Archived - Ask the Expert: Dr. Carl Werner

Dr. Carl Werner received his undergraduate degree in biology, with distinction, at the University of Missouri, graduating summa cum laude. He received his doctoral degree in medicine at the age of 23. He is the author of Evolution: The Grand Experiment book/school curriculum series and is the executive producer of Evolution: The Grand Experiment video series.

Below are the questions and answers submitted while Dr. Werner was the featured expert on CreationConversations.com

Comment by Victoria Mabry on September 2, 2010 at 2:30pm: I am conversing with a man on a blog, where I have a limit of 484 characters. If you could give me just one biological scenario that knocks evolution out of the water, what would it be?

By the way, I just finished studying your book, "Evolution: The Grand Experiment" last month. It was fantastic!! Thank you, Victoria

Comment by Carl Werner on September 2, 2010 at 2:37pm: Greetings to NLPG and the members of this community. Debbie and I just got back from New Zealand and Australia finishing up the filming of our second television show Living Fossils. It will be a spectacular show and should be out January 2011.

Also, FYI, our first show will be shown again on TBN this fall throughout the world in multiple languages. Go this this link to find out when and where it is playing in your country:
http://www.tbn.org/watch-us/our-programs/evolution-the-grand-experi...

Comment by Steven Wright on September 2, 2010 at 11:31pm: After people dispersed from the tower of babel, what type of environmental factors influence the phenotype (how they look physically) such as the nose, eye, lips, and skin color?

Comment by Steven Wright on September 3, 2010 at 1:32am: What are some common examples of microevolution?

Comment by Lawrence McElroy on September 3, 2010 at 4:17pm: I was wondering just how much our DNA research has come along. I have heard that DNA points the planets population back to tribes on the european continent. If this is so, can DNA be so accurate as to display where a person was born?

Comment by Carolyn Reeves on September 3, 2010 at 8:16pm: I'd like your opinion about when and how most fossils were formed.

Comment by Carl Werner on September 4, 2010 at 12:38pm: Victoria,

I am glad you read and liked my book.

To answer your question about one scenario that knocks evolution out of the water:

"If life began spontaneously from chemicals, yet DNA does not form spontaneously from chemicals, please give me the steps (without excuses or I don't knows or it is a mystery) how chemicals could eventually form DNA. Please walk me through the steps.)"

Comment by Carl Werner on September 4, 2010 at 12:44pm: Steve,

You aksed "After people dispersed from the tower of babel, what type of environmental factors influence the phenotype (how they look physically) such as the nose, eye, lips, and skin color?"

Basically your body cannot respond to the environment and then pass these changes onto the next generation because the environment does not change the DNA in the reproductive cells. In other words you cannot adapt and change as a resonse to the environment as evolution suggests. For example, if it is very sunny, and your skin becomes dark, your offspring will not be born with darker skin. The reason is that although your skin tans with the exposure to the sun, it does not change the DNA in your reproductive cells. This is a very important point biological fact and most people do not understand this. You might peak at the chapter in The Grand Experiment on adaptation. It is very important to undersand this. Hope this helps.
Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on September 4, 2010 at 12:51pm: Dear Lawrence,

You wrote: "I was wondering just how much our DNA research has come along. I have heard that DNA points the planets population back to tribes on the european continent. If this is so, can DNA be so accurate as to display where a person was born?"

You are correct in your skepticism of these researcher's logic on DNA. A piece of DNA cannot tell you anything except the order of the letters of the DNA. Beyond that, one is making analysis and assumptions based on models that are created by the scientist himself. Each of these assumptions and models may ignore evidence or ignore other scenarios.

Here is a news flash: Scientists are vey skeptical of each other's work. We don't believe each other because we know of so many mistakes that have been made in the past. Therefor, if we scientists don't trust each other's conclusions, you should not either. Science can be very subjective when not applied correctly by the investigator. Be suspicious at all times and you will not fall into following incorrect lines of reasoning.

Hope this helps.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on September 4, 2010 at 12:59pm: Dear Carolyn,

You wrote: "I'd like your opinion about when and how most fossils were formed"

Fossils are rarely formed today. Most animals that die today quickly disintegrate due to bacteria and scavagening by larger animals. Animals nearly always decay after they die and do not form fossils.

Animals are only preserved as fossils if they are quickly buried by sediment (usually water with particles of sediment in the water). If they are buried quickly and kept in an environment where the bacteria do not eat them up (no oxygen), That is not enought though. The bones need to be changed into rock by the process of minerals in the water clinging to the the bones or soft tissue and becoming part of the animal.

There are a few exceptions to this rule above. There are over one trillion fossils on the earth and over 200 million have been collected suggesting that there was a big water event (s) in the past to cause so many fossils to form. You should be able to figure out the rest.

Hope this helps.
Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on September 4, 2010 at 1:08pm: Dear Steve,

You wrote: "What are some common examples of microevolution?"

The most classic examples of microevoution offered by evolution scientists are bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, the peppered moth, and differences in beaks in finches.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evoscales_03
I want to be honest with you, the term microevolution is misleading and there are problems with the concept. You could exchange the word "variations within a species" and have the same discussion and not elude to evolution at all. In other words, each of these examples could also be explained as variations within a species. You might read my chapter on this topic, particularly pages 36-37 of The Grand Experiment for clarity.

Hope this helps.

Carl

Comment by Carolyn Calhoun on September 4, 2010 at 1:36pm: Hello Dr. Werner! This question revolves around a show on the Discovery or History channel (not sure, husband records these things to argue about the age of the earth!). This program depicted several scientists/archeologists explaining recent findings in the Sahara desert, Libia, and related deep sea cores. They explained that every 5 million years the earth 'bobbles' creating a change in the Sahara which explains the findings of whale ('pre-historic' and babies) skeletal remains, sea fossil remains and evidence of 'mega-lakes'. I try and explain to my husband what I've learned from Dr. Hamm's writings, along with his colleages about the problems with carbon-dating and how this evidence all points to a global flood. He has had the evolution therory in his thinking so long, he just can't grasp creation theory, even though he is a believer in the Bible and I'm sure his soul is secure. I try to just let it go and believe what I know to be true - the accuracy of the Genesis story in God's matchless word, but I'm saddened that he can't share in the joy of the evidence and the error of evolution. Thanks so much, Carol

Comment by Carl Werner on September 4, 2010 at 5:11pm: Carolyn,

Each dating method, other then contiguous written history, is based on a set of assumptions. You can come to many different conclusions about the age of the universe or the age of the earth using different assumptions. One thing is true though, there is only one correct answer. That being said, with so many answers out there, there are a lot of wrong assumptions.

