent with evolution. FACT.

Increasing genetic 'information' has certainly been observed. It does not defy any scientific principles - it comes from the environment. FACT.

RNA can form spontaneously from simpler components, without direction. FACT.

Your whole position is based on massive ignorance, grandpa.

Thankfully, as with myself and cj, not all people at our end of life are as ignorant as you seem to be.

EDIT: Feel free to ask us any questions to clear up your misconceptions, at least about scientific and technical issues.

As you will have noticed by now, there are others here who can help you on historical matters re bible stories.

I think that if you use third grade logic, you will get it, but if you use fourth grade logic, you might not.

Yes, I am familiar with information theory and how it "doesn't" work in the real world of evolution. I am also familiar with polyploidy in plants, and the many problems with trying to make this a viable explanation for genesis of life through evolution. As for wallabies "adapting" to thier enviornment, this is just another example of the "in kind' changes that are built into their genetic information from the start. This is nothing new.

We will start with information theory. I can agree that the work of Shannon seems to be very thorough, and backed up by solid math. It also seems to appear that Dembski and other critics need to be more thorough in their work. That woud be a meaningful discussion if it were relevant to the topic of the genesis of life. In order for information "theory" to have  significance, it would have to be demonstrated, or observed to actually happen abundantly enough to be able to account for the large information gap in the evolutionary origins model.

In reality this is not the case. Even many of ardent evolutionists admit that this model of information theory falls far short, and is far too problematic. It is nothing more than another example of straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.

Yes, polyploidy does take place in plants. It has been observed to increase the amount of DNA, but generally not resulting in new information. Chromsone duplication has been shown to produce usable variety, but so far only "in kind", and that in plants, and invertebrates resulting in single gene duplication.

Some of the problems with trying to use polyploidy as a viable source of new genetic information that could give credibility to genesis through evolution are as follows.

1) Multiple mutations are necessary to produce a single new functional gene. Each mutation must remain un deleted until the gene has evolved to the degree that positive selection can occur. Meanwhile if a duplicated gene produces a defective protien, that is usually fatal. The duplication of genes also taxes the cells resources which also adds a significant problem.

2) Like information theory, gene duplication rates are not high enough to provide an adequate source for the evolutionary model.

3) For vertebrates, and higher forms of life, gene mutation is almost always fatal, and this model breaks down completely.

The evolutionary model depends on generation of totally new genetic information, and in sufficient quantity to "make the model work". Only a few highly disputable examples if any are known to exist in living things. Neither information theory, or polyploidy come anywhere close to solving this problem. They are only more examples of the just-so-story telling that we have been getting from the evolutionists all along.

Trying to use information theory, or polyploidy as a viable source of new information to make the evolutionary model work, is kind of like trying to make the case that the towering inferno could be put out by urinating on it. You could do the math to prove that there are sufficient people on the planet, if given enough time, could produce enough urine to extinguish the fire. You could never solve the logistical problems, and the problem of the building burning up before one could get all the people into place. It would be absurd. Likewise the notion that all that we see and observe came about throught the evolutionary model is even more absurd. It is a fatally broken model.

There is one example that the evolutionary scientists were able to come up with where the spontaneous generation of life was actually able to be observed and replicated. It was touted for years as solid evidence for origins by process of evolution. The creationists were derided as delusional nit wits for not accepting this solid evidence.

Than came Louis Pasteur. With the discovery of "wee beasties", and invention of pasturization, this model came crashing down. The evolutionists have been "island hopping" ever since. Yes, the wild explanations get more sophisticated all the time, but they still fail to be able to "take the camel out of the soup". It is still there staring us right in the face.

A cell was once thought to be nothing more that a "blob of goo". Now it is know to be amazingly complex. The more we know of God's creation, the more amazing it is shown to be.

A gnat catcher will never be able to remove a dead camel carcass from a bowl of soup. And Grandpa is not going to eat camel soup no matter how "gnat free" it is certified to be.

Oh yes, the island effect. Of course observable changes take place in relatively short periods of time when isolated. But these changes are still using existing genetic information. Even if there were a few examples of this involving new information it would take billions of these very complicated changes to take place to come close to fixing the "broken model". The only "island effect" that is clearly observable and significant, is the way evolutionists and atheists hop from one sinking island to the next in desperate attempt to keep their heads above water.

I do not blame you for so desperately seeking to defend your "secular religion". From the beginning of recorded history that is what people have been observed to do. Keep "beating the dead horse", if your "faith" is strong enough, maybe, just maybe it will raise from the dead, and you will be able to ride it a few more miles down the road.

What is observed in abundance is kind producing kind, and the ability of kind to adapt to it's enviornment in amazing ways. Yes, we do have one awesome creator.

New information? I think you completely misunderstand how DNA information works, but hey so far you have misunderstood evolution to this point. Duplication can add information depending on where the duplication in the genetic sequence is done. Again have enough genetic change and you get a new species, but one that if you look back looks no different than it's parent. It's a gradual change, not a cat coming from a dog type of change that you seem to imply.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html would you like to take back your statement that gene mutation is almost always fatal? Most mutations that do occur are not fatal nor beneficial, they tend to be neutral, unless it's done via a mutagen such as well radiation, x-rays or hydrocarbons, etc, etc, etc. These tend to be fatal, however benefical mutations occur and tend survive because they tend to help in the survival of the species, such as the wallabies in Hawaii.

Trying to dismiss this is ignorance at it's best. You are more than ok to dismiss it, but you haven't proven it wrong, on the contrary you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit your model. The explanation of how this occurs and how it can and does result in new information being added to DNA is proven. Can you prove otherwise? What you have typed here is not proof, it's just a dismissal.

evolutionary scientists touted spontaneous generation of life really? Because if I recalled again they only care about life and it's evolution, it's those that study abiogensis that may have done that, but in the end, that's really the beauty of science vs religion, if science is wrong and the evidence proves that, then a new explanation can be done, in religion no matter how much the evidence shows to the contrary, they just keep their heads buried in the sand ignore reality.

There was never a god to cause creation, you have failed to prove god to date, your claim so far is ridiculous and until proven otherwise should and will be treated as a ridiculous claim. Island hopping has evidence to back it up, your claim of a god? So far ZERO evidence.

Can you prove your statement here that it would take BILLIONS of years? Next new information is the addition or deletion or duplication of the genetic sequence and where it is either, inserted, deleted or duplicated, that would add new information to the genetic sequence A, G, T,C, if you cannot understand this, the conversation pretty much ends here.

Love the secular religion part, it's always the best thing because well in reality your projecting, your defending your religious views against reality and the evidence that in the end proves your god did squat all and does not exist. But hey projecting is what many theists do best, when faced with the reality they are making ridiculous claims.