NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh, I forgot to mention that when I left my nice little country community and went to study at the university in the big city, my genetics professor made a big deal of the evolution issue. She had just learned that more than half of the students that attended her course for the first time were not sure about the evolution theory. She went to great lenths to ensure that we were convinced. It set off a great many debates between the students...several hundreds of us. The choice between faith or reason was put forward as the main issue. I, as perhaps more ignorant than most, accepted that this was the struggle, and undertook my journey from that point.

Oh dear, such a situation is kinda unthinkable over here. I wouldn't know of anybody in my occupation who could be a Creationist. The only Creationists I ever met in real life were a fist full of religious fundamentalists at school which had really no idea (or interest, for that matter) in science.


I hope I never fall into the trap of thinking bad about the evolutionists, simply because of the way they think. I actually believe in the importance of respecting all men, and being prepared to listen to what they have to say. There is always a posibility that I have yet to learn something more.

I am not familiar with paleontology, as much as I would like to be. One can't know it all. So I usually base most of my reasoning on genetics, or more specificially, bacterial genetics. Quorum sensing is currently my particular field of research--the language that bacteria speak. Very fascination also.

Evolution theory has a lot of problems with quorum sensing, how it could evolve, etc. The problems are just not there with the creation theory, as I see it. Part of the problem, for the evolutionists, is that quorum sensing is one of the newest fields of research. They haven't had a lot of time to come up with good explanations for the wierd and wonderful things that go on. Well, they are making progress though, so it's not bringing the world of evolution down, or anything. But to my little powers of reasoning, it looks better for the creation theory.

Question, what do you think makes creation a valid theory? Or could mention me anything that *you* think would falsify Creationism?

Regarding palaeontology, regarding the cause, i agree it's not easy. But have to take a different approach, the historic one. You have to realize that certain things have happened, and they happened in a chronological order. Continents are changing configuration, and this change involves a change of climate. Climate affects life on Earth and then you suddenly realize here comes evolution into the play.
As I mentioned many posts ago, it doesn't make sense for God to kill animals and create new one in chronological order so that he makes it look like evolution having taken place. It's more logical to assume evolution actually took place (i reckon this is a mild variation of Occam's Razor, isn't it? ;)).
I personally find the environmental and ecological aspects very interesting. It's possible from the fossils to reconstruct the palaeo-environment and the relationships inside these ancient ecosystems. And believe me, it's fascinating. And if you take the factor time into consideration, things become even more amazing.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the discovery of a fossil in the 'wrong place' meant that the 'place' gets renamed. If that happened, it would be a rather clever way of keeping the rest of the world in blissful ignorance of the true situation.

Heh, you're assuming some kind of malevolent 'Evolutionist Conspiracy' there. Believe me, it's non existent. Such a discovery would be a scientific sensation...

Evolution has had plenty of "we have a problem, Houston" experiences. That is when everyone scrambles for a new explanation. Believe me, I have personally witnessed it. It's an exciting moment for all, and nobody really minds it, because it is a moment of progress, something all true scientists really love.

Yes, I must say I agree on that. It was funny when they brought the 'Carnosaurs' to the grave... :D

That's not the point. God created all animals, then he created man. This means he created the proper setup and then deliberatey used an inferior one. How does Creationism account for this, other than the ad-hoc 'the ways of God are mysterious' hand-waving?
Could you point me to some research on this? (cephalopod eyes are better than ours) Everything I can find says they are colour blind.

Chaos Experiment

As I said, hypothesis.

Then we are agreed on this point.



Not as it is currently understood, no. It is, however, pretty damned near the truth. You see, there are problems with evolution, but not any really major ones, and not any ones you'll ever see a creationist bring up (they're most unaware of the actual problems).

That, I gather is your point of view, and you are certainly entitled to it. I've no idea how you arived at the conclusion that it is 'pretty damned near to the truth' though. How do you do that? An experiment, perhaps?

You sound like an agnostic.

errr...is that a compliment? I think I differ with most agnostics in that I only suspect that no body can prove it. I have found most (correct me if I am wrong) agnostics will say that they know that God's existence cannot be proven.

Natural selection is an observed fact. You simply cannot challenge it. That mutations can cause genetic variances is also an observed fact. Thus, the mechanisms for evolution are proven, observable fact. That evolution as stated is the source of modern biodiversity is the theory in contest.

I agree that natural selection is fact. But it wont do for evolution from slime to man. Nope. There isn't a very good explanation for that at all. Forgive me, I've written this part out so many times, I'm feeling too slack to rewrite it all again.

There will always be errors in something like evolution, just as there will always be errors in M theory or various portions of quantum mechanics until we can get physical observations that coberate this. However, evolution does have physical evidence that creationism sorely lacks.

Agreed. The pace that evolution theory changes is frightening. That is why it can never be proven wrong. It just keeps changing, the moment one small point is found to be wrong. That keeps it appearance as the best and most modern theory alive. I don't see that changing, even if it was a completely false theory.



Oh really? Ok, define it for me. Demonstrate it, prepare an experiment that shows it.

The mechanism for the creation account is the power of God. He created. Since then, natural selection, something He allowed for in his creativity. Can I show you an experiment that proves it. Absolutely not. Can you? Everyone knows this. Why don't you ask more reasonable questions? It might help your argument more.

Seeing things happening a certain way than making up a reason why this would fit with an otherwise unsubstantiated hypothesis is not the same thing as making predictions then performing an experiment to verify or discard the prediction. Especially when the theory that Occam's Razor would select has is actually 100% compatible with the results and the prediction is implied in the statement of self for the evolutionary mechanism.

I feel that your opinion of evolutionary theory is altogether too high. In my lab, we do research on quorum sensing in bacteria. Evolution theory is almost never brought up in any discussion, and when it is, it never helps. The same can be said of the creationist account. Virtually all of the discoveries we make are not based on either account. Thus, anyone who wants to can come alone, take our findings, and explain it in terms of creation or evolution. This is what they all do. I find your answers somewhat naive, or at least a bit simple and theoretical.


It makes unsubstiantiable assumptions and then works backwards.

As I said before, in my area of research, they all do. Its safest.


No, it makes no more assumptions than the rest of science: the world exists as we observe it.

How about the assumption that every form of genetic variation in life forms today is due to natural selection?


If you believe you can reconcile these assumptions, than feel free to do so. I look forward to seeing you squirm to avoid answering this part directly.

Not sure what you were thinking of. I was merely thinking of something like the origin of God. The assumption is that he is eternal, and therefore does not need an origin. The universe is not eternal, therefore it requires an explanation for an origin.

There, the sole assumption science makes is reconciled. Next.

Not so quick, fella. Science makes a lot of assumptions, e.g. gravity will never fail. I think you are confusing philosophy with science.


No supernatural force is on anyone's side until proven. Until a mechanism is proposed and proven, which basically requires a proof of a god or gods' existance, then creationism is no better than a fairy tale.

You misunderstood me. I was not declaring that God was on my side. I was simply suggesting that having God as part of you explanation can make things a whole lot easier.


Naturalistic intelligent design, however, is a valid theory in that it proposes an observed mechanism which makes predictions. It is, however, a specific theory that requires evolution to have taken place somewhere else.

Requires evolution to have taken place somewhere else??? Could you please explain your riddle? I have no idea what you are talking about.


LEARN TO PRESS THE QUOTE BUTTON

All I really want to know is...

Why did this get brought up again? Evolutionists will believe their side, Creationists will believe their side, and the two will almost never cross. We are all as equally closed minded as we claim that everyone else is. Respect the opinions of others and quit trying to persuade them with endless chatter. If you've already presented evidence for either side of the case and your opposition won't take it as a legitimate source, deal with it. All these debates are doing is taking up hours of our lives that could be spent on something else.

Unless of course you just like arguing.

If that were true, there would never be any reason to debate anything. People's minds can, and do, get changed. It doesn't matter whether a creationist decides evolution seems more plausible or a biologist discounts the theory...neither of those are necessary at all. If, for example, I gain a better understanding of evolution through this discussion, it will have all been worthwhile.

I say again that you cannot claim to know what is best. OK. Maybe it is apparently an inferior design, maybe not. I suspect that it's a bit presumptious of any scientist to criticise something that he has got a snowflake's chance in hell of better-ing.

Really? Engineers can build sensors which resolve images vastly better than the human eye, can see parts of the electromagnetic spectrum the human eye cannot, and can even build sensors that resolve images of individual atoms! Quite how you think we have not bettered the original despite improving on it in every concievable way I don't know.

Creationism predicts that God gave to man an eye that was the best one he could have. You are saying that you know better. Any Christian would tell you that you are in error. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of people who thought they knew better than the all-knowing.

Correct. There are several examples where they did know better. Remember Moses being more moral than God [Exodus 32:10-14]?

And again, you're making up an ad-hoc explaination based on the standard 'the Lord is mysterious' nonsense-explaination. If you have a real theory, you should be able to determine a logical mechanism by which 'God' operates. If, therefore, His mechanism is 'He chooses the best layout for his ultimate creation,' any feature which does not appear to be so is evidence against the hypothesis.

The circular argument that He is perfect, therefore incapable of error, therefore obvious errors must be sensible but somehow beyond our ability to comprehend bears no resemblance to any kind of logic.

Face it, GMCMA, you and I don't know all the facts. Thus you cannot yet say if another eye would be better for you. You have a flawed argument, and it's not working for you.

Really? I can tell if I could see infra-red I'd have a much easier time moving around at night without knowing everything about an eye. I can tell that if I had greater visual acuity and no blind spot it could only plausibly benefit me. Real science depends on generating a working hypothesis from the available data, not on trying to gather all the data in the universe before applying anything. By your thinking, since we don't understand all of physics and chemistry a mechanic cannot possibly know how to service a broken-down car, and an engineer cannot possibly know how to improve a flawed design.

By referring to a 'worse system', I suppose you mean the eye system. you say it's worse, but I say that the conditions are different (water versus air). Shouldn't that suggest something to you. You can't be that blind (pun not intended).

Irrelevant. We are talking about reversing the human light receptors in a human eye, not grafting a cephlapod eye onto a human.

Nothing in life is EVER that simple.

There is no change in how the receptor operates or how it is connected to anyone else, the only difference is a shorter connection and a change in orientation. Turning something around and shortening a wire does not magically make it incompatible with whatever it was connected to before.

Have you ever studied the immune system, or the muscle system, or our bone structures, or our inner ear that gives us balance, or thought about our taste, and other senses, or the billions of bacterial cells inside your gut, outnumbering your own cells, or the organ of your skin, or the marvelous pleasure senses of sex?

Yes, I have a school higher-level qualification in biology [UK 'A' Level]. There is nothing particularly marvellous about the human body; one could wax lyrical about how 'the fuel tank contains more molecules of gasoline than there are people living in the world today', or how 'fantastically precise and carefully regulated the action of the machine gun is', but any idiot can see the Sherman tank is still a piece of shit under all the hyperbole you want to stack around it.

Need I go on? Even if you have the most unco body around, it's still a genetical and biochemical mystery and marvel.

So is syphilis.

My apologies for not replying sooner, however, you are not the only one demanding a response. As you can see, the creationists are outnumbered.

There's a reason for that.

A definition of information units could be functional genes, for example.

I'm sorry...

"could be"?

"for example"?

I did not ask for hypotheticals. You made a rather clear claim that the general trend in genetic mutation is towards a loss of information in the genome and now all of a sudden you don't even know how you're defining information? You have to offer guesses? A mildly astute observer would realize that it is impossible to legitimately conclude that a gain or loss of a unit of measure is occuring when you don't know how you're measuring it in the first place... which you have now demonstrated you don't. So what was the basis of your earlier claim? Or was it just something you thought sounded good?

Bacteria go to a big effort to replicate their genomes, so they usually leave out (where they can) genes that are no longer useful (e.g. mutated).

???

I can't have read that right, because you appear to be saying bacteria play an active role in choosing their own genetic makeup over consecutive generations which would be pretty silly.

And if we just ignore that glaring bit of confusion, did you just also say that when a gene mutates such that it becomes non-coding you actually think it no longer gets reproduced along with the rest of the genome?

Have you studied anything at all about genetics?

No mutation results in an increase in information,

You don't even know how to quantify genetic information! You have no basis for making this claim.

unless you consider that a gene may be accidentally duplicated

Gene duplications are hardly a terribly uncommon occurance...

and then miraculously evolve into a new gene that produces a protein that happens to function.

What's miraculous about it?

It's a long shot.

And since you're making yet another claim that requires you know certain mathematical values I expect you can provide us with the probability of its occurance?

Or did you just think this sounded kind of good too but don't actually have any basis for your "long shot" statement either?

Possible, perhaps, but a very long shot. Given that it is suppose to explain evolution from slime to man, that is a fair stretch of the imagination, one could argue.

One could... if one had the figures to back up their claims. I don't suppose you do.

Sounds like you are quite into mathematics. I'm not. Neither do I have to be, in order to study bacterial genetics.

But you do have to be to make quantitative claims regarding the informational content of the genome... which you have been doing. In order to claim that the information contained within the genome is either decreasing or increasing you must be able to objectively quantify it. It's becoming increasingly clear that you never had this information, you just declared that the information content was always decreasing with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

We have mathematician afiliated with our research departments to do it all for us.

Lovely. Go track one of them down and get them to supply you with the equations so we can all have a look at them and put your claim to the test.

Actually, since we are talking about genes, all we have to do is show that a mutation in a gene renders the gene product useless, and there you have it, a loss of information. Simple as that. Don't need any formula here.

No, it isn't nearly as simple as that.

What about mutations in already non-coding regions, how do we quantify what informational change they represent for each different type of mutation? What if the non-coding regions we're speaking of have regulatory properties? What about mutations that alter one gene into a slightly different but still functional gene? It's doing something new, so is that new information?

I'm sorry, but the topic is just a little bit too complex to lend itself to naively simplistic treatments like you're attempting to do here. If you can't calculate and measure it, which I think it's becoming pretty clear you can't, you don't have a leg to stand on when making quantitative claims about it.

The evolution of man from molecules through slime is a direction.

It is a circuitious path which it is only possible to define after the fact of it's occurance.

That is the general direction of evolution, from a human's perspective anyway.

That is only the past path taken by evolution, and it was hardly in some kind of straight line "direction".

Evolution makes plenty of predictions. Do you know much about the theory?

I've posted a little bit on the subject.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178

There's seven main topical posts in the first 6 pages of the thread. Feel free to browse.

Reformentia


I'm sorry...

"could be"?

"for example"?

I did not ask for hypotheticals. You made a rather clear claim that the general trend in genetic mutation is towards a loss of information in the genome and now all of a sudden you don't even know how you're defining information? You have to offer guesses? A mildly astute observer would realize that it is impossible to legitimately conclude that a gain or loss of a unit of measure is occuring when you don't know how you're measuring it in the first place... which you have now demonstrated you don't. So what was the basis of your earlier claim? Or was it just something you thought sounded good?

I think you are misunderstaning what I mean. My cultural background means that I write using suggesting words. I'm Australian. Plus, being a scientist means that I have learned that it's better to be careful. However, I do know what I'm talking about, and I can tell you that a gene is considered a basic unit of information. When it gets a mutation in it, it usually becomes useless. Thus that information gets lost.


I can't have read that right, because you appear to be saying bacteria play an active role in choosing their own genetic makeup over consecutive generations which would be pretty silly.

And if we just ignore that glaring bit of confusion, did you just also say that when a gene mutates such that it becomes non-coding you actually think it no longer gets reproduced along with the rest of the genome?

Have you studied anything at all about genetics?

No, bacteria don't make decisions, you are quite right. But I never said this. I was just taking a short cut, without explaining all the detail. I thought you understood the priciples of genetics enough to follow me. When bacterial genes become useless, they can always be lost without causing a disadvantage to the daughter cell. By lost, I mean they are not replicated, (i.e., become excised and thus miss out on the replication process). In this way, the daughter cell fails to recieve the mutated gene. But since the mutated gene did not help the daughter cell anyway, the cell was never at a disadvantage, compared to the mother cell, and thus survives quite well, giving rise to more daughter cells and so on. This is a little different to eucaryotic cells, where the genomes contains a lot of intron DNA (sometimes erronously called junk DNA). Bacteria don't have introns (the bits of DNA that are not coding for anything and lie in between the coding regions, or genes). It may take several generations, or several hundreds of generations, but eventually, every bit of useless DNA will be lost from the bacterial genome. Perhaps you can see where this is leading. Each time a gene is mutated (to become useless, however not all mutations render a gene useless) it is likely to get lost from the genome (can be defined as the collection of genes beloning to a single species). Based on this observation, bacterial genomes might be expected to grow smaller and smaller, the greater number of mutations they collect. This is what we have observed. It happens to fit with a creationist prediction, but not the evolutionist one, or at least not at first sight, considering that evolution predicts that man evolved from bacteria. I realize that the evolutionists have their explanations.


Gene duplications are hardly a terribly uncommon occurance...

I don't know the exact figures. Perhaps it more likely in eucaryotes. But to have a duplicate gene inserted into a genome requires precision in a number of complex steps. In bacteria, it is still rare enough to be considered remarkable.

What's miraculous about it?