I have some revolutionary ways to examine sedimentary rock and determine ages that will be released in our fourth DVD and book (which is years away). Suffice it to say that answers are coming for everyone. Clarity is coming on all of this.

Hope this helps.

Carl

Comment by Carolyn Calhoun on September 4, 2010 at 5:50pm: Thank you Dr. Carl!

Comment by Victoria Mabry on September 4, 2010 at 10:12pm: Thank you Mr. Werner. I will ask my blogger your question. Let me ask one more thing. In my breakout session, I've said that, if the first one-celled being (according to evolution), which was a long-shot to begin with, didn't also contain DNA, it would have died without ever being able to divide and multiply. Am I stating that accurately?

Comment by Steven Wright on September 4, 2010 at 10:37pm: What causes people to look different? Given the multiple facial characteristics existing today, Adam and eve had to have all of those characteristics to some extent, correct? I understand that mutations exist and that has resulted in differing levels of melanin in our DNA. What would have caused the mutations?

Comment by Carl Werner on September 5, 2010 at 7:44pm: Steve,

You wrote: "What causes people to look different? Given the multiple facial characteristics existing today, Adam and eve had to have all of those characteristics to some extent, correct? I understand that mutations exist and that has resulted in differing levels of melanin in our DNA. What would have caused the mutations?"

You might look at this a different way. Look at another species, such as dogs and draw comparisons. All dogs are one species, Canis familiaris, but they look so different from one another. Take a look at the different dog skulls in my book Living Fossils. If you look at the bones or the fur of dogs you get a sense that there are great differences in the shapes and sizes and colors. Same with humans. Look at the great differences of Asians, Africans, and Europeans, yet they are all humans. These changes are not necessarily evolution, and not necessarily mutations, rather they can be explained simply as variations within a species.

You can start out with two mutt dogs and breed them to get to a black labrador, a little white hair lap dog and a spotted dalmation . The same with two humans, especially the origianl two humans. You could selectively reproduce and achieve humans with light skin, dark skin, flat face, prominent face, etc. and come up with different races. The races of humans, just like the dog breeds are still the same species. This is not evolution, this is variations within a species and there are a lot of variations within any species.

For help on this, read chapter 3 from my book Living Fossils.
Hope this helps.

Comment by Carl Werner on September 5, 2010 at 7:50pm: Victoria,

You wrote: "Let me ask one more thing. In my breakout session, I've said that, if the first one-celled being (according to evolution), which was a long-shot to begin with, didn't also contain DNA, it would have died without ever being able to divide and multiply. Am I stating that accurately?"

That is correct. If you accidently formed DNA but did not have a cell membrane, the baceria would not survive. If you accidently formed the correct 20 proteins to start life but did not have DNA, the bacteria would not survive. You would have to have DNA, proteins and a cell membrane, all at the same time, same location and all to work properly. By the way, DNA, functional cell membranes with embedded proteins and intracellular proteins do not form from chemicals anyway, so this whole point is moot.

Go get 'em!
Carl

Comment by Victoria Mabry on September 5, 2010 at 10:33pm: Carl, Are you going to be at either the Answers for Pastors Conference or Living Waters's Deeper Conference in Kentucky this month? I'd love to meet you if you're around.

Victoria

Comment by jeb smith on September 6, 2010 at 4:21pm: Hi Dr werner, i was watching a video by jerry coyne he claimes that humans have 3 genes that can produce a yolksac that are no longer working is that true?

Comment by Carl Werner on September 6, 2010 at 8:33pm: Victoria,

No I won't be at either of those conferences. Sorry.

Carl

Comment by Victoria Mabry on September 6, 2010 at 8:36pm: Carl, too bad....hopefully, another time. God bless you, victoria

Comment by Carl Werner on September 6, 2010 at 8:40pm: Jeb,

I am not familiar with this line of reasoning but I would like to give you my thoughts on following the evolution creation debate. There are 10,000 pro evoution scientists and they can produce small relatively insignficant arguments for evolution at a rate of 10,000 per year. It is difficult to keep up with them. Each time I stop what I am doing to look into one of these new arguemnts, something that is supposed to be a great proof for evolution it turns out to not be so strong. The point is that the big areas of evolution and the big bang have fallen short: The orgin of life from chemicals, the fossil record for the formation of each of the phyla, the inability to explain where matter came from for the big bang, the lack persistnence of any of the fossil "ape men" etc. Keep you eyes on the big picture, and don't get too sidetracked with the minutia which at first blush seems so persuasive but usually can be explianed otherwise.

Comment by Carl Werner on September 8, 2010 at 11:41am: Yesterday our DVD/Book series was covered on the front page of WND. Very exciting. http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=198385

Comment by Alexander Martin on September 10, 2010 at 2:22pm: Hello, I was presented with the following argument against time dilation and the new physics. I will be reviewing the book again but can I get an expert opinion in answer to this issue that was raised?

"When space expands, light from distant objects experiences a Doppler effect and red-shifts. This red shifted light would still take the same amount of time to reach Earth as if the objects were not moving away since no information can travel faster than light. Remember that all observers view the speed of light as the same speed regarrdless of time dilation. So if you expand the universe with something 3,000 light years away to 40,000 light years away, for the next 37,000 years, you would only receive red-shifted light regardless of how fast or slow time is moving for you. Even if all this expansion happened in one second, the light from distant objects will still take as long to get here as if the universe was not expanding at all."

Comment by Carl Werner on September 10, 2010 at 3:05pm: Can't help you with this one Alexander. This out of my area of expertise.
Carl

Comment by Victoria Mabry on September 10, 2010 at 11:33pm: Carl,

I quoted you in my reply to the blogger and he came back with this. How do I answer him?:

Victoria, I am at a loss to understand your point when you state "But......, DNA, functional cell membranes with embedded proteins and intracellular proteins do not form from chemicals anyway, so this whole point is moot."
If they are not formed from chemicals, then please tell us what they ARE formed from. Have you ever heard of sphyngomyelin, lecithin, cholesterol, ribose, cytidine, arginine, or glycine? These are just a very few of the chemicals that cell membranes and embedded proteins and intracellular proteins and DNA are formed from, and these chemicals are in turn made of simpler chemicals. Everything in a cell is made up of chemicals. Every part of your whole body is made up of chemicals. So what is your point?
Victoria

Comment by Tim Watts on September 11, 2010 at 10:42pm: The idea that dinosaurs evolved from birds seems to be growing in popularity, atleast as far as the media portrays. How supported is this view among real biologists?

What does creation science have to say about dinosaur physiology in this case? I have read creation-views where mechanics (such as running speed) and buoyancy helped some dinosaurs reach higher elevations during the flood. Is it possible that dinosaurs that were found in higher fossil layers had better lungs and "climbing" abilities?

