So you are not a Young Earth Creationist Russ? What could have given me that impression . . . let's start with all the Hovind posts (he is as YEC as they come), and the Evolution of Man Disproved in 50 Arguments thingy. You post those kinds of things with no disclaimers that you disagree with a significant part of their ideology. Do you know what the YECs were calling Glenn Morton, because he did not want to deny the evidence he saw for an old earth? Heretic, liar, Satan, you know all the words I'm sure. That's OK then; from now on I will not expect to see any propaganda here from you that claims the earth is only a few thousand years old.
As for symmetry, I've explained to you how this quite possibly evolved. Before you laugh it off as nonsense I might ask you what qualifies you to do so when trained scientists take it seriously. I'm not saying it's THE answer but it is certainly plausible. What's more, symmetry in itself is not a discussion of the validity of the whole theory of evolution. It is a quibble about a mechanism by which it operates. If scientists' ideas about symmetry were discredited tomorrow, the whole theory of evolution would not be thrown out the window, nor should it be; the evidence clearly exists that organisms have lived and changed on this planet for billions of years. If you don't like the theory of abiogenesis, which you keep misquoting, then that is your choice; that does not in itself prove or disprove evolution.
I actually am very much against the pure skeptical, atheist view of the world, which says that nothing can be believed before it is concretely proved through evidence from the 5 senses. There is a scientist called Rupert Sheldrake who has proposed a theory called morphic fields, which if it contains some truth could also help explain phenomena like symmetry. Here is how Wikipedia describes morphic fields:
Morphic field
Sheldrake proposes that there is a field within and around a morphic unit which organizes its characteristic structure and pattern of activity.[1] According to this concept, the morphic field underlies the formation and behavior of holons and morphic units, and can be set up by the repetition of similar acts and/or thoughts. The hypothesis says that a particular form belonging to a certain group which has already established its (collective) morphic field, will tune into that morphic field. The particular form will read the collective information through the process of morphic resonance, using it to guide its own development. This development of the particular form will then provide, again through morphic resonance, a feedback to the morphic field of that group, thus strengthening it with its own experience resulting in new information being added (i.e. stored in the database). Sheldrake regards the morphic fields as a universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms.
In layman terms, the theory proposes that any form looks always alike because it "remembers" its form through repetition and that any new forms having similar characteristics will "use" the pattern of similar forms already existing as guide for its appearance.
That a mode of transmission of shared informational patterns and archetypes might exist did gain some tacit acceptance, when it was proposed as the theory of collective unconscious by renowned psychiatrist Carl Jung. According to Sheldrake, the theory of morphic fields might provide an explanation for Jung's concept as well. Also, he agrees that the concept of Akashic Records, term from Vedas representing the "library" of all the experiences and memories of human minds (souls) through their physical lifetime, can be related to morphic fields [2], since one's past (an Akashic Record) is a mental form, consisting of thoughts as simpler mental forms (all processed by the same brain), and a group of similar or related mental forms also have their associated (collective) morphic field. (Sheldrake’s view on memory-traces is that they are “non-local”, and not located in the brain [1] ).
[edit] Morphic resonance
Essential to Sheldrake's model is the hypothesis of morphic resonance. This is a feedback mechanism between the field and the corresponding forms of morphic units. The greater the degree of similarity, the greater the resonance, leading to habituation or persistence of particular forms. So, the existence of a morphic field makes the existence of a new similar form easier.
Sheldrake proposes that the process of morphic resonance leads to stable morphic fields, which are significantly easier to tune into. He suggests that this is the means by which simpler organic forms synergetically self-organize into more complex ones, and that this model allows a different explanation for the process of evolution itself, as an addition to the Darwin's evolutionary processes of selection and variation.
[edit] Morphogenetic field
For the mainstream developmental biology concept, see Morphogenetic field.
Morphogenetic fields are defined by Sheldrake as the subset of morphic fields which influence, and are influenced by living things.
“The term [morphic fields] is more general in its meaning than morphogenetic fields, and includes other kinds of organizing fields in addition to those of morphogenesis; the organizing fields of animal and human behaviour, of social and cultural systems, and of mental activity can all be regarded as morphic fields which contain an inherent memory.” — Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past (Chapter 6, page 112)
Morphogenetic fields contain the information necessary to shape the exact form of a living thing, as part of its epigenetics, and may also shape its behaviour and coordination with other beings. The term morphogenetic field has also been used in a different sense by mainstream developmental biologists, as regions within a developing embryo that will subsequently develop into particular structures or organs. Since 1920's, mainstream biology has used the term morphogenetic field to mean "that collection of cells by whose interactions a particular organ formed". This usage is distinct from Sheldrake's in that nothing external to the cells themselves is implicated.[3] Sheldrake proposes that his ideas of morphic fields and resonance can give a better account of embryological development in terms of fields acting upon the embryo to give it the characteristic form of the organism.
The morphogenetic field would provide a force that guided the development of an organism as it grew, making it take on a form similar to that of others in its species. DNA, in this view, is not itself the source of structure, but rather a "receiver" that translates instructions in the field into physical form. The principle of morphic resonance implies that the new individuals imprint upon the field, and the field then causes subsequent generations to tend to show that form.
In Sheldrake's theory, since humans have a different form to plants (for example) they do not "pick up" the pattern of plants during development.
Mainstream scientists think this is just plain silly. Myself, I don't care. Sheldrake is also a scientist, with very good training and education, and he has more imagination and daring than most. He is trying to marry the idea of the interconnectedness of all things with the scientific method. Anyone who is interested, can read more about him and his experiments on his website
http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/morphic/As for your talk about the "infidel" website and my stupidity in reading it, etc etc, I notice you haven't actually addressed anything he says there. This is akin to dismissing the whole of the TalkOrigins site as "lies", which you have done, presumably having read little or nothing of what is actually said there. Would you like to explain the following then?
GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.
GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.
EX 3:20-22, DT 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to plunder their enemies.
EX 20:15, 17, LE 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor.
These are just a few inconsistencies. Instead of dismissing all of this because you know so much more than I apparently do about the Bible, I'd like you to explain, as someone who believes the Bible is literally true and that every word comes directly from God, how these kinds of inconsistencies can occur. Or am I misrepresenting your position? Do you accept that it is possible that humans wrote the Bible over a period of thousands of years and therefore it is subject to the kinds of human errors and cultural changes that are typical of humankind?