It would be miraculous because it requires many steps. Firstly, the gene has to be duplicated. Amazing, but still it does happen. Then that gene has to undergo some mutations. Mutations are random events. One base pair of the DNA gets changed to another. The amino acid is changed as a result. The gene has become altered by a single amino acid. However, there are perhaps 500 other amino acids. Several more (at least) will have to be altered in the same way. But remember, while these mutations are occuring, the gene sits in the genome, most likely useless. It has to avoid being lost from the cell. One base pair in a million is mutated during each replication of the genome. That's not a very high rate. Considering that the gene will have appoximately 1500 base pairs, it will have to wait for perhaps 500 to 1000 generations (666.666 if we are being exact) before it will be mutated. That's a lot of generations. But it will need more than just one mutation, if this new gene is going to serve a new role. It will need something like 10% of the base pairs mutated. Given that the last base pair in three is usually a wobble base, that is, even if you mutate it, it still produces the same amino acid in the protein product, you can see that it needs a lot of generations/replications. But lets us continue. We are only just getting over the first hurdle. Now that we have a miraculous new gene. We need to get a promoter in front of it. Has to be something like 10 to 20 base pairs. These are not translated, but the gene after it will not be translated unless it is present. It needs to be the right distance from the gene. It contains the information of how many copies of mRNA one needs from the gene. Too little could be useless. Too much can kill the cell. And in between the promotor and the gene, there needs to be a ribosome binding site. This is translated, and allows the ribosome to bind the mRNA, to make the new protein. Cant get a protein without it. Amazing if it just happened to be there, because it usually is a very precise stretch of DNA.
So, now we have the new protein. Even if it got this far, that would certainly be a miracle (not in the religious sense of the word). But now it needs another protein (called a chaperone) to fold the newly synthesised protein. This chaperone has to be ready to recieve the new protein. Often when we take a gene from one organism and express it in another, eg. E. coli, it is insoluble because the new organism doesn't have the right chaperones. But lets say there happened to be another gene evolving at just the same time to produce the right chaperone that just happened to be a good folder for our first new gene product. Now we need a function for that new gene product. What job can we find for it. It needs to convey a strong enough selection advantage for the cell that carries it so that the daughter cells from this cell line will be stronger than all the competitors, i.e., natural selection. But you just can't shove a new gene into an organism and expect that it will help. When we do this (i.e. by cloning) it usually makes the recipient cell much weaker. The way we select for the new clone in bacteria is using antibiotic resistance (involves cloning more than one gene at a time). But this is not an option for poor blind evolution. It can't see what it will need in the future. It can only select on what it has right now.

Phew, I have written a lot. If you have really read all this above, and understood it, you will see my point. It really is a miracle. You have got to have a lot of faith that a miracle like that took place each time for every one of the 30,000 to 100,000 genes that exist in the human genome.



I'm sorry, but the topic is just a little bit too complex to lend itself to naively simplistic treatments like you're attempting to do here. If you can't calculate and measure it, which I think it's becoming pretty clear you can't, you don't have a leg to stand on when making quantitative claims about it.

I agree that it is very complex. However, I think we scientists have gotten used to talking about it in simple terms, otherwise we often misunderstand each other. We don't for a moment think that we know it all. We are a long long way from that.
To put your point to rest about the calculations (you obviously love mathematics), we can count the number of genes in an average bacterial genome (3,000-5,000). A genome with a newly mutated gene is that number minus one.



It is a circuitious path which it is only possible to define after the fact of it's occurance. That is only the past path taken by evolution, and it was hardly in some kind of straight line "direction".

But my point stands. Evolution has a direction, no matter how many circles it makes, in order to produce man from slime.

Wisjersey

Oh dear, such a situation is kinda unthinkable over here. I wouldn't know of anybody in my occupation who could be a Creationist. The only Creationists I ever met in real life were a fist full of religious fundamentalists at school which had really no idea (or interest, for that matter) in science.

Hmmmm.....then I can see how you would have such an impression of anyone who seriously considers creation as an option. I hope I have successfully altered your view point (if nothing else). Actually, most of the creationists I know are not scientists, and tend to be a bit suspicious of science. But so would anyone in their situation. People have used science to attack religion time and again.

Question, what do you think makes creation a valid theory? Or could mention me anything that *you* think would falsify Creationism?

Good question. I hope you can answer the same one about evolution. What makes creation a valid theory? and what would it take for me to consider creationism false? As for the first question, I have two reasons why creation is a valid theory for me personally. Firstly, it explains a lot of what I observe in the world, particularly in the science world of predictions about genes and selection, and all the stuff we have been talking about here. It also explains very well the things outside the realm of science, like why we have things like love, and emotions, and character, evil and good, a conscience, feelings, the list goes on. I know evolutionists also have their explanations for these things, but I have to say that I find them a bit weak. For example, evolution explains attraction, particularly something like sexual attraction, and the love of a mother for her child. These it can explain rather well. But it does not explain unconditional love, such as that which we read about in the Bible, and occasionally see today among humans.

Secondly, since becoming a Christian, I believe that I have personally encountered God, and it has changed my life completely. I know Him (in a limited sort of way). I commune with Him daily. He has taught me much about how He wants me to love and respect my fellow man, how to love people unconditionally. I'm still mucking it up all the time, but He stays with me because he loves me and is patient with me. He is as much a part of my life as my daily food.
So I know he is real. It gives me confidence in the Bible, because I have found that what I read fits (mostly) with my life experience. (I do have some trouble understanding many parts of the Bible, but I explain this as being my limitation, rather than error being in the Bible. That is a typical Christian viewpoint.
Thus, if God is real, then it is likely that he created the world, although I do allow that it is possible that He used evolution, and I understand that many Christians accept this. This is my second reason for preferring the creation account. All things are possible with my God. That doesn't mean I will understand them immeadiately, or even in this life, but it does mean that I can trust him.

As for what it would take for me to consider creation false. I actually don't know. Some sort of solid evidence that cannot be explained in any other way, I guess. Probably not that much. I have made a decision to love the truth, wherever I find it, and even if it destroys my beautiful ideas. I have found God to be true, above everything else, so I can never let go of my faith, without being dishonest. However, I would reject creationism if I ever found it to be false.


As I mentioned many posts ago, it doesn't make sense for God to kill animals and create new one in chronological order so that he makes it look like evolution having taken place. It's more logical to assume evolution actually took place (i reckon this is a mild variation of Occam's Razor, isn't it? ;)).
I personally find the environmental and ecological aspects very interesting. It's possible from the fossils to reconstruct the palaeo-environment and the relationships inside these ancient ecosystems. And believe me, it's fascinating. And if you take the factor time into consideration, things become even more amazing.

I agree with you when you look for sense in what God does. That is why He gave us a brain. I don't go agree with my own Christian brothers and sisters that think it wrong to question God and his reasons. Where there is love involved, there you are free of the insecurities of incuring wrath with honest questions.

The conclusion that it looks like evolution is taking place (looking at fossil orders for example) if made by an evolutionist. They say that two astronouts had two very different conclusions after their visit to space. The atheist astronout came back and said that his trip to space confirmed to him that there was no God, not even the remotest sign of him. The second one saw the incredible beauty, and testified to a huge boost in his faith in a powerful and mighty and intelligent and imaginative God.

I agree that science is fascinating. Rather limited, but still very fascinating.

Heh, you're assuming some kind of malevolent 'Evolutionist Conspiracy' there. Believe me, it's non existent. Such a discovery would be a scientific sensation...

No, I'm not claiming this. And I think I would have found one by now, if it existed, being a part of a the science community. However, I do recognise an incredible amount of pressure to explain every significant discovery in terms of evolution. I can think of an example where the science community got quite upset when mitochondrial Eve was discovered by some geneticists. The paleotologists held a great deal of influence over the theories of the emergence of modern man. They held that modern man arose from various places around the globe. The geneticists (J. Gould and others) showed that all humans today were decended from a single woman, based on the DNA in the mitochondria. That really upset the paleotologists, who accused the geneticists of being creationists. In defense, the geneticists claimed to show that their evidence did not support creation, particularly when they came up with the time scale that put this 'Eve' about 100 000 years ago. Another group came to their aid, with work on Y-chromosome Adam, and dated him about 150 000 years ago. This is how they got the science community (which was quite understandably upset and very suspicious of the new data) to accept it. But more recent work, actually in one of their papers, they admitted that their clock was a bit wrong, and the mutations accumulated much quicker than they thought, putting a possible date for 'eve' at only 10,000 years ago. But they also mention that they had a lot more of work to do, and that the dating method could be even less, or more. Obviously, the clock for Y chromosome Adam was also a bit suspicious. But by then, the fact that modern humans has risen from one place on the globe had become accepted. It also fitted in quite well with the findings from the linguistics.

My point from this example is that the science community exerts tremendous pressure on every scientist to be an evolutionist. You stand to lose your job, your reputation, your funding if you are caught being a creationist. It's not right. But that is the way it is nowadays. Of course, once upon a time it was even more difficult to believe in something like evolution (e.g. Darwin's struggle). That is just human, I suppose.

My point from this example is that the science community exerts tremendous pressure on every scientist to be an evolutionist. You stand to lose your job, your reputation, your funding if you are caught being a creationist.

Yes, I can't think why scientists would want to supress bad science. I bet rocket scientists are really down on rocket scientists who think the moon landings were faked, too...It's just not right to expect people to understand their own field of study, or scientists to use the scientific method.

No, I'm not claiming this. And I think I would have found one by now, if it existed, being a part of a the science community. However, I do recognise an incredible amount of pressure to explain every significant discovery in terms of evolution. I can think of an example where the science community got quite upset when mitochondrial Eve was discovered by some geneticists. The paleotologists held a great deal of influence over the theories of the emergence of modern man. They held that modern man arose from various places around the globe. The geneticists (J. Gould and others) showed that all humans today were decended from a single woman, based on the DNA in the mitochondria. That really upset the paleotologists, who accused the geneticists of being creationists. In defense, the geneticists claimed to show that their evidence did not support creation, particularly when they came up with the time scale that put this 'Eve' about 100 000 years ago. Another group came to their aid, with work on Y-chromosome Adam, and dated him about 150 000 years ago. This is how they got the science community (which was quite understandably upset and very suspicious of the new data) to accept it. But more recent work, actually in one of their papers, they admitted that their clock was a bit wrong, and the mutations accumulated much quicker than they thought, putting a possible date for 'eve' at only 10,000 years ago. But they also mention that they had a lot more of work to do, and that the dating method could be even less, or more. Obviously, the clock for Y chromosome Adam was also a bit suspicious. But by then, the fact that modern humans has risen from one place on the globe had become accepted. It also fitted in quite well with the findings from the linguistics.

My point from this example is that the science community exerts tremendous pressure on every scientist to be an evolutionist. You stand to lose your job, your reputation, your funding if you are caught being a creationist. It's not right. But that is the way it is nowadays. Of course, once upon a time it was even more difficult to believe in something like evolution (e.g. Darwin's struggle). That is just human, I suppose.

Source please for the eve gene info.

Source please for the eve gene info.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

Claim CB621.1:
Recent research shows the mutation rate in mitochondria much higher than previously thought (Loewe and Scherer 1997; Gibbons 1998). The date of "Mitochondrial Eve," the common maternal ancestor of all humankind, was based on that mutation rate. The revised molecular clock indicates that she lived about 6500 years ago, not about 200,000 years ago as previously claimed.
Source:
Wieland, Carl. 1998. A shrinking date for 'Eve'. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):1-3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp
Response:

1. The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.

Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.

2. A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is.

Links:
MacAndrew, Alec. n.d. Misconceptions around Mitochondrial Eve. http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

When you consider that the geneticists haven't had a long time to calibrate their method, one wonders how their method could be so accurate. They need more time to observe the frequency rate of the mutations, IMO. I am not surprised, though, that they went for older dates, like 100,000 years and 500,000 years. It fits in better with their explanations. The danger is that a person reading their data may think that these dates are definite. They are not. They are educated guesses, ones based on the evolution account. So it's not surprising that when someone who doesn't necessarily have to have such long dates examines the data, they come away with much more recent dates, e.g. 6,000 years.

When you consider that the geneticists haven't had a long time to calibrate their method, one wonders how their method could be so accurate. They need more time to observe the frequency rate of the mutations, IMO. I am not surprised, though, that they went for older dates, like 100,000 years and 500,000 years. It fits in better with their explanations. The danger is that a person reading their data may think that these dates are definite. They are not. They are educated guesses, ones based on the evolution account. So it's not surprising that when someone who doesn't necessarily have to have such long dates examines the data, they come away with much more recent dates, e.g. 6,000 years.

Yes, I mean why bother to read the article when you can just restate your premise again?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

Some stuff from the web...

"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. "(Science. 28 February 1997, p. 1256). ;)


It has been evolutionary dogma for a long time that mitochrondrial DNA was passed down only through the female (despite a paper several years ago by John Maynard Smith et. al. reporting experiments to the contrary).


"Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA. Even if paternal DNA is inherited very rarely, it could invalidate many of their findings."

>>Kinda casts doubt on the existance of a common female ancestor (Eve) doesn't it?<<

I do not see why this discovery would cast doubt on the existence of a common female ancestor, but I am willing to change my mind if you can explain why this would be so.

On the other hand note the first sentence quoted above, ""Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA."

What is affected by this new finding is the date derived using the old assumption. If the DNA is mixed with the paternal DNA then the sequences variability will be greater, thus confounding the calaculation which assumes that variations are due strictly to random mutations. The net result is that estimates of human divergences between various populations will be off, essentially giving dates older than the actual case.

The bottom line is that previous "Eve" mitochrondrial studies which estimated the rise of the human race 100,000 or more years ago could be off by large factors, perhaps a factor of 20 too large.

Yes, I mean why bother to read the article when you can just restate your premise again?

now I have read the article you posted!!!!!

Some stuff from the web...

What's the point of posting material I've already posted a rebuttal to? The DNA that indicates a rapid mutation rate is only 7% of the total mitochondrial DNA, and the remainder does not support the low figure at all.

What's the point of posting material I've already posted a rebuttal to? The DNA that indicates a rapid mutation rate is only 7% of the total mitochondrial DNA, and the remainder does not support the low figure at all.

I suggest that the remainder doesn't support any figure, but that that 7% is the mitochondrial DNA that contains most of the variation. The variation is where the clock comes from. The other 93% is perhaps coding sequences that can't tolerate mutations.

I suggest that the remainder doesn't support any figure, but that that 7% is the mitochondrial DNA that contains most of the variation. The variation is where the clock comes from. The other 93% is perhaps coding sequences that can't tolerate mutations.

Meaning you're ignoring the article I posted and restating your argument unaltered again.

The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.

In any case, even if you were right, this is the black / white fallacy that if Evolution isn't perfect it's no better than any other explaination. This is foolish reasoning; if the correct answer is 100, 98 is a better answer than 53, and both are better than 'Unknown' [aka 'God'].

Meaning you're ignoring the article I posted and restating your argument unaltered again.



In any case, even if you were right, this is the black / white fallacy that if Evolution isn't perfect it's no better than any other explaination. This is foolish reasoning; if the correct answer is 100, 98 is a better answer than 53, and both are better than 'Unknown' [aka 'God'].

No, I definitely did not ignore your article. I think I was trying to tell you what they meant in it.

My intention with this example was not to prove evolution wrong, but to point out how the science community puts a great deal of pressure upon its members to accept the evolutionist account. However, understandlbly, this neither proves nor disproves evolution. But it might explain why scientists are less than keen to publish anything that might be interpreted as favouring creation.

I am trying to avoid intellectual adultery here, and avoid going with creationism simply on the basis of any excuse will do. I am willing to reason through each point. Therefore, I will avoid rejecting evolution when it doesn't have a good answer. I will prefer creation only if it consistently provides a better explanation, one that fits better with life as I have found it. One cannot be more honest and objective than that.

No, I definitely did not ignore your article. I think I was trying to tell you what they meant in it.

You failed admirably.

My intention with this example was not to prove evolution wrong, but to point out how the science community puts a great deal of pressure upon its members to accept the evolutionist account. However, understandlbly, this neither proves nor disproves evolution. But it might explain why scientists are less than keen to publish anything that might be interpreted as favouring creation.

That and because creationism is the diametric opposite of the scientific method because appealing to divine intervention by a creature with no limits who need obey no laws is a mockery of the idea of trying to define physical limits and laws, better known as 'science.'

So yes, if someone stands up and says that he isn't a scientist, he shouldn't expect to be treated as one.

Ok now... (sorry for taking so long):


Hmmmm.....then I can see how you would have such an impression of anyone who seriously considers creation as an option. I hope I have successfully altered your view point (if nothing else). Actually, most of the creationists I know are not scientists, and tend to be a bit suspicious of science. But so would anyone in their situation. People have used science to attack religion time and again.

Well, I'm glad somebody like you is willing to talk and think about things and discuss it. What scares me is the idea that people 'shut down' their brains when practicing religion. Btw, at this point I'd like to apologize for the occasional flaming i did a few pages earlier.

Good question. I hope you can answer the same one about evolution. What makes creation a valid theory? and what would it take for me to consider creationism false? As for the first question, I have two reasons why creation is a valid theory for me personally. Firstly, it explains a lot of what I observe in the world, particularly in the science world of predictions about genes and selection, and all the stuff we have been talking about here. It also explains very well the things outside the realm of science, like why we have things like love, and emotions, and character, evil and good, a conscience, feelings, the list goes on. I know evolutionists also have their explanations for these things, but I have to say that I find them a bit weak. For example, evolution explains attraction, particularly something like sexual attraction, and the love of a mother for her child. These it can explain rather well. But it does not explain unconditional love, such as that which we read about in the Bible, and occasionally see today among humans.

I don't know if you have noticed it when reading my posts, but I've tried to elaborate that I've tried to imagine what to expect things should look like according to Genesis. And the result is that it should look radically different from what we see in the real world (if you disagree, please elaborate). This process of falsifying/verifying hypotheses is generally ignored by Creationists. From my expirience, the standard procedure of Creationists (I'm not talking about you, i'm talking about 'mainstream' Creationists - specifically those who run the notorious websites) is to pick the evidence that fits (sadly, may it be true or not) and discard the rest. That is not very scientific... at all. :(
You say Creationism explains everything, for myself I cannot agree on that. Instead it raises a multiplicity of questions (especially about the behaviour of god) - and the 'God's ways are mysterious'-wildcard doesn't explain it either. All these problems are non-existent in the naturalist world view. There the truth is obvious: there are the laws of nature which are running the universe, and everything works according to it.