Of course, we can't know these things for sure, but I am guessing there are creation-based theories on this.

Here's a link to the wiki-interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Comment by Steven Wright on September 12, 2010 at 9:27am: Psalms 104:8 is said to refer to how God made the mountains rise and the valleys (and ocean basins) sink so that the Flood water would run off and the land would again be dry. When I read this verse, it sounds more to me like God commanded the water to go up over the mountain and down into the valley. The "they" in the verse refers to the flood waters. What do you think about this?

Comment by Carl Werner on September 13, 2010 at 1:28pm: Victoria,

I cannot see the conversation going on but let me give you a response.

"Of course all biological macromolecules such as DNA, proteins,sphyngomyelin, lecithin, cholesterol, ribose, cytidine, arginine, glycine are composed of atoms. Duh. The point is that the theory of evolution says that a single-cell bacteria-like organism formed from chemicals. So here is my challenge: Please tell me how DNA would form from chemicals in the the first place, at the time "when life began from chemicals in a prebiotic soup." I know you might say it was not DNA in the first bacterium, but RNA or something else. Fine, please tell me the experiment where I can put chemical elements in a beaker and form DNA or RNA or something else that carries genetic information to start the first cell. In your answer do not hedge please. Do not say "Possibly this" or "Maybe it was this", please answer this question with a specific answer showing the formation of genetic macromolecule from atoms: How did this macromolecule form for the first cell form from chemical elements? Tell me where I can see this in a lab.

Next you will say that this happened billions of years ago and the conditions were different then. OK, change the conditions anyway you want in this beaker and make me DNA or RNA or something to carry genetic code. Change the pH, the oxygen tension, the barometric pressure, the relative proportions of the elements, add electricity, whatever you want. Now tell me how this first DNA formed. Better yet, since this is science, show me how this formed. After all, the theory of evolution says this happened, and evolution is supposed to be science. Let me see it or concede.

I am waiting."

Victoria, you might tone this down, but this gets my blood boiling.

Comment by Carl Werner on September 13, 2010 at 2:55pm: Dear Tim,

First I would suggest you read the open letter to National Geographic by Stoors Olson, Curator of Birds, Smithsonian Institute. It is a very sharply worded letter that addresses this issues. (Just Google the above letter.) Second, I would suggest you watch Answers in Genesis new DVD, I think it is titled The New Answers DVD 1. In it Dr. David Menton decimates the dinosaur to bird idea based on histology and embryology. Lastly, take a look at the interviews in Chapters 14 and 15 of my book, Evolution: The Grand Experiment (or watch the DVD by the same title). The information is pretty startling when you place it side by side to "evolution doctrine."

Hope this helps.

Carl

Comment by Steven Wright on September 13, 2010 at 6:23pm: Regarding the catastrophic theory on plate tectonics, did the new lava that flowed out of the mid Atlantic ridge push the continents apart?

Comment by Victoria Mabry on September 14, 2010 at 12:32am: Carl, I just got your reply. I will post it and see where it leads. These conversations often feel like lost causes, but I will never give up on these poor souls whose minds have been blinded. I very much appreciate your time and effort put into this blog. God bless you, victoria

Comment by Carl Werner on September 14, 2010 at 3:13pm: Steve,

Great question. I would defer to Steve Austin or Andrew Snelling on this one.

Carl

Comment by Kaitlyn on September 16, 2010 at 9:10am: Dear Dr. Carl Werner,
Why do "evolutionists" insist that we are related to chimpanzees when only 29% of our protein producing genes are the same?

Source: Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437: 69-87. Online at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

"Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ~29% being identical..."

Comment by Carl Werner on September 18, 2010 at 8:59pm: Kaitlyn,

I am working this week and will have to get through the article next week. I will get back to you. I do have an interesting factoid. The original claim, "Humans and Chimps" share 99% of the same DNA was derived by melting points of the DNA, not sequncing as this article addreses. I found it amazing that people were able to put their support behind such an archaic comparison method, the melting point of two different DNAs.

I will get back to you but this will take a bit or review. (I am not working on this area currently.)

Carl

Comment by Mark Allen Weber on September 21, 2010 at 5:53pm: How would you respond to Perry Marshall who seems to combine creationism &amp;amp; evolution ?

Comment by Carl Werner on September 22, 2010 at 10:38am: Mark I am not familiar with Perry Marshall but I want to give you an answer to your question and this approach. I am not fond of straddling the fence on scientific issues. Either evolution is true or it is not. Either the world was created in a defined period of time by an outside force, or it was not. Either the universe formed by a big bang billions of years ago without the help of an outside creator or it was not. When you start saying you believe in everything it is impossible to test ideas or to get to the answer. If you believe in the big bang, evolution and natural selection, all of science should line up with these ideas, but they do not. Everyone should pick a side and argue their point of view. It will help you dispose of those ideas that are not correct. This approach is a lot more fun too. You have to pick a team to win.

Comment by Tim Neatrour on September 22, 2010 at 1:44pm: What would be your response/rebuttle to Stepehen Hawking's latest "conclusion" that there is no God or designer of the Universe?

Comment by Carl Werner on September 23, 2010 at 11:22am: Tim, this is not my area of expertise and I have not had a chance to read his "latest" revelations. Nonetheless, these are the problems I have with the big bang/string theory. I have been searching for answers to these but have not found them yet.

1) The first law of thermodynamics says that matter is not created out of nothingness. If this is true how could the universe form out of nothingness? Where did the matter come from?

2) The universe was to have formed by an explosion in space. Why then is the universe flat shape rather than a sphere?

3) The second law of thermodynamics says that matter always goes to more disorder. How could you go from a disorderly explosion to an ordered universe that we see today without violating this law?

4) The big began says that all of the matter of the universe was crunched into a dot smaller than a period at the end of this sentence. If this is true, why do the laws break down when one tries to recreate this scenario on paper? (Per David Gross, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics).

5) The background radiation of the universe is uniform, indicating mixing. This mixing would have required radiation to mix from one end of the universe to the other, yet there is not enough time (13 billion years is not enough time) for this mixing to have occurred.

You might Google the phrase: Problems with the Big Bang.

