User talk:Tsommer/Archive

America
Thanks for that little fix. You made it look like I had meant it to look. :-) ~ MD Otley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk.Origins links
This is the preferred format.

* Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation Response to Talk.Origins

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Spaghetti monster
If I understand properly, you have changed the statement I was objecting to, that there is no (or little) evidence for evolution.

I would like to thank you.

I have no objection to your believing whatever you want, but I felt that the original statement was untrue. The present statement (although I may still disagree with it) seems more honest.

I am sorry if I appear to be attacking you. That is not my intention. However, I do believe that Christians (and everybody else) have an obligation to get their facts right. However awkward I may appear, my aim is to help you do that.

Cheers!--Drlindberg 19:50, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Reviewing
Good to know that you are still with me on this. My knowledge of the subject is definately miniscule. Every question I answer myself, ten take its place. I am going to start a section under mutations that address proposed "new" information. This way, we can summerize in the article, but elaborate in the mutations article. Currently, I am reviewing RNAse1 and RNAse1B. I have found nothing on the net that talks about this from a Creationist perspective, so It is taking me a long time to figure this out. I wonder why these issues havent been formally addressed within any of the major organizations? --Tylerdemerchant 04:23, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Mutation possablities project
Hey Tony. How has it been. You have seemed rather quiet on our article. Anyway, I am proposing something. In light of the research I have been doing on genetic recombination and mutations, as well as RNAse1 and B, I propose something new. With the full intent of being a peer-reviewed research project, available to all members of the creationist communities, i propose starting an indipent collaberative open source mass research project. 

The project goal: '''To determine if the creationist argument that mutations can not create "new" information is valid, to solidify a majority concensous on the creationist possition in regards to genetic transformation, and to provide a complete examination of all "evolutionist" arguments and references.

My reason for doing this, is because no matter how far and wide I search the net, I can not find creationists adiquetly understanding these issues on the discussion boards. Please let me know what you think. Ty

I'm in. I have barely any back ground in biology, but I'm really good on scaning peer-reviewed journals for information. That's how most of my articles get started.

We need to get professionals on CreationWiki to take on such a huge task.--Nlawrence 20:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)


 * o.k., for sure. Lets finish our aticle on Dr. wieland. One thing to mention, is the talk of genetic recombination and stuff. I no that there is evidence of many different new genes, but I have not as of yet figured out if they are recombinations of pre-existing genes or not. Some bacteria steal genes from organisms, new alleles can be created in organisms. Ashcraft and others suggest that "new" information can be created. Still, I would accept this, but I still have the understanding that even these genes are made from pre-existing genes. What is your take on that?

Well my opinion is a non opinion. On the issue, I'm completely agnostic. To be honest, I really don't care if new information can be created or if darwinian mechanisms work. I have always been a DID it happen thinker compared to a CAN it happen thinker. I like to focus on the fossil record and geological evidence because I find it more objective, no that it isn't, I just think that way.

To sum it up, i really don't know, nor has it been on the top of my beefs with evolution. BUT I am willing to find out. --Nlawrence 21:43, 15 November 2007 (EST)


 * feel free lawrence to chip away at our article. I am groing in favor of genetic alterations causing gene increases, so my views might be a little more conservative. Either way, you havent put much down, but with your peer review skills, you should be able to help with the mutation cases that we are going to examime--Tylerdemerchant 01:32, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Review template
The "review" template must show the date the article was actually submitted for review on the CreationWiki:peer review page. Alter it accordingly.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2007 (EST)