Secondly, since becoming a Christian, I believe that I have personally encountered God, and it has changed my life completely. I know Him (in a limited sort of way). I commune with Him daily. He has taught me much about how He wants me to love and respect my fellow man, how to love people unconditionally. I'm still mucking it up all the time, but He stays with me because he loves me and is patient with me. He is as much a part of my life as my daily food.
So I know he is real. It gives me confidence in the Bible, because I have found that what I read fits (mostly) with my life experience. (I do have some trouble understanding many parts of the Bible, but I explain this as being my limitation, rather than error being in the Bible. That is a typical Christian viewpoint.
Thus, if God is real, then it is likely that he created the world, although I do allow that it is possible that He used evolution, and I understand that many Christians accept this. This is my second reason for preferring the creation account. All things are possible with my God. That doesn't mean I will understand them immeadiately, or even in this life, but it does mean that I can trust him.

As for what it would take for me to consider creation false. I actually don't know. Some sort of solid evidence that cannot be explained in any other way, I guess. Probably not that much. I have made a decision to love the truth, wherever I find it, and even if it destroys my beautiful ideas. I have found God to be true, above everything else, so I can never let go of my faith, without being dishonest. However, I would reject creationism if I ever found it to be false.

Well now, what makes evolution a valid scientific theory? I can answer you that question: Well, it's making predictions about what we can and cannot expect in the fossil record which can be verified (or falsified). As you may know, the fossil record is incomplete, and it's only thanks to the ongoing efforts of palaeontologists that these holes are getting smaller and smaller (as in other fields of science - not surprisingly - we know today much more than we did 100 years ago).
If anything is possible under god as you say, we should find anything. From what we've found say far, I'd say (and the bulk of palaeontologists, for that matter) we only find what's possible under an evolution. If we start finding... say pegasi or centaurs or something equivalent, then you'd have something to falsify evolution.

I agree with you when you look for sense in what God does. That is why He gave us a brain. I don't go agree with my own Christian brothers and sisters that think it wrong to question God and his reasons. Where there is love involved, there you are free of the insecurities of incuring wrath with honest questions.

The conclusion that it looks like evolution is taking place (looking at fossil orders for example) if made by an evolutionist. They say that two astronouts had two very different conclusions after their visit to space. The atheist astronout came back and said that his trip to space confirmed to him that there was no God, not even the remotest sign of him. The second one saw the incredible beauty, and testified to a huge boost in his faith in a powerful and mighty and intelligent and imaginative God.

I agree that science is fascinating. Rather limited, but still very fascinating.

If i may ask, what makes you think science is limited? If you rule out the possibility something has changed, then that is limited IMO. And, you don't get around to assume something changed. Not just once, but many times. Go into ancient ecosystems and compare them with each other, and with recent ecosystems. Look at how reefs are and were build up, look at predator/prey relationships. I'm picking one example now to elaborate, namely Megaherbivores. We have:

- Dinocephalians of the late Permian.
- Dicynodonts and rhynchosaurs during the early to mid-Triassic (ok, not that big)
- Prosauropods during late Triassic and early Jurassic
- Brachiosaurs during late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous.
- Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsians on the northern continents during the Late Cretaceous and Titanosaurs on the southern continents at the same time.
- Brontotheres in North America and East Asia during the Eocene
- 'modern' Ungulates from Oligocene onwards.

(note: i've skipped awfully lot stuff here, especially stuff like diversity and evolution of the mentioned groups ... or the effects of plate tectonics on life - the latter is, IMHO a very fascinating topic).

And I have to admit, 'mega' is a sort of an exaggeration in regard for the Permian and Triassic forms. Their anatomy (they weren't fully upright like mammals or dinosaurs) didn't allow them to become as huge. Also, there certainly must have been some quirks in the Sauropod physiology (and quite possibly environment as well) that allowed them to grow to the gigantic sizes they reached (gigantic not only compared to mammals but also compared to other dinosaurs). I'm honest here, so far we don't know really what it was. Sure, we know that their body could carry them across the land (they were not living in water like the 19th century palaeontologist Marsh and many of his successors believed), but what did they eat, and how were they able to grow fast? (I'm throwing this in here to show you we certainly don't know everything yet).

Anyways, you see that these groups couldn't have existed contemporarily (for one they have never been found in the same strata and for two try to imagine what a mess it would be!), and changes must have occured between the times when they lived. In order to account for all the possibilities that can happen (diseases, natural disasters), a species requires a certain base population. It becomes obvious that an ecosystem can support only a certain number of players. Due to this reason, the abovementioned megaherbivores for example couldn't have coexisted with each other, they did exist in chronological succession.
Please notice also that the required large number of individuals per species haven't been found in most cases, and we rarely have a natural age distribution (which we would expect in a flood scenario). What we find instead is a (still increasing) large number of different species and - with a few exceptions - usually few numbers of individuals per species that come from different times (considering how powerful the taphonomic filter is - this isn't surpising).
So... all these massive faunal changes (note: some were certainly gradual while others were certainly abrupt - ie due to mass extinctions - as said, i'm skipping a lot here) should have never happened according to Creationist view (we would have one change at best - the Deluge - and even there it states that all animal species were saved on the Ark - at the same time it utterly fails to explain how plants and aquatic animals survived).
Palaeontologists and geologists have dragged together so many amounts of information which consistently fit into the picture of an Old Earth, making Evolution not just a possibility but a necessity to have happened.

If i may ask, what makes you think science is limited?

Science can tell us HOW but not WHY. Therefore it doesn't answer all the questions we have. I call that limited.

I think you are misunderstaning what I mean. My cultural background means that I write using suggesting words. I'm Australian. Plus, being a scientist means that I have learned that it's better to be careful. However, I do know what I'm talking about, and I can tell you that a gene is considered a basic unit of information. When it gets a mutation in it, it usually becomes useless. Thus that information gets lost.

Well, we can only consider that "information" to be lost if it actually gets removed from the genome. If a single offspring experiences the mutation, the loss of the gene causes a strong negative selective pressure, and the copy of the genome with the lost gene doesn't survive and get spread leaving only the intact genome with the still functional gene in the other organisms of the population then obviously nothing has been lost. So only gene deletions that have a net neutral or beneficial effect will actually have any tendency to be preserved, and thus only genes that were originally either not of much use in the first place or were actually hampering a bacteria would have any strong tendency to be "lost" due to mutation.

No, bacteria don't make decisions, you are quite right. But I never said this. I was just taking a short cut, without explaining all the detail. I thought you understood the priciples of genetics enough to follow me.

I understand the principles of basic genetics well enough to know that what you had said didn't make any sense.

When bacterial genes become useless, they can always be lost without causing a disadvantage to the daughter cell. By lost, I mean they are not replicated, (i.e., become excised and thus miss out on the replication process). In this way, the daughter cell fails to recieve the mutated gene. But since the mutated gene did not help the daughter cell anyway, the cell was never at a disadvantage, compared to the mother cell, and thus survives quite well, giving rise to more daughter cells and so on. This is a little different to eucaryotic cells, where the genomes contains a lot of intron DNA (sometimes erronously called junk DNA). Bacteria don't have introns (the bits of DNA that are not coding for anything and lie in between the coding regions, or genes). It may take several generations, or several hundreds of generations, but eventually, every bit of useless DNA will be lost from the bacterial genome.

Several hundred generations huh? Wow...

As far as I'm aware on average something like 10% of any given bacterial genome is non-coding. Now, if in a few hundred generations all that non-coding material gets removed and if it isn't being replaced by new coding genes through other mutation events, in other words there was a steady "loss of information" occuring over time and this was the result, then that would give us a mighty large genome for bacteria going back a very short time in history.

As much as I know you probably don't want to, let's try a wee bit of math shall we?

Now, how many no longer functionally coding gene sequences do you suppose have to be in the process of being eliminated through gradual deletions to account for 10% of the genome at any given time? You know what... let's call it 1% just to skew things in creationism's favor by an entire order of magnitude. Seems to me that we would be looking at the decaying byproducts of at least 30 genes given a 3000 gene bacterial DNA sequence (the lower range of your own provided numbers, again erring on the side of creationism). Now, if all the non-coding sequences in a bacteria would be, as you say, removed after several hundred generations as you said (we'll go high and call it 1000 generations to, again, skew things in your favor even further) that means that on average over the course of 1000 generations of a bacteria containing 3000 genes a full 30 of them are disabled and are undergoing gradual decay and removal from the bacteria's genome.

If we accept your hypothesis that loss of information such as this is the rule in bacteria, without having other mutational effects reintroducing new information to the genome to constantly compensate (and keeping in mind we've already compensated by a factor of over 10 anyway just to play nice) this would mean that at this rate** and using an average of, say, 10 hours generational times for your average bacteria, the average bacterial DNA sequence would have been made up of over 130,000 coding genes a mere 5000 years ago.

That's something like three times the number of coding genes contained in the human genome. That's some mighty impressive bacteria. It also means that in order to go from our early ancestral bacteria here to modern humans we would need (that's right) a loss of information as you choose to define it.

How's your creationism "prediction" holding up now?

** Note that if we're down to a mere few thousand genes in modern bacteria without any great deal of creation of new genetic information, but only stready loss as you insist on, that would mean that the vast majority of that greater number of genes in the past were not exactly essential seeing as they were readily eliminated and left us with still viable organisms, and as we get down to lower and lower numbers we should be reaching the point where only the bare essentials are retained which are subject to the highest stabilizing selective pressures, and thus the rate of loss should be steadily decelerating over time making it slower now than in the past... and additionally the plain fact of dealing with larger sizes of past genomes at all would also mean a higher absolute rate of mutation in the past... but once again we err on the side of creationism by assuming a constant rate instead. And it doesn't matter because even after a huge amount of cumulatively skewing ALL the figures on the side of creationism in this scenario the result still comes out as absurd.

Perhaps you can see where this is leading.

I don't think me seeing where this is leading is the problem here.

Each time a gene is mutated (to become useless, however not all mutations render a gene useless) it is likely to get lost from the genome (can be defined as the collection of genes beloning to a single species). Based on this observation, bacterial genomes might be expected to grow smaller and smaller, the greater number of mutations they collect.

Oh yes indeed... if we accept your model they would certainly be expected to grow smaller and smaller. I just don't think you thought through the implications of that completely.

Science can tell us HOW but not WHY. Therefore it doesn't answer all the questions we have. I call that limited.

There is no why. Why is only a question you can ask humans. The universe doesnt have reasons.

That and because creationism is the diametric opposite of the scientific method because appealing to divine intervention by a creature with no limits who need obey no laws is a mockery of the idea of trying to define physical limits and laws, better known as 'science.'

So yes, if someone stands up and says that he isn't a scientist, he shouldn't expect to be treated as one.

That is not always true. You are both leaving political influence and greed out of the descussion. Just because your a scientist doesn't mean your an athiest. This leads to the fact that if you are not an athiest, no matter what "god" you believe in, you must also believe that there was some greater force behind creation. Does this meen that we have to go back to the middle ages where everything that happened was due to "god's will?" No. But to assume that the universe came about on its own, just by accident, or whatever, is even more insane. This isn't even taking into account the fact that there are still thousands of cases of things that science has not explained. (though most of them will probobly be explained as science advances, but you get the point)

Now returning to politics and greed. Whenever a scientist wants to conduct and experiment, he needs to seek our a grant. In order to get one, from wherever, he/she (must be PC here, lol) must present the experiment and what exactly he/she is trying to prove. For example, a pesticide company might fund a scientific experiment that is trying to prove that their product is not harmfull to children or obscure animals. (you get the idea) So they are going to do whatever it takes to make the experiment say what they want it to say, lest they lose their grant. The same thing applies to the athiest-evolutionist lobby. Any experiment or study they fund has the underlying objective to "prove" that god does not exist, and they will do what they can to make sure that is what their "observations" say. My point is, experiments and studies, no matter what they are, are not fully accurate if conducted with a previously formed bias.

Originally Posted by Gronde
The same thing applies to the athiest-evolutionist lobby. Any experiment or study they fund has the underlying objective to "prove" that god does not exist, and they will do what they can to make sure that is what their "observations" say. Wahahaha! I'm sorry. "athiest-evolutionist lobby"?! You can't be serious!

Do you actually believe there is some shadowy, massively rich, mysterious cabal of atheist-evolutionists purposely blocking the science of heroic creationists?! How does that even make sense?!

I hate to break it to you, but almost all real scientists have no interest in proving or disproving the existence of God, they have more realistic goals. Should some of their discoveries come into conflict with Genesis or any other thousand year old story, well tough cookies! It is not their primary concern. Scientists have a hypothesis, then they test and test and test the devil out of it, and from the data make inferences backed up by solid facts.

Any experiment or study they fund has the underlying objective to "prove" that god does not exist

Your total lack of understanding of the scientific method is very evident. All science rules out the possibility of active supernatural interference in the universe, because a God or Gods are impossible to predict, therefore if such a being exists then building an accurate model with predictive powers is impossible; the being is outside our understanding.

This is why creationism is fundamentally unscientific; it seeks to replace a theory which relies on things that can be measured with an entity that follows no set rules and cannot be measured. It is impossible to predict the actions or operations of a creature supposedly so complex that its methods defy human understanding, so any theory which includes it is totally useless, much as a mathematical equation that contains a term that cannot be defined can never produce a useable output.

So, put bluntly, any experiment carried out by a scientist, regardless of his religious leanings, must rule out the idea that a God has ever interfered with the universe, outside the 'God of nature' of people like Einstein who merely set things rolling and sat back to watch. Even in that case, they are unlikely to claim that their God is scientific rather than an article of faith.

That is not always true. You are both leaving political influence and greed out of the descussion. Just because your a scientist doesn't mean your an athiest. This leads to the fact that if you are not an athiest, no matter what "god" you believe in, you must also believe that there was some greater force behind creation. Does this meen that we have to go back to the middle ages where everything that happened was due to "god's will?" No. But to assume that the universe came about on its own, just by accident, or whatever, is even more insane. This isn't even taking into account the fact that there are still thousands of cases of things that science has not explained. (though most of them will probobly be explained as science advances, but you get the point).
Now returning to politics and greed. Whenever a scientist wants to conduct and experiment, he needs to seek our a grant. In order to get one, from wherever, he/she (must be PC here, lol) must present the experiment and what exactly he/she is trying to prove. For example, a pesticide company might fund a scientific experiment that is trying to prove that their product is not harmfull to children or obscure animals. (you get the idea) So they are going to do whatever it takes to make the experiment say what they want it to say, lest they lose their grant. The same thing applies to the athiest-evolutionist lobby. Any experiment or study they fund has the underlying objective to "prove" that god does not exist, and they will do what they can to make sure that is what their "observations" say. My point is, experiments and studies, no matter what they are, are not fully accurate if conducted with a previously formed bias.

The "atheist-evolutionist lobby" as you claim is non-existent. If it existed, I should have stumbled across it a long time ago. That never happened. The irony is that (at least in the US) there seems to be a Christian Fundamentalist/Creationist lobby that frantically seems to try to bring Creationism into school as a 'valid theory' which it isn't (for the previously elaboreated reasons). And then I have to re-iterate that you apparently have no idea about how the scientific method works.

Your total lack of understanding of the scientific method is very evident. All science rules out the possibility of active supernatural interference in the universe, because a God or Gods are impossible to predict, therefore if such a being exists then building an accurate model with predictive powers is impossible; the being is outside our understanding.

This is why creationism is fundamentally unscientific; it seeks to replace a theory which relies on things that can be measured with an entity that follows no set rules and cannot be measured. It is impossible to predict the actions or operations of a creature supposedly so complex that its methods defy human understanding, so any theory which includes it is totally useless, much as a mathematical equation that contains a term that cannot be defined can never produce a useable output.

So, put bluntly, any experiment carried out by a scientist, regardless of his religious leanings, must rule out the idea that a God has ever interfered with the universe, outside the 'God of nature' of people like Einstein who merely set things rolling and sat back to watch. Even in that case, they are unlikely to claim that their God is scientific rather than an article of faith.
That's completely true. God is indeeed beyond science.

Of course, objectively speaking, because evolution is also unpredictable, the Theory of Evolution is not scientific either. Seriously.

Of course, objectively speaking, because evolution is also unpredictable, the Theory of Evolution is not scientific either. Seriously.

I have to disagree, and I know what I'm talking about. As i mentioned two posts earlier about verifying/falsifying evolution, you can make predictions about the fossil record.


Well now, what makes evolution a valid scientific theory? I can answer you that question: Well, it's making predictions about what we can and cannot expect in the fossil record which can be verified (or falsified). As you may know, the fossil record is incomplete, and it's only thanks to the ongoing efforts of palaeontologists that these holes are getting smaller and smaller (as in other fields of science - not surprisingly - we know today much more than we did 100 years ago).
If anything is possible under god as you say, we should find anything. From what we've found say far, I'd say (and the bulk of palaeontologists, for that matter) we only find what's possible under an evolution. If we start finding... say pegasi or centaurs or something equivalent, then you'd have something to falsify evolution.

I have to disagree, and I know what I'm talking about. As i mentioned two posts earlier about verifying/falsifying evolution, you can make predictions about the fossil record.

But no scientist can make a prediction about future evolutionary events. What will humans turn into?

Note: prediction is one thing - it has to be proven by evidence.

But no scientist can make a prediction about future evolutionary events. What will humans turn into?

You know how difficult the future is to predict in general. To take a very mundane example, few people could have imagined in 1970 how Cold War would end. So, predicting the future is thin ice in general.
Besides, you have to distinguish between 'prediction about what should be observed' and 'prediction what the future will look like.', and from the scientific point of view, the former one is way more important. Because that's how your build up your hypotheses. If your predictions match with the observations, then you have a valid scientific theory.

Note: prediction is one thing - it has to be proven by evidence.

Well, that's what i am talking about. Evidence has a very convincing language.