Carl

Comment by Tim Neatrour on September 23, 2010 at 12:49pm: Thanks for your reply. I agree, I have researched the big bang theory over and over and still don't "get it". The laws of thermodynamics aside, it's as if different "models" of things are in existence to explain those things that aren't understood. In response to your item #4, I will quote Kent Hovind: "So, your telling me that 'nothing' exploded.
My main point about Hawking's latest "revelation" of : ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." was what I was really honing in on. What I didn't "get" (and probably never will) is if there IS a law of gravity and physics, etc, you can't just assume that they always existed and I believe that is precisely what he is doing.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 2:11pm: Do you think we can build a computer called Ex-nihwholo that is a whole creation science thoery of everything that adds physics equations at random 2+2=4.
and proves you only ever get bable as output from a random theory.
Steve

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 2:19pm: People can access your file with this link. Copy and paste it anywhere.

http://sendshack.com/download/brmko1i

Here is the physics program to add any equation 2+2=4 input and output................
This is how to build the supercomputer.
Import physics equations from the web and wikkapedia using the trial version of MATHS TYPE 6.
Input them into a spreadsheet and randomise them and add them 1ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2ODD.
And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN YING AND YANG.
Then generate millions of combinations of equations.
And add them 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.
To get one equation for all.............
Print out with a dot matrix computer in a loop that will continue prining out equations forever until you say stop.
Then interpret the equations that are generated to mean randomess is not the answer but an orderly universe.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 2:23pm: People can access your file with this link. Copy and paste it anywhere.

http://sendshack.com/download/brmko1i

Here is my physics program for 2+2=4 I want you to have it.
Hawjking believes QM and GR can be added 2+2=4 in tandem except for a few equations involving the graviton which he disregards..................
And he doesn't believe the third equation which can make the theories one because he rejects the trinity.
Hawkings thoery is new age it is a mixture of hindu cyclical philosophy and sacred geometry and numerology that is 42..............
Douglas Adams answer to everything.
ADAMSON is his name and his name adds up to nine and his number is 42.
9*42=387/21=18=6+6+6

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 2:43pm: I have been posting about the 2+2=4 computer program for years on the Hawking forum.
Hawking has been programming Cosmos to add QM and GR in tandem 2+2=4.
Except for a few equations involving the graviton which they eliminate from consideration.
They fudge a unified thoery.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 2:52pm: http://sendshack.com/download/17efg0ho

Here is the 2+2=4 computer program to unify QM and GR. As two theories rather than one as Hakwing has said.
The program can be used as the outworking of our faith to prove creation ex-nihilo right.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 2:59pm: http://sendshack.com/download/w5ouou5

A link to my book Hawkings New Clothes a New Age theory of everything.

Comment by Carl Werner on September 23, 2010 at 3:57pm: Tim and Steve,

Thanks for your insights and points. I too have had a sense that there are fudge factors added to the mathmatical formulas used to make the big bang work. The level of physics and calculus needed to understand this is over my head but I still come back to the basic laws of physics that I have held on to as a high school student (below). All these points need to be explained by any theory of the origin of the universe and if not, the theory remains a theory...with detractors.

Go get em Steve!
Carl

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 4:03pm: Thanks a lot Carl for your kind comments kindness is lacking on the Hakwing forum everbody on their hates one another that is the fruit of Hawkings thoeries.

Comment by Tim Neatrour on September 23, 2010 at 5:17pm: Amen. Thanks to both of you!

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 8:35pm: http://www.dessci.com/en/products/mathtype/trial.asp
Import equations from 350 sites to a spreadsheet to add equations 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 at random.
This is the Creation Ex-Ni-WHOLO TOE PROGRAM.
Steve

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 23, 2010 at 9:21pm: Maths type 30 day free trial can be used to import equations into a spreadsheet.
Where the cells can be randomised and added 1 ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD
And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN

Copying Equations from Wikipedia into MathType

Equations can be copied from Wikipedia, or any website that uses the same MediaWiki format for equations, into MathType.

Copying equations works differently in each browser.

Here are some tips for copying from Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari:

The easiest way to copy in all three of these browsers is to select the equation, press Ctrl+C to copy and Ctrl+V to paste into MathType. However you can sometimes use the right-click menu or drag-and-drop. See tips for each browser below.

Internet Explorer:

Select the equation and choose Copy from the right-click menu.
To drag-and-drop, select the equation and press Ctrl while dragging.
Firefox:

Select the equation and choose Copy, not Copy Image, from the right-click menu.
To drag-and-drop, select the equation and drag.
Safari:

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 24, 2010 at 1:28am: People can access your file with this link. Copy and paste it anywhere.

http://sendshack.com/download/rfvjtcs

Here is the alernatative title for my book BLESSED TO BE A BLESSING.

Comment by Robert Dale Buckman on September 24, 2010 at 10:41am: What is the difference, if any, between: NeoDarwimism, the synthetic theory, the modern synthesis and population genetics?

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 25, 2010 at 3:37am: Carl can creation science build the supercmputer base on my software.
And call t BABLE or EX_NIHILO or something like that.
And analyse the output of millions of randomised equations.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 25, 2010 at 4:33am: Sunday, February 21, 2010
THE BIG BANG IN A NEW YORK MINUTE
My theory of everything for WASP..
Steve Jeffreys collary to the law of non contradiction.
Opposite particles X and Y cannot be in the SAME STATE at the SAME TIME in the SAME PLACE THE EXCEPTION PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG...
FOUR STATES ARE ONE PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG AND THE FOUR FORCES DEPEND ON THE FOUR STATES SO THEY ARE ALSO ONE.
E=MC^2 depends on momentum an momentum is determined by state.
This is a means for a Big crunch to store the potential energy of a prexisting universe and release it as Kinetic energy in the big bang.
The mechanism is super critical non newtoinan fluids or four states of matter in one.....................
This give you a mechanism for the big bang you can use WASP To calculate the potential energy of the prexisting universe and the kinetic energy of the big bang.
You asked me to give you a thoery it is simplified it does not include determinism.
Determinism in the early universe maks it too complicated.Suffice to say qantum effects did not kick in until after the Big Bang everything prior to that was determinism rather than randomness.
The reason being is as you go back in time order or reverse entropy increases and becomes infinite.
I can argue there is no need for God but I don't want to.
And that is the characteristic of every true believer they want to believe.
Steve.

The universal energy equation is 2+2=4 Over a cycle the big bang and the big crunch have to balance 2+2=4.
But due to thermodynamics a little energy is lost with each cycle like a bouncing ball.
And to balance 2+2 so that it equals four we have to increase mass as it goes backward in time.
So that with infinite time we have infinite mass.Which EInstein said was a dealbreaker.............
Infinite mass is an impossibility.
And since it is the only way to make 2+2=4 balance.
Then there is another way that is for energy to be fetched like a bucket of water from dimension X nihilo.
Creative energy is fetched from ex-nihilo making the big bang balance for the universal energy equation 2+2=4.

Einsteins second equation for mass approaching the speed of light includes momentum.
And momentum is determined by state so when four states are one E=MC^2 is a different equation for prior to the big bang.

The universe doesn't balance it cannnot balance because it is an impossibility for mass to increase as you go backward in time.
Until it becomes an infinite mass universe..............
That means 2+2 does not equal four for the big bang.......The difference from four can be axactly calculated.............
And equations don't balance for 2+2=4 E=MC^2 doesn't balance for 2+2=4.
And maybe this is an atrifact of the original non balancing equation for energy...................
Of course there are three alternatives creaton exnihilo where the equation balances with energy from outside the universe.
A balanced universe where mass increases with energy lost from the bouncing ball.
An unbalanced universe where energy is lost but is not replaced...............
And for my money it is an unbalanced universe.
And that would be a bad bet.
But if you want to believe 2+2 does not equal four for the energy of the universe.
Then it is a good bet for an evolutionist.
That all equations should not balance but need an adjustment.
To get a thoery of everything.
So go ahead adjust 2+2=4 to agree with the universe.
And see if all equations make sense in one big unbalanced theory of everything.http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/bounce/energy.html

2+2=4 does not balance for 2 bounces+ 2 bounces= 4 Bounces.
Because energy is lost as heat.
Hence the ball eventually stops bouncing.
We can apply this to the occillatng universe theory....................
for 2+2=4 for the cycles of the universe big crunch big bang.Mass has to increase as you go backward in time..........
And with time that goes on forever there has to be infinite mass..
You have to start with 100% mass.
And it will eventually reach zero......

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 25, 2010 at 5:13am: 1 Corinthians 9:6 (New International Version)

6Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

here is a good one for creation scientists that don't want to do research.
There is one in proverbs about not wanting to give up a bad idea when it is working out this is like Hawking not wanting to give up the idea of adding QM and GR in tandem2+2=4.
Even when it is a bad idea that both theories are right and that there isn't a theory of everything like Einstein thought.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 25, 2010 at 5:17am: 1 Corinthians 9:6 (New International Version)

6Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

Creation scientists should not just earn their money by giving talks at churches on creation.
They should do proper research and work for a living.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 25, 2010 at 5:17am: 1 Corinthians 9:6 (New International Version)

6Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

You should build the computer and do some proper research

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 25, 2010 at 5:33am: On the last day people are afraid to be called out the front when they hear their name they say I'm in trouble now.
Jesus will say Steve Jeffrey come up here.
Here is my Elijah award for prophesying.
And Steve will say I gave up prophesying in church I don't deserve that.
And Jesus will say so did ELijah give up prophesying that is what it is for.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 25, 2010 at 5:41am: OPSM has a weibsite OPSM LOVE.
But because of that there is a website OPSM hate.
So the devil puts up a website NO ANSWERS IN GENESiS.
Just because we say to love Genesis.

Comment by Malcolm Turner on September 25, 2010 at 6:52am: Hello Carl
is genetic mutation , according to evolutionists, the mechanism that drives evolution?

Comment by Carl Werner on September 25, 2010 at 3:37pm: Malcolm,

Your question is probably the best question out there about evolution and few people get this. Yes, genetic mutation is the only thing that can change the DNA and thus theoretically cause animals to evolve. The problem is that mutations are random. In order to get a significant new body part (add an arm, or eye, or ear to an animal that did not have one), you would have to add hundreds or thousands of letters to the DNA accidentally, contiguously, on the DNA. This would be like playing scrabble and reaching into the box for letters and pulling out, in order, the letters for a paragraph in a book. Impossible.

Comment by Malcolm Turner on September 25, 2010 at 4:38pm: So if this is the case , evolution is really impossible. I always believed in evolution without really questioning it but you have put the final nail in the coffin of the theory that has been the thorn in my flesh for many years.
Thank you. Please tell me what would be the best material i can get to help me to better understand the creation / evolution debate?

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 25, 2010 at 11:32pm: http://bable2.blogspot.com/

My book to rival hakwings Deliberately ignorant.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 26, 2010 at 2:36am: A new commandment I give unto you that you tell the disciples that I have loved you.
I believed in an old earth and intelligent design but I identified with Gods people suffering in Egypt by believing in Noahs flood as well.
Call the computer the abominaton of desolation and always handle it with kid gloves.
And it has blinkng lights saying no to me.
Steve.

I really believe you should build the computer Karl Kruselnicki said build the machine.
And do some serious research into the big bang and quantum mechanics ( randomness)

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 26, 2010 at 3:03am: 2 Samuel 18:28-29 Two messengers were sent to David the first one told him he had won a great victory over his enemies and the second one told him about the death of his son absolom.
David was not happy about the victory over his enemies because he cards about his son hawking who had been lost.
So we can be happy that Hawkings big bang doesn't mean God so christians won't believe it.
But be sad about the loss of Hawking and all of the Absoloms like him who believe because of the big bang.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 26, 2010 at 3:18am: Someone at creatio science will say have turned off the abomination of desolation.
The others will say sabotage.
It will no longer print.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 26, 2010 at 3:38am: I came up with the four spiritual reasonings and decided to accept the flood and creation ex-nihilo instead of the big bang there are big problems with the big bang.
People can access your file with this link. Copy and paste it anywhere.

http://sendshack.com/download/rsaocmz

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 26, 2010 at 4:23am: People don't accept the alternative that the big bang means God and hakwing doesn't know about it.
If anyone would know whether the big bang means God it would be Hakwing who came up with the idea of reversing the penrose equation for black holes.
So christians are right to point to all the problems with the big bang theory and reject it in favour of some future version of starlight and time.

Comment by Alexander Martin on September 26, 2010 at 8:49am: Hey Steve, That looks like good stuff. Have you considered creating your own thread and posting it in the main forum so that everyone can take a look at it?

Comment by Victoria Mabry on September 26, 2010 at 9:49pm: Malcolm, Good to hear that you got the last nail you needed. www.answersingenesis.org has a store where you can find the very best in creationist materials. I just returned from one of their conferences, with speakers including an astrophysicist, a microbiologist, a mathematician, etc. These brilliant men and women, like Dr. Werner, are all creationists. If I can retain just 1% of what I heard at the conference, I'll be brilliant, too! ;-)

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 26, 2010 at 10:27pm: I won't argue that 2+2=4 and I won't argue that God exists- Hawking...............
In his new book.
Steve

Comment by Malcolm Turner on September 27, 2010 at 2:59am: Thank you all for your replies, i am very grateful and appreciate your feed back. All i can say is, thank God evolution isn't true

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 27, 2010 at 6:16am: Only kindle has observed the one armed man in the fugitive.
Only he knows he exists the rest of the world has not observed him.
And the opposite is I have an envelope on the back of my shirt.
The rest of the world observes this but as it is behind me I do not see it......
And I would turn around and take a look but I believe it is an unreasonable premise that I have an envelope on my back.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 27, 2010 at 7:29am: Cosmos uses my program to solve problems in Comsology such as Hawkings latest book.
But the program is BABLE.
It is Gods way of saying there is a curse on finishing CERN.
The work will never be finished of fining a complete theory of everything.Mainly because as the bible said nothng would be impossible for them that they tried to do and being evil they would do evil things as well as some good.
Nobody is 100% evil but we are all sinners and all fall short of Gods glory so we need to aplogise for our good works as well as our bad.