You know how difficult the future is to predict in general. To take a very mundane example, few people could have imagined in 1970 how Cold War would end. So, predicting the future is thin ice in general.
Besides, you have to distinguish between 'prediction about what should be observed' and 'prediction what the future will look like.', and from the scientific point of view, the former one is way more important. Because that's how your build up your hypotheses. If your predictions match with the observations, then you have a valid scientific theory.

Well, that's what i am talking about. Evidence has a very convincing language.

Ah...now you're talking history. History cannot be predicted, even though you are given all the same variables. But science can. At least, science should. For example, all green leaves photosynthesise. The rate of photosynthesis will be affected by the same factors, such as intensity of light, temperature, dew point etc. These are predictable. Evolution is not. So evolution is strictly not science. Neither is Creationism, of course.

Evidence - of course - also has limitations...

Ah...now you're talking history. History cannot be predicted, even though you are given all the same variables. But science can. At least, science should. For example, all green leaves photosynthesise. The rate of photosynthesis will be affected by the same factors, such as intensity of light, temperature, dew point etc. These are predictable. Evolution is not. So evolution is strictly not science. Neither is Creationism, of course.

Evidence - of course - also has limitations...

*sigh* I hate repeating myself, but you are apparently not reading closely what I said about 'prediction of what should be observed'. We can make predictions about what to find and what not to find in the fossil record, and our predictions are verified by what we find in the fossil record. Isn't it obvious?

Go ahead and try the same with the Creation and Deluge accounts in the bible. You'll notice soon they are totally incompatible with the fossil record and the geological situation on Earth.

*sigh* I hate repeating myself, but you are apparently not reading closely what I said about 'prediction of what should be observed'. We can make predictions about what to find and what not to find in the fossil record, and our predictions are verified by what we find in the fossil record. Isn't it obvious?

Go ahead and try the same with the Creation and Deluge accounts in the bible. You'll notice soon they are totally incompatible with the fossil record and the geological situation on Earth.

You are right. I just started posting after I read the very last post........ sorry....too long......

I get what you mean, but you are simply turning around in circles trying to prove something that has already been proven (i.e. you already HAVE the fossils. What else is there to prove?). The unique thing about science is about predicting the FUTURE accurately. I predict that if the world doesn't end later on, the sun will still rise on the eastern horizon tomorrow morning. This is science!

You are right again - provided that the methods used to calculate the age of the records are accurate - which you can't prove either - because there is no alternative method - because the alternative method is always labelled as 'pseudo-science' - which is self-defeating.

Uncompatible with a physical record which may not be completely accurate, the Flood has been recorded in similar forms by different ancient cultures AROUND THE WORLD.

Take China for example, which contains the oldest, continuous history of any nation in the world. Chinese mythology talks of a goddess named Nuwah ("Noah"?) who stopped a great pouring flood from the sky with five coloured rocks (a rainbow?). Plus a number of Hong Kong explorers have come back from Mount Ararat with footage of the remains of the ark. You had better hope that these evidence are fake, because if they were real, the entire Theory of Evolution will tumble and science will stop. Perhaps many scientists are willing to turn away the doubts of the Theory of Evolution because there is so much at stake. This, of course, hampers the development of the discovery of the truth.

Uncompatible with a physical record which may not be completely accurate, the Flood has been recorded in similar forms by different ancient cultures AROUND THE WORLD.

Take China for example, which contains the oldest, continuous history of any nation in the world. Chinese mythology talks of a goddess named Nuwah ("Noah"?) who stopped a great pouring flood from the sky with five coloured rocks (a rainbow?). Plus a number of Hong Kong explorers have come back from Mount Ararat with footage of the remains of the ark. You had better hope that these evidence are fake, because if they were real, the entire Theory of Evolution will tumble and science will stop. Perhaps many scientists are willing to turn away the doubts of the Theory of Evolution because there is so much at stake. This, of course, hampers the development of the discovery of the truth.

Remains of a 6000 year old wooden ark? Hah!

Remains of a 6000 year old wooden ark? Hah!
I've seen those pictures. They're a rock that doesn't even look remotely like a boat.

On a permanantly cold and snowy mountain it would stay. *rolls eyes*.

It's video footage. Not photos.

Uncompatible with a physical record which may not be completely accurate, the Flood has been recorded in similar forms by different ancient cultures AROUND THE WORLD.

Well, yes, many cultures have flood accounts, but that doesn't mean anything (ok, maybe this is reminiscent of the worldwide rise of sea level at the end of the last ice age, but even this may be a coincidence). And also it doesn't say that the biblical Deluge account is the truth. It is - in fact - a rip-off of the Sumer Deluge account (ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh?).

Take China for example, which contains the oldest, continuous history of any nation in the world. Chinese mythology talks of a goddess named Nuwah ("Noah"?) who stopped a great pouring flood from the sky with five coloured rocks (a rainbow?). Plus a number of Hong Kong explorers have come back from Mount Ararat with footage of the remains of the ark. You had better hope that these evidence are fake, because if they were real, the entire Theory of Evolution will tumble and science will stop. Perhaps many scientists are willing to turn away the doubts of the Theory of Evolution because there is so much at stake. This, of course, hampers the development of the discovery of the truth.

Mount Ararat? You should be aware that Mount Ararat is a stratovolcano and it was active last time 1850 or so. Besides, there's a multiplicity of things that make Deluge impossible (here are some in SHORT):
- there's not enough water on Earth.
- Noah's Ark would have been to small.
- How would he and his family been able to supply the animals with food?
- How did he prevent them from eating each other?
- most aquatic lifeforms would have died in the change of salinity
- most plants would have perished as well (the seeds obviously would have been buried under tons of sediment).
- You are unable to explain the stratigraphic column and the multiplicity of geological features on Earth.

Well, yes, many cultures have flood accounts, but that doesn't mean anything (ok, maybe this is reminiscent of the worldwide rise of sea level at the end of the last ice age, but even this may be a coincidence). And also it doesn't say that the biblical Deluge account is the truth. It is - in fact - a rip-off of the Sumer Deluge account (ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh?).



Mount Ararat? You should be aware that Mount Ararat is a stratovolcano and it was active last time 1850 or so. Besides, there's a multiplicity of things that make Deluge impossible (here are some in SHORT):
- there's not enough water on Earth.
- Noah's Ark would have been to small.
- How would he and his family been able to supply the animals with food?
- How did he prevent them from eating each other?
- most aquatic lifeforms would have died in the change of salinity
- most plants would have perished as well (the seeds obviously would have been buried under tons of sediment).
- You are unable to explain the stratigraphic column and the multiplicity of geological features on Earth.

But with a large number of those stories containing the same elements such as:

- a disaster?
- a global catastrophe?
- only one family saved?
- with one boat?
- with animals?
- resting on a peak?
- use of birds to check the land after the flood?
- an act of offering to a deity after the flood?
- only eight people got rescued?
- the appearance of a rainbow after the flood?

far too many coincidences to be "just myths".

When the ark is excavated, you get your answer. Obviously if God was behind the Flood and was behind the salvation of Noah's family then He would protect the ark and its occupants, yeah?

far too many coincidences to be "just myths".

When the ark is excavated, you get your answer. Obviously if God was behind the Flood and was behind the salvation of Noah's family then He would protect the ark and its occupants, yeah?

You're assuming that because these stories share similar attributes that it must be true. You're ignoring the (much more likely) possibility that it's simply a well spread myth.

But with a large number of those stories containing the same elements such as:

- a disaster?
- a global catastrophe?
- only one family saved?
- with one boat?
- with animals?
- resting on a peak?
- use of birds to check the land after the flood?
- an act of offering to a deity after the flood?
- only eight people got rescued?
- the appearance of a rainbow after the flood?

far too many coincidences to be "just myths".

When the ark is excavated, you get your answer. Obviously if God was behind the Flood and was behind the salvation of Noah's family then He would protect the ark and its occupants, yeah?

I just said it's impossible for that to have happened and you ignored what I said. As I said, go ahead and look at the stratigraphic column and the fossil record and other geological features (plate tectonics, for example). You'll see they are totally inconsistent with your Deluge account(s).

You're assuming that because these stories share similar attributes that it must be true. You're ignoring the (much more likely) possibility that it's simply a well spread myth.

Such similar myths don't spread from one corner of the Earth to another during ancient times. The world was not in so much contact with each other 5000 - 6000 years ago...

Such similar myths don't spread from one corner of the Earth to another during ancient times. The world was not in so much contact with each other 5000 - 6000 years ago...

You apparently still haven't taken a look at all the impossibilities. No matter how much you believe that it happened, it doesn't change the fact that it's impossible to have happened. :rolleyes:

You apparently still haven't taken a look at all the impossibilities. No matter how much you believe that it happened, it doesn't change the fact that it's impossible to have happened. :rolleyes:

Oooh....we don't know that........

Oooh....we don't know that........

Well, we certainly do. However, if you ignore all the scientific facts, and ignore all the laws in nature, then you don't know that...

Such similar myths don't spread from one corner of the Earth to another during ancient times. The world was not in so much contact with each other 5000 - 6000 years ago...

According to present theory, humans all began in Africa. Therefore, that myth could have easily orginated there and then have been passed on as man spread.

Such similar myths don't spread from one corner of the Earth to another during ancient times. The world was not in so much contact with each other 5000 - 6000 years ago...

Actually, it was. Just take a look at how many tribes passed through Europe in the meantime...

Furthermore, there is evidence of extremely heavy flooding on a global scale at the end of the last ice age, around 10 000 years ago (not so much the complete end, I know that technically, we still live in an ice age, but a fast global warming took place around that time, bringing about the global climate we have today). These floods would inundate large strips of lands, changing coastlines (England was seperated from the European continent, for example), and they would recur for years, so some clever people would have taken to building ships or ship-like structures to keep their families and of course their lifestock save.

Personally, I'm not the least bit surprised that these global catastrophies remained in the cultural mind of peoples all over the globe, and got formed into myths like the one about Noah and the arch.

It's a story, it doesn't make sense to believe it word for word. It was never meant to be taken that way.

According to present theory, humans all began in Africa. Therefore, that myth could have easily orginated there and then have been passed on as man spread.

I doubt that, for the factors given above. Also, when humans started to leave Africa, in the form of the Cro Magnon or the Neanderthal men, they wouldn't have had the capabilies of telling stories as elaborate as this one, their languages wouldn't even have been fully developed yet.

I doubt that, for the factors given above. Also, when humans started to leave Africa, in the form of the Cro Magnon or the Neanderthal men, they wouldn't have had the capabilies of telling stories as elaborate as this one, their languages wouldn't even have been fully developed yet.

Yep, the exodus from Africa occured long before the end of the last ice age. The first humans reached America ~15,000 YBP, while they reached Australia as early as even 50,000 YBP. And the end of the last ice age was around 12,500 YBP.

Oooh....we don't know that........

1. Building a boat 450ft long with no shipbuilding experience is impossible.
2. Building a boat 450ft long out of only wood is impossible.
3. Identifying and categorising millions of species without advanced knowledge of biology is impossible.
4. Carrying enough food for all these species on one boat is impossible.
5. Noah and his family would have had to be literally crawling with fleas, worms, flukes, mites, ticks, lice...As would most of the animals. For Noah to survive a long voyage at sea while incidentally infected with Malaria and Cholera is impossible.
6. The volume of water required to cause a global flood that covers the higest mountain does not exist anywhere in the world.
7. Even if such water did exist, for it to simply vanish is impossible.

I'd say we know it's impossible.

1. Building a boat 450ft long with no shipbuilding experience is impossible.
2. Building a boat 450ft long out of only wood is impossible.

Well... one that would stay intact and afloat anyway... for both the above.

No issue with the rest.

I'd say we know it's impossible.

Well, that's what I said, too... :D

PS: You know, sometimes however, i wonder if i'm fighting a losing battle against stupidity... :(

GMC Military Arms

You failed admirably.

I wonder if you could improve your manners just a little. It would make your arguments sound better.


That and because creationism is the diametric opposite of the scientific method because appealing to divine intervention by a creature with no limits who need obey no laws is a mockery of the idea of trying to define physical limits and laws, better known as 'science.'

So yes, if someone stands up and says that he isn't a scientist, he shouldn't expect to be treated as one

I have discovered that creationism is compatible with the scientific method. there are those within creationism that may combate you with arguments of "God did it and that explains it". But it doesn't have to be argued that way. For example, I am capable of sitting down and reasoning with you about every point of science that I know enough to talk about. Simply because I prefer to accept a different explanation than yours, should you be so upset with that? If I accept that God put the laws of nature in place, and then go about my research on that basis, would you say that my research would suffer because of that?

I work in a lab, I have a scientific education, and work in a genetics department where most of the others are evolutionists. I don't preach and prattle on about my theories of creation. Probably, most of the people I work with don't even know that I prefer creation. It's not an issue when it comes to our daily work. My work doesn't actually suffer due to my preferences. In short, I am accepted as a scientist by my collegues. You, however, would disagree with that on the basis of my preferences. Therefore, I say that your opinion goes against the evidence.

The chance of cells coming together so perfectly is a mathematical absurdity. That is the one thing I don't understand about Evolutionism.

The chance of cells coming together so perfectly is a mathematical absurdity. That is the one thing I don't understand about Evolutionism.

And I suppose you've done the math to be able to make that claim?

Care to share with the group?

The chance of cells coming together so perfectly is a mathematical absurdity. That is the one thing I don't understand about Evolutionism.

This may help there... (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

Btw, Bruarong... you may want to take a look at post #275 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9053258&postcount=275) . I've elaborated some stuff there, plz take a look.

I wonder if you could improve your manners just a little. It would make your arguments sound better.

I don't care how my arguments sound, I care about their content. Style over substance falalcy.

If I accept that God put the laws of nature in place, and then go about my research on that basis, would you say that my research would suffer because of that?

I would note that attempting to prove the existence of a being which cannot be measured and follows no laws is an exercise in futility. If God can be located then the Bible is wrong anyway, since it says he cannot be located unless he wants to be.

I work in a lab, I have a scientific education, and work in a genetics department where most of the others are evolutionists. I don't preach and prattle on about my theories of creation.

In other words, because you don't allow your beliefs to interfere with your work by trying to locate proof of them you're not regarded as a crackpot. Well done, you proved my point for me. Last I checked, I said that a scientist who tries to prove creation scientifically is not using science, not that it's impossible for a creationist to do any science. Take your strawman away.

Wisjersey

Well, I'm glad somebody like you is willing to talk and think about things and discuss it. What scares me is the idea that people 'shut down' their brains when practicing religion. Btw, at this point I'd like to apologize for the occasional flaming i did a few pages earlier.

IMO, it's actually not religion that makes people shut down their brains. It's more like insecurity and fears. That happens on both sides of the debate. I agree. It is a bit frightening. Don't give a frightened man a loaded gun.

I forgive you for any offenses you may have directed my way. And I have to say it, you are absolutely the first evolutionist who has ever apologised to me for that. You have already impressed me, and I am far more likely to read carefully what you have written.



I don't know if you have noticed it when reading my posts, but I've tried to elaborate that I've tried to imagine what to expect things should look like according to Genesis. And the result is that it should look radically different from what we see in the real world (if you disagree, please elaborate). This process of falsifying/verifying hypotheses is generally ignored by Creationists. From my expirience, the standard procedure of Creationists (I'm not talking about you, i'm talking about 'mainstream' Creationists - specifically those who run the notorious websites) is to pick the evidence that fits (sadly, may it be true or not) and discard the rest. That is not very scientific... at all. :(

Well, it depends on how you read Genesis, I suspect. Which ever explanation you have chosen to accept, the other one will always look a bit strange and perhaps silly. I guess you realize that creationists laugh and scoff at evolutionist ideas, probably nearly as much as the evolutionists scoff at the creationists. (Personally, I feel that scoffing is not very intelligent, or humble, and neither is it something Christ taught us to do.)

I appreciate that you have tried to be objective about it. As for me, my reading of Genesis leads me to conclude that I have found the world as the Bible describes it....red in tooth and claw. This is not how God made it, according to the Bible. It is how it ended up.

The method of falsifying/verifying hypotheses is simply a part of reasoning. It is certainly not limited to the evolutionists. Perhaps your impression of creationism leads you to conclude that they are not very reasonable. There will always be the rogues in every belief system. I'm sure you are aware of the way that evolutionists shamefully treat other humans simply because they hold to a different belief system. It is a bit reminiscient of racism, to me. Except that I have never experienced physical violence yet, thank God.

There is no clash in my mind between the science method and the Bible. Perhaps you would like to pick up an example of what appears to be a clash.

You say Creationism explains everything, for myself I cannot agree on that. Instead it raises a multiplicity of questions (especially about the behaviour of god) - and the 'God's ways are mysterious'-wildcard doesn't explain it either. All these problems are non-existent in the naturalist world view. There the truth is obvious: there are the laws of nature which are running the universe, and everything works according to it.

Far be it from me to ever claim that creationism explains everything. If it sounded like I meant that, I take it back and wash my mouth with soap. Of course there are many questions, of course. What I meant, perhaps, is that creationism appears to be compatible with everything that I have uncovered WITHIN my own field of research. I know dangerously little about other fields to hold such an opinion. Given that there are many scientists in my field of research that are staunch evolutionists, I recognise that they see things differently. Rather than familiarity with the facts being the main determinant of which explanation is accepted, it appears that a simple choice made much earlier (either for evolution and against creation or vice versa), before the facts are even studied, will be the main determinant. Such is the biased nature of humans. Thus, if I want to have an objective look at, eg. the field of paleontology, I have to hear the facts from both sides of the story.


Well now, what makes evolution a valid scientific theory? I can answer you that question: Well, it's making predictions about what we can and cannot expect in the fossil record which can be verified (or falsified). As you may know, the fossil record is incomplete, and it's only thanks to the ongoing efforts of palaeontologists that these holes are getting smaller and smaller (as in other fields of science - not surprisingly - we know today much more than we did 100 years ago).