Comment by Carl Werner on September 27, 2010 at 8:28am: Malcolm,

So happy to hear that you are inspired. I too believed in evolution until I was challenged by a friend. Once I started to look into it I realized that there was a problem with the theory. You may want to take a look at my book Evolution: The Grand Experiment, especially the first 4 short chapters. In it I deal with mutaions issue that you brought up. Hope this helps.

Carl

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 27, 2010 at 9:30am: My computer program will help prove creation you will succeed if you build the machine but not as you have hope by simply proving Hawking wrong that there is no god.
You will succeed but nt as you have hoped because the program is imperfect.
Do you know what God told me the big bang is like A house is burgled and no one is home and there is no theif.
The one armed man didn't do it niether did the fugitive.
Hope you will use this example it is funny (laugh here).

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on September 29, 2010 at 7:27am: Dear Doctor Werner. I have appreciated and enjoyed your "Grand Experiment" books. I do have a question: Someone wrote the following about cell division saying,

"...we have cell lines which don't have any working cell division machinery but still grow and divide. They get bigger and bigger and eventually shear in half through mechanical forces. They are called L-forms. So, we now know from example that the complex machinery of cell division is not a requirement of life, but a very useful optional extra, Cell division is not irreducibly complex, because we have the less-complex L-forms."

He seems to be implying that cells can operate without their complex machinery, therefore they could have easily evolved on their own. Can you shed any light on this from a Creationist position?

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on September 29, 2010 at 9:21am: It could be the message from my computer program that science can be bable.
And that you cold spend an eternity looking at the output from the computer and never reach a conclusion.
So maybe ICR is doing the right thing by concentrating on apologetics.
At least in this case the output is bable but no more than 10^500 different universes all with different laws which would take forever to work out.That is bable too.

Comment by Carl Werner on September 29, 2010 at 3:55pm: Dear Allen,

Cell division is not my area of expertise so you would be wise to seek out other opinions for this answer. Here is a brief answer.

First: L-forms are man made in the lab: (These quotes are from Wikipedia.)

"L-forms can be generated in the laboratory from many bacterial species that usually have cell walls, such as Bacillus subtilis or Escherichia coli. This is done by inhibiting peptidoglycan synthesis with antibiotics or treating the cells with lysozyme, an enzyme which digests cell walls. L-form strains can be unstable, tending to revert back to the normal form of the bacteria by regrowing a cell wall, but this can be prevented by long-term culture of the cells under the same conditions that were used to produce them.[6]. Some studies have identified mutations that occur as these strains are derived from normal bacteria.[1][2]

Second: L-forms do not exist in nature.

"Laboratory-generated L-form strains have not been proved to exist in nature. Some publications have argued that L-form bacteria might cause human diseases, but as the evidence that links these organisms to disease is fragmentary and frequently contradictory, this hypothesis remains controversial.[8][9] The two extreme viewpoints on this question are that L-form bacteria are either laboratory curiosities of no clinical significance, or important but unappreciated causes of disease.[

Third, when the lab scientists remove the cell membrane they do not remove the genes in the DNA. SO, to suggest that they have reverted to a primitive form of dividing is a little suspect since they have not removed the genes for cell division.

I would like to make an additional comment here. The very fact that someone is arguing to this level of nuance says to me they have lost the battle arguing for evolution using the fossil record. There will be no end to this sort of minutia talk. I feel the fossil record and Living Fossils are more important to understanding if evolution occurred or not.

Hope this helps.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on September 29, 2010 at 4:39pm: Dr. Werner,
Thanks very clear answer and gives good perspective.
In Christ
Allen J. Dunckley

Comment by Carl Werner on September 30, 2010 at 9:19am: You are most welcome Allen.

By the way, get ready for something that will blow your socks off....Living Fossils, the DVD. Less than 6 months away.

Comment by Alexander Martin on September 30, 2010 at 11:03am: Is it possible to pre-order?

Comment by Carl Werner on September 30, 2010 at 6:54pm: Alexander,

Would you mind checking in at our website in about 2 months? WWW.TheGrandExperiment.com I will see if we can set up a preorder mechanism.

Really this DVD is going to be spectacular. Your jaw will drop. It is the video side of our Living Fossils project and for some reason the video format is even more spectacular that the stills. You get to make the comparsions of fossils to live animals with the animal moving or with the camera moving over the modern skeletons and allowing for multiple views. Stunning.

Thanks for your interest!

Carl

Comment by Victoria Mabry on October 1, 2010 at 12:14am: Carl: Great news about the Living Fossils DVD. I absorbed your "Great Experiment" book in two sittings. Then, I recorded the TV program that aired on TBN last week and have watched it twice already. I wish there was a way to get it into the hands of every evolutionist....but many still wouldn't believe. I can't wait to see Living Fossils. God bless you.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 1, 2010 at 4:50am: But just as dawin and Walllc explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being and Cal explain why it can't.
The multiverse concept can explain the fine tunig of physics law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benifit.
And Carl explain why it cannot.
This quote is from hawkings book pages 165.

Comment by Carl Werner on October 1, 2010 at 10:25am: Thanks Victoria. Didn't you love the narrator in the first show? He was powerful.

Living fossils takes you from dig site to dig site, watching the scientists extract the fossils, then from Rainforest to the Great Barrier Reef to the bayous of Louisiana seeing that many of these critters are still alive and look the same. The most spectacular part of the video is seeing these creatures at the Great Barrier Reef alongside the fossils from the dig sites. Prepare for a paradigm shift.

Comment by Carl Werner on October 1, 2010 at 10:28am: Steve,

Thanks for the quote from Hawkings book! And you are right, that there are better explanations for all of this information, ideas that the propoents of natural explanations fail to share with their audiences. It is not what they say, it is what they leave out that is most important.

Carl

Carl

Comment by Victoria Mabry on October 1, 2010 at 11:36pm: Yes, Carl, I do like the narrator's voice and tenor. I like that you let the facts speak for themselves, rather than pushing creation on the viewer. The quotes by the evolutionist scientists are amazing. They all just know if they can hold out long enough that they will find transitional fossils. And the one guy that said they didn't find a ball joint on the dinosaur that would indicate it had a fluke tail...he just speculated....and now he doesn't believe it has one. But the rest of the scientists are going to hold on to that fluke and they are not going to change the museum display with the incorrect drawings. Oh, and the dinosaur with the fur on it...would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. It's just an incredible DVD....thank you so much!!!

Comment by Carl Werner on October 2, 2010 at 1:24pm: Victoria,

I am glad you got it! You should have seen my face as the whale interview was unfolding.

The DVD has so much damaging information that if I was an evolution scientist I would go hide.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 3, 2010 at 4:26am: does creation science believe the earth is at the center of evrything because the earth was created first before the stars according to the bible.
How do we fit in the data about the earth like planet 20 light years away with liquid water.?

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 3, 2010 at 4:32am: Dear karl,
Glad you liked the quote from hawkings book he also claims his answer is a much better one than 42.
But orignally my 2+2=4 program was a bad news idea I knew a man who was obsessed with the idea and working out the meaning of 666 from the bible.
But Gods creativity He is not far from any of us created good news out of the bad news.
A new pot out of the pot marred in the hands of the potter.
So now 2+2=4 is an idea for a computer program to produce bable that disproves the idea of a random thoery of everything.
Kaitlan thinks Iam weird but she is just not used to God doing the talking through one of his vessels.
Prophesy is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
FOr the benifit of the church not it's destruction.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 3, 2010 at 4:47am: I have had a lot of flack from people on this forum saying my posts are weird.
But youhave to expect the devil to fight back to keep creation science from building the machine.
After God recreated it to argue the case for creation science rather than for Hawking which is what it was originally designed to do.

Comment by Kaitlin on October 4, 2010 at 12:13am: Hi Dr. Werner. I was wondering if you had any info on Lucy or Ardi. As a young earth creationist who is interested in geology, biology is not my forte and when it comes to things like Lucy and Ardi, I am often left with nothing to say. Do you have any thoughts on their remains?

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 4, 2010 at 7:02am: http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/

Join us on the Hakwing forum to give the christian opinion of his latest book.

Comment by Carl Werner on October 4, 2010 at 9:44pm: Dear Kaitlin,

After we finish producing our next video this fall, Living Fossils , we are going to start editing our third book in the Grand Experiment series, Human Evolution. It contains many interviews with many of the leading experts in human evolution, including, Don Johanson who discovered Lucy.

Here are some salient points:
1) Are you aware that Johanson's team including Owen Lovejoy reshaped the pelvis of Lucy from an ape shape pelvis to a human pelvis? This is horrifying to watch as they describe how they do it on the Lucy series put on by NOVA.

2) Are you aware that nearly every aspect of Lucy is ape like? Brain size, facial protrusion, jaw shape, finger shape, shoulder shape, spine shape etc.?

3) Are you aware that independent investigators (again we have these interviews for our upcoming Human Evolution extravaganza do not confirm Johanson's assertion that Lucy was a walker. Rather they conclude that lucy swung from the trees and was an ape. Who says this? The winner of the Charles Darwin Lifetime Achievment Award, Charles Oxnard. Prepare for a paradigm shift Kaitlyn, because it is all over.

PS: There is one other little dirty secret about Lucy that I want to save as a surprise.

Hope this helps!

Carl

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 5, 2010 at 1:58am: Carl just meant the question about earth being the center of everything as a dorothy dix.
Steve..

Don't know if you can arrange to BUILD THE MACHINE as Karl Kruselnicki said should be done.
But as karl is an evolutionist he doesn't want to build it.

Comment by Ron Craig on October 5, 2010 at 2:01am: Greetings Dr. Werner!
By paradigm shift, am I to take it that information will soon be revealed that will blow the concept of human evolution out of the water? I'm sure all of us in the YEC would thrill at that! I too would like to pre-order if that becomes an option. Thanks, and many blessings, Ron

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 5, 2010 at 5:01am: Life is so complex God must have done it this is the popular definition of ID.
Is this your definition or what is yours Carl.?
And do liberals have something to offer as part of Christs body offering the compatability of religion with science rather than just describing science as bable.
And as for my style thats just the way that God made me.
The angels understand.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 5, 2010 at 5:10am: Hey Carl,
Maybe the question of buidling a amachine to prove creation and not the big bang.
is the whole paradime of science versus religion.
If you could come up with an experiment that woudl prove fath based intelligent deisgn.
Then you could build a machine just like mine that proves evolution to be bable.
But what it prove anyway.
Does it prove science wrong or does it prove science right that everything has it origin in chance or the roll of the dice.
If God does not play dice then hwo do we prove that.
If we can't prove it why don't we just shut up.
That what the evolutionists say.
BUt if we try to prove it they say there is no experimental evidence whatsoever for God and it is utterly boring.
It is to them so boring they just do not wish to speak about.
That is how boring an experiment to prove creation is to mostv christians.
Utterly and compeletely boring.
And to use a ephemism Why is it so.?

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 5, 2010 at 6:22am: The ultimate experiment to prove creation science CREATION EXNIWHOLEO.
Turns out to be an oxymoron.
Creationists say it proves the laws of this universe are orderly.
And evolutionists like Hawking say the random laws are applicable in 10^500 other universes which by the way is a very big number.
But not large enough to explain the number of combinations of equations added 2+2=4.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 7, 2010 at 12:07am: Instead of calling it Ex-ni-wholeo.
How about we call it the "BIG CREATION EXPERIMENT" or the BIG EX_NIHILO. the program is niether good nor bad it depends on your presuppositions whether God exists in your framework or not.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 8, 2010 at 3:40am: I'm sorry to say that I don't recognize what you're making reference to.
There's are many equations for both relativity and QM, and they can actually be used in tandem without problem in all but a few obscure cases. There are also a handful of problems involving the graviton, but that falls into the category of "math that's just to difficult".
Adding to equations together is a little dangerous, and in general you actually lose information. For example: x=1 and y=2 are two solid equations with one definite answer for both x and y. However, if you add them: x+y=3 you find that you no longer know what x and y are (without looking at the original two equations).
What's the sandwich thing about?
-Physicist..

The sandwich thing is the Green Salad sandwhich equation 1/3 GREEN BANANA+ 1/3 GREEN CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE= 1 GREEN SALAD SANDWHICH.This actually adds information rather than subtracts.
But this scientists is right that adding equations 2+2=4 just produces bable and is actually a loss of information when you add equations 2+2=4 at random.

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 8, 2010 at 1:51pm: Quote from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/genesis-pathogen...