I suppose you do know that creationism can also make predictions, and they too can be verified or falsefied. The creationists also get things wrong too, and then have to modify their ideas. Yes, there are holes all over the joint, in both theories. Personally, I have often wondered how the whales and all the other sea creatures survived the great flood (for example) when there must have been high levels of soil in the water, thus lowering oxygen, thus lowering food supply, eg. plankton. How did anything survive. Just because I can't answer such a question, it doesn't make the flood impossible. It just means we are ignorant, so far. Nothing is being proved here. Just explanations being tossed around, and fumbling in the darkness of ignorace. It is a familiar feeling for any true scientist. Been there many times.

If anything is possible under god as you say, we should find anything. From what we've found say far, I'd say (and the bulk of palaeontologists, for that matter) we only find what's possible under an evolution. If we start finding... say pegasi or centaurs or something equivalent, then you'd have something to falsify evolution.

Creationists accept that God made the laws of nature. When he interfers with his own laws, the Bible calls that a miracle. Thus anything is possible with God. However, that doesn't mean that He didn't create laws that made life possible (e.g. gravity), and that these laws mean we can carry out our research with a high level of dependence on those laws. Creationists don't look for breaks (eg a flying unicorn) to prove their explanations. They also depend on those laws.


If i may ask, what makes you think science is limited? If you rule out the possibility something has changed, then that is limited IMO. And, you don't get around to assume something changed. Not just once, but many times.

Science is limited to experiments that can be repeated. We can't repeat history. We can only do the experiments here and now, and make inferences about the past. Don't get me wrong. That is a powerful tool (for want of a better word), but it is certainly limited in that sense. It is also limited to the five senses, relying most heavily on sight. But life, as we know, consists of things like love, feelings, emotions, etc. When you look back over history of man, you can see how our past has been shaped by these things. They are so real, but science is yet to measure love, or anger. Admittedly, they can measure impulses in the brain. But that is a long way to distinguishing between emotions, something we do every day.
Science cannot explain what life is. It cannot tell us if it has a meaning. You may claim that there is no meaning to life. But science didn't tell you that. It told you nothing about it, so perhaps you (not picking on you, just using you as an example) decided that there had to be no meaning. If you decided this simply because science didn't tell you, then you would be in grave error.
Perhaps another example of why science is limited is that we can live without it. We have before, according to both evolutionary theory and creation theory. However, we can't live without, eg. community. We need to have things like self esteem, recognition, a reason to get out of bed in the morning, etc. I admit, science (or the love of it) can get you out of bed. (Speaking of which, I will have to start at it early in the morning.) But if that is the only thing, life will be pretty empty.
Science is not God, can't be God, and IMO, God never wanted it to be. He gave us the ability to reason, measure, and conclude, but never wanted us to love it so much that we forgot about the more important things of life.

Woah, I"ve already written heaps. I will end it here.

That, I gather is your point of view, and you are certainly entitled to it. I've no idea how you arived at the conclusion that it is 'pretty damned near to the truth' though. How do you do that? An experiment, perhaps?

150 years of gathering evidence, modifying the theory to fit this new evidence, and observing fulfilled predictions leaves me with the distinct feeling that this explanation is either close to the truth or completely and utterly wrong. However, without observations that show it is completely and utterly wrong, to trash evolution now would be quite moronic.

errr...is that a compliment? I think I differ with most agnostics in that I only suspect that no body can prove it. I have found most (correct me if I am wrong) agnostics will say that they know that God's existence cannot be proven.

Oh, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. Not a compliment, an observation. You see, you can be an agnostic theist, and agnostic atheist, and a hard agnostic. Agnostic theists believe we either don't know or we cannot know whether a god or gods exist but they take it on faith, agnostic atheists say we don't know or cannot know whether or a god or gods exist but refuse to just believe one exists, and a hard agnostic will tell you we don't know, will not ever know, and should just stop sweating over it.

I agree that natural selection is fact. But it wont do for evolution from slime to man. Nope. There isn't a very good explanation for that at all. Forgive me, I've written this part out so many times, I'm feeling too slack to rewrite it all again.

Excuse me, but you're just arbitrarily placing some limit on something I'm beginning to suspect you don't understand all too well.

I'm going to refrain from explaining this all to you until I see some credentials. You seem to be claiming your word deserves some weight over that of other creationists because your work is on the subject.

Well, as one might say: "Prove it".

Agreed. The pace that evolution theory changes is frightening. That is why it can never be proven wrong. It just keeps changing, the moment one small point is found to be wrong. That keeps it appearance as the best and most modern theory alive. I don't see that changing, even if it was a completely false theory.

Oh, but it can be proven wrong. Were we to find a specimen of say, a blue whale that dates to only a couple years after the Earth formed a suitable environment for life, we'd have to seriously reevaluate our theory, adding on arbitrary values and assumptions until it goes the way of geocentrism.

The mechanism for the creation account is the power of God. He created. Since then, natural selection, something He allowed for in his creativity. Can I show you an experiment that proves it. Absolutely not. Can you? Everyone knows this. Why don't you ask more reasonable questions? It might help your argument more.

So let me get this straight:

Your hypothesis has a supernatural mechanism (which is really no mechanism at all) that cannot be tested, cannot be observed, and cannot be proven. It cannot make any predictions because we have no idea how this mechanism works, and Occam would be having a heart attack and screaming "AETHER" in your ear.

And you honestly want the scientific world to take you seriously?

You see, the thing about mechanisms for physical theories is that they are observed facts. They can be weighed, measured, quantified, and thoroughly understood. They are physical processes we have seen with our own eyes. We have seen natural selection on every level we apply it to. We've done experiments with bacteria by isolating populations of the same species of bacteria and introducing different selection pressures to each population, observing speciation (reproductive isolation) (Look up the Wood Hall experiment).

If your mechanism is not an observable fact, your hypothesis does not have a leg to stand on.

I feel that your opinion of evolutionary theory is altogether too high. In my lab, we do research on quorum sensing in bacteria. Evolution theory is almost never brought up in any discussion, and when it is, it never helps. The same can be said of the creationist account. Virtually all of the discoveries we make are not based on either account. Thus, anyone who wants to can come alone, take our findings, and explain it in terms of creation or evolution. This is what they all do. I find your answers somewhat naive, or at least a bit simple and theoretical.

So wait, your field of research has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory and yet you find yourself qualified to make informed opinion statements on the subject?

Also, Occam's razor, expresses a preference for evolutionary theory in this instance (a god or gods does not add to the predictive power of creationism so a godless creationism is prefered, but creationism is impossible without this supernatural mechanism).

As I said before, in my area of research, they all do. Its safest.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Evolutionary theory does have its assumptions, but these are only temporarily such because they are testable hypotheses. The assumptions a creationist is forced to make are completely untestable.

How about the assumption that every form of genetic variation in life forms today is due to natural selection?

While an assumption, it is a prediction derived from observation (evolution being the only observed source of biodiversity we have run across, we must predict that it is the source of all biodiversity). This prediction is put to the test every time we find, exhume, and study fossils. It has never let us down without a very good, testable reason.

Not sure what you were thinking of. I was merely thinking of something like the origin of God. The assumption is that he is eternal, and therefore does not need an origin. The universe is not eternal, therefore it requires an explanation for an origin.

And why is the universe not eternal yet God is? Ask any cosmologist worth his salt: the Big Bang isn't necessarily the beginning of the universe, it is merely the earliest observable point. By definition we cannot know anything about anything that might or might not have come before. The universe has just as much chance of being eternal as a god or gods and Occam's razor allows us to cut off the plurality here.

Not so quick, fella. Science makes a lot of assumptions, e.g. gravity will never fail. I think you are confusing philosophy with science.

Science is a philosophy. And the assumption that gravity will never fail is a subset of the "The world exists as observed" assumption. We have never observed gravity to act in any way but that which is contained in our theories, so we assume our theories are correct in holding with the prior assumption (the one I just essentially proved).

You misunderstood me. I was not declaring that God was on my side. I was simply suggesting that having God as part of you explanation can make things a whole lot easier.

...

Need I explain how dangerous such reasoning is? Simply saying "A wizard did it" and moving on leads to stagnation.

Plus, throwing an unsubstantiatable, all-powerful being into your idea is a quick road towards ridicule in the scientific community. God is, by definition, unscientific.

Requires evolution to have taken place somewhere else??? Could you please explain your riddle? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Naturalistic intelligent design is the idea that life on Earth was designed by some alien but natural intelligence. The thing here, though, is that it merely displaces the original evolution of life from Earth to whatever place this alien intelligence originated from.

The chance of cells coming together so perfectly is a mathematical absurdity. That is the one thing I don't understand about Evolutionism.
That has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution

Even if it did ... lets see some of these mathmatical calculations ( and I warn you now every creationist I know does a point calculation rather then a time series)

The "atheist-evolutionist lobby" as you claim is non-existent. If it existed, I should have stumbled across it a long time ago. That never happened. The irony is that (at least in the US) there seems to be a Christian Fundamentalist/Creationist lobby that frantically seems to try to bring Creationism into school as a 'valid theory' which it isn't (for the previously elaboreated reasons). And then I have to re-iterate that you apparently have no idea about how the scientific method works.

Lol, you misunderstood. Everthing is a lobby group these days. The Catholic Church is a lobby group, and there are many other organizations opposed to the Catholic Church, and religion in general. (although Islam manages to get a free pass for some reason, but that is not to be descussed here) Although, being as paronoid as I am, it wouldn't supprise me if there was some conspiracy going on, but I won't try to convince anyone here of it. I simply generalized, as I have a habbit for doing. (you will have to forgive me for that)

Now, before you attempt to paint me as a "Bible beater wack-job" or someone ignorant to science, which I am not either of these things, I am perfectly aware of how the scientific works. The problem is, it is not always practiced in the way that it is supposed to be.

This aside, my point is, I could easily make a study say whatever I wanted it to and could, at the very least, sway the conclusion of an experiment. To conclude, you simply need to make sure that you look into every study you read about extensively before you make your own decision. Check the backrounds of the people or groups that conducted the experiment, try to discern possible motives and bias. It just seems to me that there are a great many people who want nothing more than to destroy religion and are willing to grasp at anything that tells them that there is no god or that the universe was created with no greater help, without really analyzing what they are reading. That is really all I have to say on this. (It should all be common sense anyways)

Even if it did ... lets see some of these mathmatical calculations ( and I warn you now every creationist I know does a point calculation rather then a time series)

If you manipulate the numbers, you can prove anything you want. Hell, I could "prove" God was involved in building the Washington Monument by showing how to approximate the speed of light from its measurements.

And why is the universe not eternal yet God is? Ask any cosmologist worth his salt: the Big Bang isn't necessarily the beginning of the universe, it is merely the earliest observable point. By definition we cannot know anything about anything that might or might not have come before. The universe has just as much chance of being eternal as a god or gods and Occam's razor allows us to cut off the plurality here.


Just expanding on this point:

As one approaches a massive object, time dilates. This has been proven ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html ).

If the Big Bang is accepted, it requires the universe, and all the matter therein, to occupy a very small area. Essentially, a supermassive object.

Given that any point in the universe prior to or durring the Big Bang would have been well inside the range of the event horizon (the radius around a massive object where an inside observer experiences 0% of the time that an outside observer experiences) of the supermass, time is effectively a nonissue.

One can say, with confidence, that the universe has existed forever, and that the only importance of the big bang is that before the big bang, there wasn't any time to measure forever with.

If you manipulate the numbers, you can prove anything you want. Hell, I could "prove" God was involved in building the Washington Monument by showing how to approximate the speed of light from its measurements.

:rolleyes: your point being what that you dont want to show the equations or you cant?

pah. Post I was responding too has been edited out of history. Damned revisionists!

:rolleyes: your point being what that you dont want to show the equations or you cant?


Sorry for the delay:

90,854 (wt. of monument) + 36,491 (# of blocks) + 16,002 (area of foundation)+36,960 (wt. of capstone times foundation depth in meters)+5992.5 (width of shaft times width of walls at base times width of walls at observation level minus weight of capstone)= 186299.5 compared to 186,000 for light in mps, with only an error of +.0016%

Building specs at:
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Washington_Monument#Dimensions

Wisjersey

Go into ancient ecosystems and compare them with each other, and with recent ecosystems. Look at how reefs are and were build up, look at predator/prey relationships. I'm picking one example now to elaborate, namely Megaherbivores. We have: - Dinocephalians of the late Permian. - Dicynodonts and rhynchosaurs during the early to mid-Triassic (ok, not that big) - Prosauropods during late Triassic and early Jurassic - Brachiosaurs during late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous. - Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsians on the northern continents during the Late Cretaceous and Titanosaurs on the southern continents at the same time. - Brontotheres in North America and East Asia during the Eocene - 'modern' Ungulates from Oligocene onwards. (note: i've skipped awfully lot stuff here, especially stuff like diversity and evolution of the mentioned groups ... or the effects of plate tectonics on life - the latter is, IMHO a very fascinating topic). And I have to admit, 'mega' is a sort of an exaggeration in regard for the Permian and Triassic forms. Their anatomy (they weren't fully upright like mammals or dinosaurs) didn't allow them to become as huge. Also, there certainly must have been some quirks in the Sauropod physiology (and quite possibly environment as well) that allowed them to grow to the gigantic sizes they reached (gigantic not only compared to mammals but also compared to other dinosaurs). I'm honest here, so far we don't know really what it was. Sure, we know that their body could carry them across the land (they were not living in water like the 19th century palaeontologist Marsh and many of his successors believed), but what did they eat, and how were they able to grow fast? (I'm throwing this in here to show you we certainly don't know everything yet). Anyways, you see that these groups couldn't have existed contemporarily (for one they have never been found in the same strata and for two try to imagine what a mess it would be!), and changes must have occured between the times when they lived. In order to account for all the possibilities that can happen (diseases, natural disasters), a species requires a certain base population. It becomes obvious that an ecosystem can support only a certain number of players. Due to this reason, the abovementioned megaherbivores for example couldn't have coexisted with each other, they did exist in chronological succession. Please notice also that the required large number of individuals per species haven't been found in most cases, and we rarely have a natural age distribution (which we would expect in a flood scenario). What we find instead is a (still increasing) large number of different species and - with a few exceptions - usually few numbers of individuals per species that come from different times (considering how powerful the taphonomic filter is - this isn't surpising). So... all these massive faunal changes (note: some were certainly gradual while others were certainly abrupt - ie due to mass extinctions - as said, i'm skipping a lot here) should have never happened according to Creationist view (we would have one change at best - the Deluge - and even there it states that all animal species were saved on the Ark - at the same time it utterly fails to explain how plants and aquatic animals survived). Palaeontologists and geologists have dragged together so many amounts of information which consistently fit into the picture of an Old Earth, making Evolution not just a possibility but a necessity to have happened

You have presented to much information here, it's hard to know which part to discuss. Plus, I'm not familiar with this area of research. However, as I stated in an earlier post, I have hear an explanation from both a creationist and an evolutionist, for you are using an evolutionary basis to describe what you have learned. I have never been convinced with a thoroughly sound argument that creation is impossible. It has some weak points, and by that I mean some points that look a bit unlikely. But evolution is certainly not free of such points either. Evolution is only a necessity to explain you data in terms of evolution.

What you have attempted to do above, I think, it to draw attention to a lot of research on several area, covering lots of work done by lots of scientist, in order to show that evolution must be the only explanation. But I suggest that you must delve a little more into detail and come up with a scenario where there is only one possible explanation. There, I suggest, is your golden egg, that evolution must be the right explanation.

That has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution

Even if it did ... lets see some of these mathmatical calculations ( and I warn you now every creationist I know does a point calculation rather then a time series)

You don't need to be a mathematician to see that a jumbo jet will be unlikely to build itself.

The probability of a cell coming together, while not strictly a part of evolution, is a major part of the theory of origins by those who rule out the involvement of God, or a creative power. Thus, you cannot really claim that this probability has nothing to do with evolution. It is quite related. From a Christian view point, it's almost the same thing.

You don't need to be a mathematician to see that a jumbo jet will be unlikely to build itself.

Yes. Pity we're looking for the probability of finding something that looks like part of a wing, not the whole jet building itself at once.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Thus, you cannot really claim that this probability has nothing to do with evolution. It is quite related. From a Christian view point, it's almost the same thing.

No, it's nothing to do with Evolution at all. Remember, not all Christians are YECs, it's quite possible for God to have created the first cell and evolution to handle the rest, and the theory of evolution has no problem with this because it does not propose an origin. Were you to somehow absolutely refute abiogenesis, evolution would not be harmed at all.

Ha! I likw this guy.

The old airplane in a tornado argument... Wow, that is so outdated.

1. Building a boat 450ft long with no shipbuilding experience is impossible.
2. Building a boat 450ft long out of only wood is impossible.
3. Identifying and categorising millions of species without advanced knowledge of biology is impossible.
4. Carrying enough food for all these species on one boat is impossible.
5. Noah and his family would have had to be literally crawling with fleas, worms, flukes, mites, ticks, lice...As would most of the animals. For Noah to survive a long voyage at sea while incidentally infected with Malaria and Cholera is impossible.
6. The volume of water required to cause a global flood that covers the higest mountain does not exist anywhere in the world.
7. Even if such water did exist, for it to simply vanish is impossible.

I'd say we know it's impossible.

What do you know of Noah's knowledge of boat building? If you were to live as long as Noah, you may have learned quite a few things like that. How do you know those folk didn't have boats? Thus, not an impossibility as you claim. An unlikelyhood, based on your perception, perhaps. But we are not going to throw away the Bible based on your perception.

the Bible doesn't say that Noah did any categorization or identification. He probably did some, as much as he was capable of. He would have been a lot smarter than you or I, since he was a lot older and had plenty more time to observe is world. Plus, it's not unreasonable that he may have had God's help in that. Therefore, I find that this point is also not impossible.

Would it be impossible to fill a boat up with food. I doubt it. It may take a long time, perhaps. But there is no reason why Noah could not have employed several hundreds of people to work for him. Perhaps there thought him rather strange, but just did it for the money. That's been done before.

there is no reason why we have to assume that Noah and his family and all the animals were infected with parasites. Although, it is possible. Even so, that doesn't make the whole story impossible. Remember, there is no reason to assume that these people were ignorant savage cave men who barely knew how to start a fire. According to creation theory, it is likely that their brain capacity was better than ours. They had less mutations. they may have had highly developed parasite resisting methods. Or perhaps the parasites back then were not so harsh. The parasitic bacterium that causes leprosy is thought to have once contained a lot more genes. Loss of those genes means that the bacterium can no longer survive without a host. perhaps the loss of genes has made it become more virile. I once read something in my 3rd year biology text book about that......

Ah, you raise the issue of water. Nowhere does the Bible state that the water covered the entire globe at one single moment, but that it covered the entire land. That means that there was probably tsunamis. I suspect that there is enough water in our oceans to make a big enough tsunami. At any rate, the Bible says that the water from underground came up and contributed to the flood. I have heard of underground seas. What we don't know, I believe, is the actual amount of water within the earth. Thus, on this basis, I say that you claim of not enough water to be wrong. My reading of the Bible suggests that after the flood, it returned underground.

I don't know if you realize, but if the earth was a perfect globe (no mountains or valleys) the sea water would cover it by more than a meter. That's a lot of water.

Oh? Might be interesting (link?). Seriously.

I hope you're not talking about that "New Redshift Interpretation", please. :rolleyes:
I can't find it, but it wasn't about redshift.
I did find this (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092) though, which suggests that light was slower.

Most of those points are specious, but whatever.

Let's just go to the much simpler one: The earth is a big fucking place that contains hundreds of millions of species. How a 450' boat (composed of wood or anything else and crafted by carpenter or plebian) could hold all those animals, let alone how one person could find and corral all those animals is way beyond me.

How many people do you think we could fit on a 450' boat? Certainly not hundreds of millions. Of course, many animals are smaller than humans. Still, some are MUCH larger.

there is no reason why we have to assume that Noah and his family and all the animals were infected with parasites. Although, it is possible. Even so, that doesn't make the whole story impossible. Remember, there is no reason to assume that these people were ignorant savage cave men who barely knew how to start a fire. According to creation theory, it is likely that their brain capacity was better than ours. They had less mutations. they may have had highly developed parasite resisting methods. Or perhaps the parasites back then were not so harsh. The parasitic bacterium that causes leprosy is thought to have once contained a lot more genes. Loss of those genes means that the bacterium can no longer survive without a host. perhaps the loss of genes has made it become more virile. I once read something in my 3rd year biology text book about that......



Um... the parasites are animals, right? One pair of each, and they tend to reproduce amazingly quick. They must have had some good bug spray on board.

Even if Naoh did take enough food on board, how would the few people feed all the animals in time? And how would they keep the meat for the carnivores fresh? Biblical fridges? Or did they feed them with the other animals?

Which brings up the next question, habitats. How did Noah keep it cool enough for penguins and hot enough for fenneks?

And how did all these animals get back to their original habitats? How did the Penguins get from a mountain in Turkey back to Antarktica? How did the koalas get back to Australia?

And speaking of a mountain in Turkey, it is absolutely RICOCKULOUS to say that Noah's ark sits on such a mountain. A vessel made entirely of wood has survived, intact, for over four thousand years in an inhospitable climate?

Holy crap! I can't even begin to state how absurd that is.

GMC Military Arms

Yes. Pity we're looking for the probability of finding something that looks like part of a wing, not the whole jet building itself at once.

My point holds, because it still unlikely for the rubber tyre to get iself on the rim, or the little flashlight at the end of the wing somehow fixing itself there and connecting to the power supply.

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

Biochemistry in living organisms today is not chance because we have an information system, ie. a genome. If you don't have any genes, then I would definitely call that chance! Biochemistry is complicated. That's what makes abiogenesis so unlikely.
I know much is made of the observation that some amino acids and bits and pieces of ribonucleic acids formed 'randomly'. Firstly, theat is still a very long way from an amino acid to a cell capable of replicating itself and responding to its environment. Secondly, the formation of an amino acid without enzymic catalysis suggests that an amino acid is a stable molecule. This we have observed already. What is unstable is the peptide. I wouldn't get too excited about a couple of amino acids. Is it possible that they formed a role in the formation of the first life? About as likely as the little flash light on the tip of the wing of a jumbo jet somehow getting attached to the wing without any help. You have to admit, that is quite unlikely. I certainly don't accept that as possible. I think an airplane mechanic would agree with me.

2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

This is a point that I will allow possible. That according to evolutionary theory, earlier life forms looked so very different to the ones today. A pity the fossils don't seem to suggest this. Nor do we see anything either in biochemistry or genetics to suggest it either. It's an idea someone had to get around quite a difficult problem.

3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

However simple life gets, it still needs a cell barrier, genes recorded on some sort of media (e.g. RNA, DNA). It still needs proteins, enzymes, basic biochemistry. For each newly synthesised protein, life requires several already-functional proteins. You can only take the 'first life would have been much simpler' exuse so far.


4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Nope, no matter how many times you try it, the wing of the airplane just won't get together. Plus, if there were innumerable trials occuring simultaneously, then it would be no trouble to recreate such conditions (as was supposedly optimal for early life forms) and observe these trials. Those who work in this field are apparently saying the opposite. That when it happened, it was so rare, that today we have a gene system for life that is so similar for all life forms that life was most likely to have arisen once.


No, it's nothing to do with Evolution at all. Remember, not all Christians are YECs, it's quite possible for God to have created the first cell and evolution to handle the rest, and the theory of evolution has no problem with this because it does not propose an origin. Were you to somehow absolutely refute abiogenesis, evolution would not be harmed at a

When you look at it from the creationist view point, evolution is an attempt to do away with the need of God in any explanation. Thus, abiogenesis and evolution are like brother and sister to the creationist. I do, however, see your point, when I look at it from the evolutionists view point. That being said, it would be a shocking day when the atheistic evolutionists admit that life can not form from non-life. That would be like the creationists saying that there is no god.

And speaking of a mountain in Turkey, it is absolutely RICOCKULOUS to say that Noah's ark sits on such a mountain. A vessel made entirely of wood has survived, intact, for over four thousand years in an inhospitable climate?

Holy crap! I can't even begin to state how absurd that is.

Flatearth, you have to get over your incredulitity if you want to even begin discussing things with a creationist. It doesn't prove that they are wrong, or that you are so biased that you cannot imagine what the other side of the argument looks like. It sure does make you SOUND biased though.

As far as I have read, most creationists actually doubt that we have found Noah's ark yet, although there is apparently something very strange up there. It probably isn't the wood from Noah's ark.

Actually, basic silicone fidelity seems to show very clearly how carbonate structures (such as ourselves) could have come to being self-reliant and self-replicating.

As far as cell barriers and etc., the idea that all life NEEDS these things is a highly suspect one, and one likely based in the shadows of hindsight.

And of course, the rubber going around the such and such to form a wing would be improbable, unless there were a compelling reason for it to do so, such as if this action gave an advantage to it in both life and progeny.

The "airplane" argument is an entirely specious one. It takes the idea that mutation is random and runs with it. What it leaves out is that while MUTATION is random, survival is anything but.

Actually, basic silicone fidelity seems to show very clearly how carbonate structures (such as ourselves) could have come to being self-reliant and self-replicating.

As far as cell barriers and etc., the idea that all life NEEDS these things is a highly suspect one, and one likely based in the shadows of hindsight.

Computers are very different from life forms. The only thing I can think of right now that they have in common is information. When it comes to cell barriers and basic biochemistry, life does NEED this. A cell barrier is the basis of a potential. Without it no cell has the power to metabolise, to make energy, and store it. If there was life without a membrane barrier, then it was not life as we know it, for it does not require electrical potentials, does not store energy in matter, and probably doesn't cope in aqeous solutions (where the the contents of the cell would be dashed to pieces in an instant without the protection of a cell barrier). The chance of that sort of life form evolving into life as we see it today would be about as likely as that old jumbo jet.

And of course, the rubber going around the such and such to form a wing would be improbable, unless there were a compelling reason for it to do so, such as if this action gave an advantage to it in both life and progeny.

The "airplane" argument is an entirely specious one. It takes the idea that mutation is random and runs with it. What it leaves out is that while MUTATION is random, survival is anything but.

Need does not create energy. That is a myth. Just because a life form desperately needs a mutation to survive, it won't happen unless the mechanisms the allow that mutation to occur are already in place. But in the case of abiogenesis, there is no such mechanism. Just because there is a desire, that doesn't make it work. There has to be a mechanism which allows it to work. In the absence of the mechanism, just as in the absence of an airplane mechanic, nothing will happen. There won't even be a desire for something to happen.

The airplane argument may be old, but it still applys. no doubt it annoys you. Would it be better if I chose another example? According to your logic, it may be possible to get a cow from a buch of semi-organic molecules. I think we can rule out that possibility.

If you manipulate the numbers, you can prove anything you want. Hell, I could "prove" God was involved in building the Washington Monument by showing how to approximate the speed of light from its measurements.
Which has nothing to do with trying to back up the claim of mathematical improbability

According to your logic, it may be possible to get a cow from a buch of semi-organic molecules. I think we can rule out that possibility.

Why ? Just give it a few billion years under vastly varying circumstances and with a little luck it might work. Not those same molecules, but things derived from them through those cirumstances.

Why ? Just give it a few billion years under vastly varying circumstances and with a little luck it might work. Not those same molecules, but things derived from them through those cirumstances.

Well, there are several things going against that possibility, like the half life of an average protein molecule being anywhere from seconds to hours or days, but certainly not years. Furthermore, in order for a number of random molecules to come together to make life, there needs to be a system of basis that puts each one in its place. Even were you to wait long enough to have all the right ingredients for life, you also need a precise system of 'directing the traffic'. A typical bacterial cell has 50-100mg/mL of protein. That is almost a solid mass of billions of proteins. A bacterial cell has somthing like 3000-5000 genes. If we say half of these genes are expressed at any one time, and each gene can be translated from anything like just a few time to several million times (otherwise cells death occurs), then we are dealing with extra-ordinary complexity (compared with anything we humans have designed). A disordered cell is a dead one. Thus time won't solve your problem for you. From what we have observed, time makes things like order and precision less likely, not more.

Which has nothing to do with trying to back up the claim of mathematical improbability

In a way, it does. The mathematical improbability of anything can be proven simply be choosing which pieces of data will and will not be factored in to the calculation.

In a way, it does. The mathematical improbability of anything can be proven simply be choosing which pieces of data will and will not be factored in to the calculation.
But thats an error with the data inputed not the calculation itself ... I wanted to see the calculation itself

But thats an error with the data inputed not the calculation itself ... I wanted to see the calculation itself

You mean the "proof" that life's origins are nearly impossible except from a miraculous source?

Well, there are several things going against that possibility, like the half life of an average protein molecule being anywhere from seconds to hours or days, but certainly not years.

Yes; that is why I said "not those same molecules" ;) Things happen in steps, not all at once. My knowledge of biology however is not extensive enough to attack the validity of your complexity claims. Just to make sure: what you described is the simplest *popssibble* form of life capable of reproduction ?

From what we have observed, time makes things like order and precision less likely, not more.

*Ultimately* yes. However, in the meantime you can get pockets of order. Take our solarsystem for instance: from a chaotic bunch of matter through accretion discs until you reach something filled with things that move in reasonably predictable trajectories. And no planning was necessary, just gravity.
In the end it will become chaos again though.

You mean the "proof" that life's origins are nearly impossible except from a miraculous source?

No I wanted to see the calculation for his statistics that make it "impossible"
He claimed it was a statistical improbability (and was using THAT as proof of it not happening)

I was not really interested in what it proves rather wanted to see him try to calculate it (mostly because of the flaw that most creationists use a point calculation … incorrectly)

I really was (at that point) not all worried about the conclusion drawn but rather how he arrived at his calculation

Um... the parasites are animals, right? One pair of each, and they tend to reproduce amazingly quick. They must have had some good bug spray on board.

Even if Naoh did take enough food on board, how would the few people feed all the animals in time? And how would they keep the meat for the carnivores fresh? Biblical fridges? Or did they feed them with the other animals?

Which brings up the next question, habitats. How did Noah keep it cool enough for penguins and hot enough for fenneks?

And how did all these animals get back to their original habitats? How did the Penguins get from a mountain in Turkey back to Antarktica? How did the koalas get back to Australia?

Are you suggesting that because you haven't heard of a likely explanation that it must be impossible? Do you realize that you take the opposite side of the argument when the creationists are wondering how evolution produces humans from bugs?

Perhaps Noah and his family just used some garlic to keep the bugs at bay (my mother used it all the time, whenever we had a fever, it was a dose of garlic for us, whether we wanted it or not--usually not). The problem is that we don't have the missing information. I suppose things like a feeding regime and animal survival could be worked out, if the people were super-organised. Some people have suggested that God intervened (he had to in order to make a great flood, and to bring the animals into the ark) and that the animals basically slept or hypernated during this time. Another possibility is that the animals back then were more robust (i.e. the peguins wouldn't die with overheating) since their genes were younger and had less time to accumulate mutations. I suppose, though, Noah knew enough to keep the cool-loving animals near the bottom and the warm loving ones at the top of the boat.

As for questions about how the marsupials all got to Australia (except for the opposom) and other such animal distributions, the creationists explain this in terms of natural selection. They just don't see the need to use the bacteria to marsupial explanation that the evolutionists use. There are many questions that need answering, in the realm of animal distribution, as I understand it. But a good deal of them are not really resoved by using evolutionary explanations.

No I wanted to see the calculation for his statistics that make it "impossible"
He claimed it was a statistical improbability (and was using THAT as proof of it not happening)


He probably used the most famous one, the "Hoyle calculation":

"Abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility. Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, calculated the odds of one simple bacterium arising from a primordial soup. He assumed that the 20 amino acids were present in the soup (contrary to the results of the Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded only seven of the simplest amino acids). A simple bacterium is comprised of 2,000 different functioning proteins. In turn, each protein consists of a chain of about 300 amino acids. There are 20 distinct amino acids, so the odds of one proteinated amino acid occurring in the correct sequence is one in 20. The odds of 300 occurring in the correct sequence is one in 30020. Hoyle realized that there can be some variation in the exact sequence, so the odds would be reduced to one in 1020. But because there must be 2,000 different functioning proteins, the odds of the spontaneous generation of a cell is one in 10(20)(2,000) = 1040,000. Even ignoring the problems beyond the math (such as the counter-productive effects that individual essential chemical components have upon each other, and the inability to create all 20 amino acids under simulated conditions), abiogenesis is impossible."

For reference: http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.html

He probably used the most famous one, the "Hoyle calculation":

"Abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility. Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, calculated the odds of one simple bacterium arising from a primordial soup. He assumed that the 20 amino acids were present in the soup (contrary to the results of the Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded only seven of the simplest amino acids). A simple bacterium is comprised of 2,000 different functioning proteins. In turn, each protein consists of a chain of about 300 amino acids. There are 20 distinct amino acids, so the odds of one proteinated amino acid occurring in the correct sequence is one in 20. The odds of 300 occurring in the correct sequence is one in 30020. Hoyle realized that there can be some variation in the exact sequence, so the odds would be reduced to one in 1020. But because there must be 2,000 different functioning proteins, the odds of the spontaneous generation of a cell is one in 10(20)(2,000) = 1040,000. Even ignoring the problems beyond the math (such as the counter-productive effects that individual essential chemical components have upon each other, and the inability to create all 20 amino acids under simulated conditions), abiogenesis is impossible."

For reference: http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.html

Ahh … though surprised this mathematician made such glaring errors

Assumptions:
Independence of variables
Independence of trials
Repetition rate
(also stated on that site you linked ... but I just sumarized for the readers that dont click and read linkies)

The Alma Mater

Yes; that is why I said "not those same molecules" ;) Things happen in steps, not all at once. My knowledge of biology however is not extensive enough to attack the validity of your complexity claims. Just to make sure: what you described is the simplest *popssibble* form of life capable of reproduction ?

Well, I shall try to steer clear of the detail then, in my posts to you.

The major problem with things happening in steps to produce life is that it requires that each step to be a fairy stable entity. The longer the time required for that state, the less stable it becomes. Thus a longer time equals less stability.

Another problem is that life as we now know it depends an chemical reactions that are very fast. A bacterial cell can replicate itself (that includes replicating millions of base pairs, among other things) in just a few minutes. If it was not so quick, it would die. Thus life as we know it depends on speed. A step wise abiogenesis would not work. The way around this is to say that the primitive life was different (i.e., not so fast). That would be a neat way out of such a hole. The problem is that the solution has no evidence for it. Nothing that we have ever discovered in biochemistry (to my knowledge) ever suggests that this was so. So we have an explanation, but there is no evidence for it. That is fine, EXCEPT for when the theory depends on that explanation being true.

The simplest form of life that is capable of replicating itself is the virus. That is why evolutionists get excited about the virus. However, there are some major flaws. Viruses are one of the fastest replicating forms of life around. (Acutally, some have argued that it's not really life, but a form of information that has no need of life. That works, except that we still don't even know how to define life yet, so how it one to know when a virus is a life form or not.) Viruses also cannot survive without a cell to live in. Thus even if they were to miraculously come together out of a organic molecular soup, they still need a cell, eg. a bacterial cell, in order to survive. It's catch 22 for the evolutionists in that situation.