"…the intestinal bacteria contribute to the general well-being of both microbes and people by synthesizing a number of the vitamins essential for good nutrition and breaking down various macronutrients. The human body cannot synthesize niacin to make nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) that is necessary for energy conversion in the cell's mitochondria. The B-vitamins, including niacin, cobalamin (B12) biotin, thiamine, and riboflavin, are necessary for normal energy levels, freedom from fatigue, and proper functioning of nerves. A prolonged deficiency in any one of these vitamins may lead to chronic fatigue and inability to lead a normal life."

My question:

E. coli produces various vitamins

Lack of certain vitamins causes fatigue

Could some sort of disruption in the bacteria's proper functioning in the body (maybe triggered by a virus infection) be a cause of ME? Has this possibility been investigated?

Thank you

Jeannette

Comment by Carl Werner on October 8, 2010 at 10:17pm: Jeanette,

Thanks for the question. I am wondering if the "ME" in your question below refers to your personhood or is an abbreviation for some scientific term I do not know. If ME is YOU and YOU have "chronic fatigue and inability to lead a normal life" I would venture to say no, this is not a bacterial problem but a love issue. You probably are always helping others (i.e. loving) and hitting life hard (giving) and the fatigue is the result of your big heart. You can sleep later.

Hope this deep insight helps.
Dr. Phil (aka Carl Werner)

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 9, 2010 at 1:36am: Is a bicycle built for two a tandem bicycle a terrible thing an abomination.
So adding equations 2+2=4 doesn't have to be an abomination when you add QM and Gr in tandem.
But if you use it to prove there is no God then your bike is an abomination.
It depends on the purpose for which you use it.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 9, 2010 at 4:01am: You don't have to worry about coming over you have to worry about overcoming.
A lighthouse keeper keeps vigil on a shoal that could flounder a ship.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 9, 2010 at 7:58am: IS there any way we can find out if Hawking and DAMPT are using my computer program to add QM and GR 2+2=4.
And the result is Hawkings book naturally Hawking reports the results prove there is no God but properly interpreted the results of the computer program will prove a God if you believe in one to begin with.
But as Hawking denied three times like Peter he denied 4 saying I will not argue that 2+2=4 or that God exists.
Is there any way we can get a creation physics pro to use to computer program that Hawking uses to prove God right.
Why not.
And then there can be a press conference called to say that computers have proved Hakwing wrong about the existance of God with 2+2=4.
It is a feit accompli a task accomplished.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 9, 2010 at 8:01am: Father O mally the bells of saint Mary.
There simplicity is beautiful I wouldn't change a word of it.

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 9, 2010 at 8:47am: Hi Carl

I wrote "ME" instead of "M.E.", and no I haven't got it! The question was theoretical and scientific :-)

Perhaps you know M.E. by a different name where you are? The full name is Myalgic Encephalopathy; or alternatively Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome.

Foe many years it was considered to be due to a psychological illness (especially as the victims of it became depressed and frustrated because of being unable to do things they used to do, and not being listened to); but it is beginning to be recognised that there seems to be a physical cause. so I wondered if it was due to changes in vitamin absorbtion and/or gut flora.

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 9, 2010 at 9:02am: I have another question - about Carbon Dating.

I know that C14 dating, like other dating methods, is based on too many assumptions to be reliable; as well as having too short a half-life to be used for supposed millions of years. But is it reasonably accurate on much shorter timescales; e.g. when used by archaeologists to find the age of artifacts from ancient civilisations? I was reading about archaeological discoveries that show the accuracy of the Biblical record, such as the existence of David's reign, and they used carbon dating on some of the ancient inscriptions and papyri they found.

Thank you

Comment by Carl Werner on October 9, 2010 at 9:16pm: Jeannette,

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a devastating illness. Whoever finds the cause and cure will surely be honored. It likely will be more than one illness manifesting as CFS, but your guess is as good as mine. Not sure about the vitamin angle but it is worth investigating.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on October 9, 2010 at 9:26pm: Jeannette,

I have been turned off by Carbon 14 dating. We just got back from a Carbon 14 lab and interviewed a worker there for our fourth episode of our DVD series which deals with dates and geology. In the interview, the researcher described catching 3 modern animals, killing them, carbonizing them and then measuring the age of the animals. Two of the animals gave wild dates, something like 2,000 years old, even though they were a living rat and a living duck. This is an insane science, questionable science. I ignore all of these dates, even if used for "religious good" such as dating religious artificats, as they are inconsistent and unreliable.

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 10, 2010 at 2:56am: Thank you for the replies, Carl. I was a little disappointed to learn that even modern C14 dating is that unreliable; but at least we know where we are on the subject.

Can any other forms of dating give accurate results on animals or rocks of known age?

Re: M.E./CFS Maybe i will contact the support Society to see if they know of any research being done.

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 10, 2010 at 2:59am: P.S. In the carbon dating tests, might the actual process of carbonizing the animals affect the proportion of C14?

Comment by Kaitlyn on October 10, 2010 at 5:56pm: I thought radiocarbon dating was only useful for non-underwater biological material older than the industrial era. I could be wrong though. At least that's what it says on wikipedia and a number of sites describing radiocarbon dating. I'm not a physicist though, so I wouldn't know.

Comment by Carl Werner on October 11, 2010 at 10:17pm: Jeannette,

The other forms of dating "rocks that are older" have this same problem of unreliability and inconsistency. I would recommend the book, Bones of Contention by Lubenow. In it, as I recall, he gives the dates for Homo Erectus at a site in Africa which showed no consistency from scientist to scientist testing the same materials. Also, the last issue of Creation Ministries International had a similar story. This is junk science. Dating by the Big Bang assumes it works which it does not.

Also, so sorry to hear about the CFS. Even though you have this debilitation there is much you can contribute as I am sure you already are.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on October 11, 2010 at 10:19pm: Kaitlyn,

Yes you are correct. You can't date ocean materials because it yields the wrong dates. You also can't date materials from certain bodies of water. If you date non aquatic materials, such as the rats I cited below, guess what, it gives wrong dates too. This is junk science.

Carl

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 12, 2010 at 7:31am: Hi Carl

You said:

"so sorry to hear about the CFS..."

No, I don't have it, thankfully. I am grateful for mostly good health, in spite of the odd "creakiness" of joints. My original question was purely theoretical; though so far I've been unable to find any research on this particular aspect of the illness.

...So there is no reliable dating method for ancient historical artifacts, except for the history itself? Where does this leave us re Biblical archaeology then?

Jeannette

Welcome to
Creation Conversations

Sign Up
or Sign In

You can also sign up with:

Resources

SEARCH Creation Conversations

Badges | Report an Issue | Terms of Service