*Ultimately* yes. However, in the meantime you can get pockets of order. Take our solarsystem for instance: from a chaotic bunch of matter through accretion discs until you reach something filled with things that move in reasonably predictable trajectories. And no planning was necessary, just gravity. In the end it will become chaos again though.

I follow your example here. But I think you are using something that hasn't been proven, to explain something else that hasn't been proven. Our solar system is truly a wonder. Did it arise out of caos? No one has or can prove that, yet anyway. You suggestion of pockets of order surviving for a limited time is an idea that has been floating around for a while. Like matter and anti-matter forming out of the big bang. These are explanations that far too many people believe without good evidence (or even any evidence?).

I think I should have been clearer in regards to "silicon fidelity". I was not speaking of computers, although that is a very obvious conclusion to come to. I was, instead, speaking of the theory that silicon fidelity, as in crystaline fidelity through sand/mud/dirt/what have you had to do with original replication when carbon based life was still just a tag-a-long.

It sounds unlikely, but the logic, in its detail, is surprisingly strong.

Your math checks out, as long as you agree with the initial numbers. But that's not necessarily agreeable.

You start with some faulty assumption or other, calculating the probability of a prokaryotic cell spontaneously occuring, or a strand of DNA randomly occuring. But there isn't a single theory out there that states that the original replicators were of this kind. In fact, we don't know what the initial replicators were, so gauging the probability of these things creation is arbitrary.

Additionally, bottom-up A-cells are being worked on now that contain no formal membrane. Just because we only see something done one way today does not mean it is how it was done long ago.

I guess that, in essence, is my point.

I follow your example here. But I think you are using something that hasn't been proven, to explain something else that hasn't been proven. Our solar system is truly a wonder. Did it arise out of caos? No one has or can prove that, yet anyway.

It is indeed not proven (like almost everything in science isn't; it just survives every test trying to disprove it) - but the theories on stellar and solar system evolution fit the known facts and simulations give results that are very accurate. There is very little which can be called "a miracle" I fear.. and if it was designed the creator was a sloppy man ;)

Not to mention that he sure knew how to waste space.

Not to mention that he sure knew how to waste space.

That's also something interesting. Tone down the physical force constants and he/she could have made things a lot closer together.

Anyway...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

You're losing tons of credibility by continually using the same, refuted arguments creationists have been using since before Darwin.

It is indeed not proven (like almost everything in science isn't; it just survives every test trying to disprove it) - but the theories on stellar and solar system evolution fit the known facts and simulations give results that are very accurate. There is very little which can be called "a miracle" I fear.. and if it was designed the creator was a sloppy man ;)

Well, that sounds like the complaint that scientists have of trying to prove or disprove creation. Can't disprove it, or prove it.....jolly annoying. But we shall have to get used to it, for after all, we humans really don't know that much about our universe, considering how much we have yet to learn.

Of course the theories fit. They were designed to fit. Considering that we know so little, it's hard to prove anything wrong. However proof is another matter.

One point you forget, perhaps, that God, accoring to the creationists, did design a really good world, a nice place to live, and a wonderful solar system. It was man's choice that put everything out of whack, according to the Bible. Therefore, it's a bit unfair to blame the sloppiness on God. He only created the possibility of evil and caos. We are the sloppy ones.

Well, that sounds like the complaint that scientists have of trying to prove or disprove creation. Can't disprove it, or prove it.....jolly annoying. But we shall have to get used to it, for after all, we humans really don't know that much about our universe, considering how much we have yet to learn.

The thing is, theories like stellar evolution can be disproven (or at least trashed as amazingly, highly improbable). Not proven. Proof is for math, not science. Creationism, however, will always have "A wizard did it", making it impossible to disprove (and thus not science in any way).

Of course the theories fit. They were designed to fit. Considering that we know so little, it's hard to prove anything wrong. However proof is another matter.

Of course it's easy.

ie.

Geocentrism vrs Heliocentrism

Yes, from a certain reference frame, geocentrism is true, but when it comes to calculating different things, Occam's Razor (do not multiply beyond necessity) demands heliocentrism.

Is the entire universe revolving around the Earth? Yes, from a certain point of view, but the orbit is highly, amazingly complex, something that is simplified immensely with the heliocentric model.

One point you forget, perhaps, that God, accoring to the creationists, did design a really good world, a nice place to live, and a wonderful solar system. It was man's choice that put everything out of whack, according to the Bible. Therefore, it's a bit unfair to blame the sloppiness on God. He only created the possibility of evil and caos. We are the sloppy ones.

The physical force constants are the fault of Man?

O_o

I follow your example here. But I think you are using something that hasn't been proven, to explain something else that hasn't been proven. Our solar system is truly a wonder. Did it arise out of caos? No one has or can prove that, yet anyway. You suggestion of pockets of order surviving for a limited time is an idea that has been floating around for a while. Like matter and anti-matter forming out of the big bang. These are explanations that far too many people believe without good evidence (or even any evidence?).

Let me direct you to: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2004-08/ssc2004-08c.shtml

The images at left show the deduced structures based on the density spectra on right.

Our solar system seems to be just one piece of evidence of the birth of order from chaos.

That's also something interesting. Tone down the physical force constants and he/she could have made things a lot closer together.

Anyway...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

You're losing tons of credibility by continually using the same, refuted arguments creationists have been using since before Darwin.

There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms. Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994). This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life." Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity.

If the creationists keep using the old arguments, that's because they feel that they are still good ones. Credibility is gained by being objective (or at least attempting to avoiding bias) and honesty.

nothing in our study of life suggests this, that early life was simpler. Plus, it seems strange to me that someone can wave their hand at it and say that life was simpler when they don't even bother to come up with models for how life could be simpler (perhaps it's just not possible to even come up with the model?). This is hand waving. I reckon the evolutionists have got a lot of homework to do on that one. I cannot imagine a simpler form of life, to be honest. It just doesn't fit what I have learned about biochemistry, all ten years of study.

All they mention is self replicators, as if that was the most important or even most complex point for life to form. You have to be joking! Hasn't there been more progress than that? I wonder if these people are up to date?

And then they point out how not knowing the origin is not grounds for ruling it out (sounds like a creationist argument). That is a point. But on the other hand, if it can't be explained even with all the information that we have about life today, what hope do they really have? What do they expect? Some miracle experiment? Perhaps part of the reason is that even the very simplest life possible requires some wonderfully complex responses to the environment to ensure survival. Replication of genes is just one point in many. No molecule is going to come along and bump into another at the right time and suddenly serve as a signal cascade response that requires precise timing.

I felt after reading the response as if they needed a dose of realism.

The physical force constants are the fault of Man?

O_o

No, the caos.

Of course the theories fit. They were designed to fit. Considering that we know so little, it's hard to prove anything wrong. However proof is another matter.


That's the difference between religion and science... science conforms it's 'story' to the observed facts, while religion attempts to conform the observed facts to it's 'story'.


One point you forget, perhaps, that God, accoring to the creationists, did design a really good world, a nice place to live, and a wonderful solar system. It was man's choice that put everything out of whack, according to the Bible. Therefore, it's a bit unfair to blame the sloppiness on God. He only created the possibility of evil and caos. We are the sloppy ones.

And, this is where the Creationists take one liberty too many with logic... since, obviously, things like the slow decay of the lunar orbit, and the fact that our Earth will eventually be consumed by our sun... are quite beyond the abilities of two hungry, naked dimwits in a metaphorical garden.

If the creationists keep using the old arguments, that's because they feel that they are still good ones. Credibility is gained by being objective (or at least attempting to avoiding bias) and honesty.

Or because very few creationists get a formal education in the field they are debating. They get their arguments from websites that just tole them off like bread in a market place, regardless of whether they've already spoiled or not.

nothing in our study of life suggests this, that early life was simpler. Plus, it seems strange to me that someone can wave their hand at it and say that life was simpler when they don't even bother to come up with models for how life could be simpler (perh

*SNIP*

d bump into another at the right time and suddenly serve as a signal cascade response that requires precise timing.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/49e15d01db7a06d4/f29a139e46c635a1?q=abiogenesis+microspheres&rnum=3&hl=en#f29a139e46c635a1

All they mention is self replicators, as if that was the most important or even most complex point for life to form. You have to be joking! Hasn't there been more progress than that? I wonder if these people are up to date?

It's what allows evolution to begin to occur.

I know it has been mentioned earlier, but I'd like to re-iterate it here that the distribution of animal species per continent (and ecosystem) is (apart from lack of room aboard the Ark) one of the most unfeasible things about Deluge. The point is however that this does not only hold true for present day lifeforms, we can also see this in the fossil record.

For example, in an earlier post i mentioned that during the Late Cretaceous, Ceratopsians and Hadrosaurs lived on the northern continents (and you have Tyrannosaurs as large predators that prey on them). Equivalent to that you have an ecosystem on the southern continents with herbivorous Titanosaurs and carnivorous Abelisaurs. With a separation of continents you get different faunas on different continents, and this tendency continued up the present (there's a large number of fascinating examples if you wish I can post them here).

If you go into earlier times (when Pangaea still existed), you will know that the fauna is prettymuch everywhere the same. Brachiosaurs (large dinosaurs from the late Jurassic) have been found in North America and Africa alike. Or go into Triassic and see dicynodonts on all continents (yes, even Antarctica - i reckon i haven't even started on paleoclimate yet).

Oh, and while we are talking about plate tectonics, let's do some math:

The distance between North America and the equivalent part of Africa (where the two continents were linked) is today approximately 4500 kilometers. Assuming an average speed of 3 centimeters per year you get the result that the Atlantic began to exist circa 150 million years ago in the Late Jurassic (I know this is an approximation, but the movement speed can't get much higher due to physical limitations - specifically the 'motor' of plate tectonics). The point is that this fits very well with fossil record, sediments from the Atlantic seabeds, radiometric dating of pillow lava, etc.

Again, here you have an example where evidence is quite consistent with mainstream science and inconsistent with Genesis account.

Grave_n_idle

Hello Grave

That's the difference between religion and science... science conforms it's 'story' to the observed facts, while religion attempts to conform the observed facts to it's 'story'.

I think that's a bit unfair. No one who has been a scientist for long would make such a lofty claim. With at least a grain of understanding, he would realize that 'facts' can be made to explain quite a variety of things. You only have to look at the fierce debating that goes on within the school of evolutionary thought. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

As for the religion part, I suggest that you can find rather reasonable people within religion. I will admit that they are perhaps not well represented on this forum. Perhaps most of the religious people are either too cautious to engage in an experienced debater like yourself, or some of the others who are too abrasive, or are too ignorant of good reason to know that would make religion seem better if they keep quiet.
Personally, I try not to bend any of the facts to fit in with my religion. My success at this attempt will most likely depend on whether I can be honest and objective. Same goes for the evolutionists. Most of them on this forum don't seem to even try to be objective. Without that, there is no hope of ever learning the truth.


And, this is where the Creationists take one liberty too many with logic... since, obviously, things like the slow decay of the lunar orbit, and the fact that our Earth will eventually be consumed by our sun... are quite beyond the abilities of two hungry, naked dimwits in a metaphorical garden.

Decay is exacly what the creationists predict. It's what we have observed, and it fits in well with the story that begins with two naked people in a paradise.

Wisjersey

I know it has been mentioned earlier, but I'd like to re-iterate it here that the distribution of animal species per continent (and ecosystem) is (apart from lack of room aboard the Ark) one of the most unfeasible things about Deluge. The point is however that this does not only hold true for present day lifeforms, we can also see this in the fossil record.

Pehaps you would like to indicate exactly which point of our fossil record is not able to fit with the Deluge.
Animal distribution is certainly a puzzle. But so is our complicated models of natural selection, animal migration, predatation, land bridges, and so forth. It would be almost impossible to predict which animal went where. Strange why all the animals with pouches ended up in Australia. But I would not say impossible. From an evolutionary perspective, why did pouches only evolve in Australia and no where else? It does seem a bit unlikely. The answer is natural selection, with very complicated models, perhaps. But that is the same answer that the creationists give.

If you go into earlier times (when Pangaea still existed), you will know that the fauna is prettymuch everywhere the same. Brachiosaurs (large dinosaurs from the late Jurassic) have been found in North America and Africa alike. Or go into Triassic and see dicynodonts on all continents (yes, even Antarctica - i reckon i haven't even started on paleoclimate yet)

I don't see how this contradicts creation.

Oh, and while we are talking about plate tectonics, let's do some math: The distance between North America and the equivalent part of Africa (where the two continents were linked) is today approximately 4500 kilometers. Assuming an average speed of 3 centimeters per year you get the result that the Atlantic began to exist circa 150 million years ago in the Late Jurassic (I know this is an approximation, but the movement speed can't get much higher due to physical limitations - specifically the 'motor' of plate tectonics). The point is that this fits very well with fossil record, sediments from the Atlantic seabeds, radiometric dating of pillow lava, etc. Again, here you have an example where evidence is quite consistent with mainstream science and inconsistent with Genesis account.

I've always been suspicious when people try to tell me that all the continents were joined together at one time in the earth's past. Would that not make the globe a bit lopsided? The wobble in its spin would be terrific.
OK just look at the map of the world, you say, and see how it all fits together like a jigsaw. I say, Ok, but that is not proof that they were together. Another possibility is that the flood waters shaped them that way. Just look at any old river. Each side of a winding river fits with the other side. No one would assume that the banks of the river initially were touching each other, and that they moved apart. No, the water moved the soil away. Back to the ocean again....perhaps those strong ocean currents had a bit to do with the shaping. I'll admit that todays currents are not strong enough to shift millions of cubic kms of soil However, if there were strong currents during the time of the Deluge (most likely), then you could imagine huge rivers of waters shaping the land, making it much like what we see today. No need for slow shifting continents to explain what we observe today.

This is yet another example of how it is possible to have more than one explanation for the 'facts'. Explanations don't prove much, except that humans are clever enough to think things through.

Or because very few creationists get a formal education in the field they are debating. They get their arguments from websites that just tole them off like bread in a market place, regardless of whether they've already spoiled or not.



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/49e15d01db7a06d4/f29a139e46c635a1?q=abiogenesis+microspheres&rnum=3&hl=en#f29a139e46c635a1



It's what allows evolution to begin to occur.

I often get a very strong impression that most of the evolutionists I discuss with have little to no understanding of what creationism really is. They seem to think that it equals finding God in a test tube. It's possibly true that many or even most creationist supporters have little to no formal education in evolution. But the knife cuts both ways. I suspect you are just as much in error as the ones you are criticising.

I had a look at the website you suggested. I found that the evolutionists could hardly be described as refuting the questions. More like barely holding their ground.
The evidence that they do have is quite laughable, because it amounts to scatching around a car junk yard, finding some nuts and bolts, and saying it is possible that a car somehow got together and drove out of here.
Thus they resort to their main point, which seems to be that no matter how unlikely something is, it is still possible, because no one can prove it wrong. That's hardly refuting.

They seem to think that if they can sort out the replication problem, then they are almost home. But replication is neither the first problem, nor the biggest, although still a major problem. A cell envelope is far more important, at least in the sense that replication is not possible without it. A cell envelope forms the basis of potential, from which energy can be harnessed. No energy equals no hope of life. Futhermore, an unprotected cell would be dashed to pieces in an instant by Brownian motion, without the cell envelope.

Let me direct you to: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2004-08/ssc2004-08c.shtml

The images at left show the deduced structures based on the density spectra on right.

Our solar system seems to be just one piece of evidence of the birth of order from chaos.

Seems to be??? You are using your explanation (of order from chaos) to explain your observation of order. This is hardly evidence.

Just because the people who present the data (on the website) happen to accept the same explanation that you accept, it doesn't mean that this is evidence for your explanation. All I read here was a suggestion of how to interpret data. Their methods are possibly right, while their explanation of origins could be just guesswork.

This is my way of seeing things:

Support for evolution: Fossils, vestigial structures, homologous structures, similar functions, the same basic molecules in all living things (ATP).

Support for creationism: A book

I often get a very strong impression that most of the evolutionists I discuss with have little to no understanding of what creationism really is. They seem to think that it equals finding God in a test tube. It's possibly true that many or even most creationist supporters have little to no formal education in evolution. But the knife cuts both ways. I suspect you are just as much in error as the ones you are criticising.


Actually, there are quite a number of experts who advocate Intelligent Design theory. Don't let that myth of low-education run free :D

This is my way of seeing things:

Support for evolution: Fossils, vestigial structures, homologous structures, similar functions, the same basic molecules in all living things (ATP).

Support for creationism: A book

i mean no disrespect to you, but if you really hold this opinion, then you are a prime example of someone who doesn't know much about the other side of the debate.
Care to learn?

i mean no disrespect to you, but if you really hold this opinion, then you are a prime example of someone who doesn't know much about the other side of the debate.
Care to learn?
Ok what other proof for CREATIONISM is there out side of the bible?

Ok what other proof for CREATIONISM is there out side of the bible?

Well, before I begin, we have to agree on what proof is. What would you accept is proof? Do you agree that an explanation is not proof?

I suggest that proof (using the definition that both of us could agree on) for either creation or evolution is currently outside of the field of science. That may change one day.

If you asked me to tell you why I believe (or at least prefer) creation, I would say that my personal encounter with God is one major point. The second point is that creationism can explain many things that I have observed and read about in nature today. When I compare it to evolutionism, I find that evolutionism doesn't really come out ahead in the point scoring. I also find that evolution depends on some pretty far-fetched ideas, that are about as likely as gravity failing. My personal encounter with God means that I don't find the idea of him creating the universe as unlikely, much less far-fetched.

However, I am more interested in the truth, what really happened, than in either creationism or evolutionism (if that makes sense).

Thus, I try to base my preference for creationism completely on what I have learned about my world, rather than accepting it because a book says so. The text books for science often preach evolution. I suggest that each student DOESN'T accept evolution simply because it is written there, and has some nice sounding explanations (at least on the surface).

Well, before I begin, we have to agree on what proof is. What would you accept is proof? Do you agree that an explanation is not proof?

I suggest that proof (using the definition that both of us could agree on) for either creation or evolution is currently outside of the field of science. That may change one day.

If you asked me to tell you why I believe (or at least prefer) creation, I would say that my personal encounter with God is one major point. The second point is that creationism can explain many things that I have observed and read about in nature today. When I compare it to evolutionism, I find that evolutionism doesn't really come out ahead in the point scoring. I also find that evolution depends on some pretty far-fetched ideas, that are about as likely as gravity failing. My personal encounter with God means that I don't find the idea of him creating the universe as unlikely, much less far-fetched.

However, I am more interested in the truth, what really happened, than in either creationism or evolutionism (if that makes sense).

Thus, I try to base my preference for creationism completely on what I have learned about my world, rather than accepting it because a book says so. The text books for science often preach evolution. I suggest that each student DOESN'T accept evolution simply because it is written there, and has some nice sounding explanations (at least on the surface).


By proof I meant any real world evidence
… what you gave me is a reason for your beliefs not evidence one way or another

By proof I meant any real world evidence
… what you gave me is a reason for your beliefs not evidence one way or another

I have explained to you that I am not able to give you proof. It is outside the realm of science to prove history, since science can only prove that which it can repeat. I wonder if you could think of an experiment whereby it would be possible to prove either creation or evolution. If not, why not?

The next best thing to proof is explanations, ones that sound good are preferred to ones that sound unlikely. Objective people (or more correctly those who try to be objective) are in the best position to decide which explanation is better.

I have explained to you that I am not able to give you proof. It is outside the realm of science to prove history, since science can only prove that which it can repeat. I wonder if you could think of an experiment whereby it would be possible to prove either creation or evolution. If not, why not?

Science does not depend on creating an experiment … plain ol observation is also a powerful tool

And everything from fossil positions and makeup to radiometric data does not lend itself to creationism.




The next best thing to proof is explanations, ones that sound good are preferred to ones that sound unlikely. Objective people (or more correctly those who try to be objective) are in the best position to decide which explanation is better.

Im sorry I just don’t pick hypothesizes just because one sounds more like what I can understand or what I want to hear

Science does not depend on creating an experiment … plain ol observation is also a powerful tool

And everything from fossil positions and makeup to radiometric data does not lend itself to creationism.


Im sorry I just don’t pick hypothesizes just because one sounds more like what I can understand or what I want to hear

Broad statements here!
Are you suggesting that when you look at e.g. an animal you see proof of evolution? That is a bit too biased to be believable.
You may be very convinced about which explanation is true (you are entitled to your opions), but that doen't prove which one is correct. Nor does reading a whole heap of dates from radio dating.
Rather than handwaving and telling me what you believe, perhaps you could give some good reasons why you believe.

I suggest that you have picked evolution, not because you have personally proven it (observation in this case cannot prove it), but because you have preferred it. Yes, I think you have chosen this because that it is what you wanted to hear. My reason for saying that is your apparent lack of objectivity.

Broad statements here!
Are you suggesting that when you look at e.g. an animal you see proof of evolution? That is a bit too biased to be believable.
You may be very convinced about which explanation is true (you are entitled to your opions), but that doen't prove which one is correct. Nor does reading a whole heap of dates from radio dating.
Rather than handwaving and telling me what you believe, perhaps you could give some good reasons why you believe.

I suggest that you have picked evolution, not because you have personally proven it (observation in this case cannot prove it), but because you have preferred it. Yes, I think you have chosen this because that it is what you wanted to hear. My reason for saying that is your apparent lack of objectivity.
No I picked the theory that has more data to support it … but I do not blindly follow, the greatest strength of the scientific method is its ability to fit reality.

If you would like to see some of the data please by all means look it up

But again though a series of posts you have manage to avoid the original question I asked

Is there any real world data supporting creationism as a hypothesis?

I often get a very strong impression that most of the evolutionists I discuss with have little to no understanding of what creationism really is. They seem to think that it equals finding God in a test tube. It's possibly true that many or even most creationist supporters have little to no formal education in evolution. But the knife cuts both ways. I suspect you are just as much in error as the ones you are criticising.

Attempting to justify creationism as science is something I see far more creationists doing than any scientist attacking.

I had a look at the website you suggested. I found that the evolutionists could hardly be described as refuting the questions. More like barely holding their ground.
The evidence that they do have is quite laughable, because it amounts to scatching around a car junk yard, finding some nuts and bolts, and saying it is possible that a car somehow got together and drove out of here.
Thus they resort to their main point, which seems to be that no matter how unlikely something is, it is still possible, because no one can prove it wrong. That's hardly refuting.

I believe I was addressing your claims about how it is impossible for abiogenesis to happen. Neatly refuted with experimental evidence to back it up.

They seem to think that if they can sort out the replication problem, then they are almost home. But replication is neither the first problem, nor the biggest, although still a major problem. A cell envelope is far more important, at least in the sense that replication is not possible without it. A cell envelope forms the basis of potential, from which energy can be harnessed. No energy equals no hope of life. Futhermore, an unprotected cell would be dashed to pieces in an instant by Brownian motion, without the cell envelope.

Which is where the "bubble" comes from.

You see, you're claiming something is impossible, I show you how it is possible, and then you say you want proof that it happened that way. I can't show you it because you cannot positivily prove history. However, you can create a theory that explains the facts at hand and makes testable predicitons. We have tested multiple theories of abiogenesis and things like the decendents of the Urey-Mills Experiment have held out. Each explains the known facts and works within the system set out for it.

From there the one with the best explanatory power is selected as not necessarily the one that actually happened, but the one we will use as a model for predicting future behaviour.

You see, science could have history 100% wrong, we could be held down by tiny men with tiny jaws-of-life clamps, and electricity could be these little men shining little flashlights around. The thing is, though, the models we currently use are the ones that can best explain what is going on from predictory point of view.

No I picked the theory that has more data to support it … but I do not blindly follow, the greatest strength of the scientific method is its ability to fit reality.

If you would like to see some of the data please by all means look it up

But again though a series of posts you have manage to avoid the original question I asked

Is there any real world data supporting creationism as a hypothesis?

Is there any data that supports anything else? What the people in this thread who oppose creationism fail to realize is how the scientific method actually works. You form a hypothesis, experiment to test that hypothesis, and then reject its opposite if sufficient data exists to do so. Experiments lead to rejections of the null hypothesis. THEY NEVER PROVE THAT A HYPOTHESIS IS TRUE. Therefore, science only eliminates what possibilities lack evidentiary support until only the truth remains. This reductionistic approach leaves us ever approaching the truth but never quite there.

For creationism, however, all things denote there is a God; from the earth and all things that are upon the face of it, including its motion, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. We cannot create a living cell although we know everything needed to make a cell and can put them together. Life is not obligated to exist, even when all the prerequisites as we understand them are met. Look at the stars, the sun, the bee in flight, the flower in bloom, the pulsing of a heart and tell me there is no Organizer of all these things.

Originally Posted by Fergi the Great
For creationism, however, all things denote there is a God; from the earth and all things that are upon the face of it, including its motion, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. We cannot create a living cell although we know everything needed to make a cell and can put them together. Life is not obligated to exist, even when all the prerequisites as we understand them are met. Look at the stars, the sun, the bee in flight, the flower in bloom, the pulsing of a heart and tell me there is no Organizer of all these things. There is an organiser, called the universe. But if you're talking about some guy in the clouds who made us out of clay with his magic powers, then no.

For creationism, however, all things denote there is a God; from the earth and all things that are upon the face of it, including its motion, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. We cannot create a living cell although we know everything needed to make a cell and can put them together. Life is not obligated to exist, even when all the prerequisites as we understand them are met. Look at the stars, the sun, the bee in flight, the flower in bloom, the pulsing of a heart and tell me there is no Organizer of all these things.

Not only is this an emotional appeal, but it's highly subjective. I could very well bring up the feeling I've always had that Nature is just that good. It can do things we can't and it does them very well. Before I ever asked "Where did we come from?" I always saw trees, people, animals, all that as something that no one could ever make. They're living things, you don't make living things, they're born.

For creationism, however, all things denote there is a God; from the earth and all things that are upon the face of it, including its motion, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. We cannot create a living cell although we know everything needed to make a cell and can put them together. Life is not obligated to exist, even when all the prerequisites as we understand them are met. Look at the stars, the sun, the bee in flight, the flower in bloom, the pulsing of a heart and tell me there is no Organizer of all these things.
Appeal to emotion …
[flawed emotional appeal]
Look at plagues and babies dying and good Christians loosing their livelihood and see god? (because you are going to claim the devil on these things) how about children being smashed in earth quakes or drown in floods and other natural disasters
Do you see an organizer?
[/flawed emotional appeal]
See emotional appeal …

There is an organiser, called the universe. But if you're talking about some guy in the clouds who made us out of clay with his magic powers, then no.

Why do you have a problem believing that a being created us rather than some amorphous power?

Not only is this an emotional appeal, but it's highly subjective. I could very well bring up the feeling I've always had that Nature is just that good. It can do things we can't and it does them very well. Before I ever asked "Where did we come from?" I always saw trees, people, animals, all that as something that no one could ever make. They're living things, you don't make living things, they're born.

Precisely.

As to emotion, I don't recall encountering any vulcans in this forum. As such, everything here will be in part governed by it.

Precisely.

As to emotion, I don't recall encountering any vulcans in this forum. As such, everything here will be in part governed by it.
Perception is governed by it … but the truth is not

(which is why we try for objective analysis of things … as close as we can get)

Appeal to emotion …
[flawed emotional appeal]
Look at plagues and babies dying and good Christians loosing their livelihood and see god? (because you are going to claim the devil on these things) how about children being smashed in earth quakes or drown in floods and other natural disasters
Do you see an organizer?
[/flawed emotional appeal]
See emotional appeal …

Criticize me for using emotion by doing so yourself...

I do not attribute all evil to the direct interpolation of the devil. Men cause evil. Read the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" threads.

Just because everything doesn't go your way doesn't mean someone's not in charge. Just because the mods and admins have not chimed into this thread yet doesn't mean they are not there and are not monitoring these exchanges.

Perception is governed by it … but the truth is not

(which is why we try for objective analysis of things … as close as we can get)

I never said truth is governed by emotion. Truth is truth and is not offended by the erred opinions of mortals who cannot possibly comprehend it in its truest form.

Criticize me for using emotion by doing so yourself...

I do not attribute all evil to the direct interpolation of the devil. Men cause evil. Read the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" threads.

Just because everything doesn't go your way doesn't mean someone's not in charge. Just because the mods and admins have not chimed into this thread yet doesn't mean they are not there and are not monitoring these exchanges.
Exactly ... maybe you did not catch the [flawed emotional appeal] tags specifically there so people did not take that argument seriously because it was MEANT to be an example on the other side to accentuate the flaw

I never said truth is governed by emotion. Truth is truth and is not offended by the erred opinions of mortals who cannot possibly comprehend it in its truest form.
So you assume … I have no reason to believe anything within this universe will not be eventually understandable to us

(a deity is different because by nature has to exist outside the universe and is an un testable quantity)

So you assume … I have no reason to believe anything within this universe will not be eventually understandable to us

(a deity is different because by nature has to exist outside the universe and is an un testable quantity)

Eventually, we CAN know the truth of all things.

Not here however.

Eventually, we CAN know the truth of all things.

Not here however.
So we take on omniscience when we die? (seriously interested … have never heard that argument before)

So we take on omniscience when we die? (seriously interested … have never heard that argument before)

No, we continue to learn and grow after mortality. In order for us to learn certain things beyond our ability to perceive them and that we may not be trustworthy with otherwise, this mortal probation constitutes an opportunity to prove ourselves worthy of further light and knowledge.

As a crude analogy, mortality is an initiation ceremony as it were...

Originally Posted by Fergi the Great
Why do you have a problem believing that a being created us rather than some amorphous power? Personally it just makes more sense to me, (shock horror!) There is, in my mind, a far more logical explanation for the creation of life in Abiogenesis than in the creation story of the bible, which I'll assume you are referring to.

Mostly, when I see creationists argue, they typically employ the "God of the Gaps" technique. This says; "We don't fully understand that yet, therefore God did it." But I think that's a pretty silly way to look at things.

I may counter, why do you have such a problem believing in an amorphus power?

Now I'm not entirely ragging on the chance that God or Gods or Interstellar Superbeetles or Ultra-Intelligent pieces of damp cheese may in fact be the cause of life, the true origin. That's always a possibility. But to my mind, the question of a superior, possibly even supernatural being/beings is really one of philosophy. That's a whole other kettle of fish and should be addressed in a different thread.

No, we continue to learn and grow after mortality. In order for us to learn certain things beyond our ability to perceive them and that we may not be trustworthy with otherwise, this mortal probation constitutes an opportunity to prove ourselves worthy of further light and knowledge.

As a crude analogy, mortality is an initiation ceremony as it were...
But because of his omni-everything ness there is potentially an infinite amount of knowledge

If we have the ability to know everything we take on omniscience as well (it means all knowing)

Personally it just makes more sense to me, (shock horror!) There is, in my mind, a far more logical explanation for the creation of life in Abiogenesis than in the creation story of the bible, which I'll assume you are referring to.

Mostly, when I see creationists argue, they typically employ the "God of the Gaps" technique. This says; "We don't fully understand that yet, therefore God did it." But I think that's a pretty silly way to look at things.

I may counter, why do you have such a problem believing in an amorphus power?

Now I'm not entirely ragging on the chance that God or Gods or Interstellar Superbeetles or Ultra-Intelligent pieces of damp cheese may in fact be the cause of life, the true origin. That's always a possibility. But to my mind, the question of a superior, possibly even supernatural being/beings is really one of philosophy. That's a whole other kettle of fish and should be addressed in a different thread.

Agreed. As to the amorphous power, I do not claim to fully comprehend it, but from what knowledge I have and what experiences I have been through, I fully believe in a Father in Heaven who in like form and pattern being my father wants me to have the bounty he has. God is an exalted man.

But because of his omni-everything ness there is potentially an infinite amount of knowledge

If we have the ability to know everything we take on omniscience as well (it means all knowing)

Ability does not translate to proficiency.

On the other hand, you are precisely correct- existence is a path of eternal progress...

Originally Posted by Fergi the Great
Agreed. Thanks for a reasoned and mature response. In more important news, who's seeing Batman Begins when it comes out? I just downloaded the track "Molossus" and it kicks ass! Damn I can't wait! I want my Batman!

It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

I've been confronted lately once again with plenty of evidence for evolutionary transition, and it remind me of my old Creationist fellows who wish to deny this reality.

You know, as much as I appreciate it if Creationism is finally extinct... the world is kinda boring without those endless discussions going on. ;)
This really cracks me up! Where have you been? Do you realize that there are major discussions going on now to remove evolution from school curriculums because it is no longer a viable theory. You really need to read some of DR. Richard Leakey's latest findings in reguard to evolution . (In case you did not know , he is one of the world's most renowned anthropologists ) . Here are some fodder for your brain ... If man evolved from apes , why do we still have apes? Evolutionists confuse thier theories with adaptation to make them more viable. Did you know you are more likely to win the lottery every day for 4000 years than a lizard has the chance for his scales to become feathers? Do you realize that mutations are not evolutionary, they are birth defects? Soooo.... how did evolution start? Spontaneous life? What are the odds on that? Here's a thought for ya : If you believe in God and you are wrong , what is the worst that could happen to you ? (Nothing) If you didn't believe in God and he does exist , what's the worst that can happen to you ? ( There's a nasty thought....) :headbang: :eek: :( :confused:

Ability does not translate to proficiency.

On the other hand, you are precisely correct- existence is a path of eternal progress...
But if they have infinite potential but an infinite amount of data to absorb it really is not possible for them to know EVERYTHING … just approaching everything

So really rather then having the potential to know everything (because it is a goal they can never reach) they have the potential to just know a lot … there is a difference

"Creationism finally extinct?"

Wishful thinking if I ever heard it.

Originally Posted by Elvallen
This really cracks me up! Where have you been? Do you realize that there are major discussions going on now to remove evolution from school curriculums because it is no longer a viable theory. You really need to read some of DR. Richard Leakey's latest findings in reguard to evolution . (In case you did not know , he is one of the world's most renowned anthropologists ) . Here are some fodder for your brain ... If man evolved from apes , why do we still have apes? Evolutionists confuse thier theories with adaptation to make them more viable. Did you know you are more likely to win the lottery every day for 4000 years than a lizard has the chance for his scales to become feathers? Do you realize that mutations are not evolutionary, they are birth defects? Soooo.... how did evolution start? Spontaneous life? What are the odds on that? Here's a thought for ya : If you believe in God and you are wrong , what is the worst that could happen to you ? (Nothing) If you didn't believe in God and he does exist , Holy moley. There are so many things wrong in that post which have been addressed a sickening number of times. It's like slaying a Hydra!

Creationism is probably leaving just like all the other void biblical theories for exactly the same reason - Science makes more sense! Religion in general explains what cannot be explained and is used in order to make a sense of knowledge of something too advanced for us to know. Of course a truly omnipotent being would be able to understand what we cannot and do things that seem impossible, yet constant contradiction of religion by science on feasibly solved issues suggests to me that religion is not an explanation nor a truth in any way, but a comfort for what we do not know

No I picked the theory that has more data to support it … but I do not blindly follow, the greatest strength of the scientific method is its ability to fit reality.

If you would like to see some of the data please by all means look it up

But again though a series of posts you have manage to avoid the original question I asked

Is there any real world data supporting creationism as a hypothesis?

I suggest that evolution theory has more data because there are more people trying to make it fit, and more money thrown at it. Have you gone with the majority simply because they are the majority?

Unless you have done the research yourself, or at least have read through it all and criticised it, then yes, you are blindly following. But you are not alone. Just about everyone is in the same category. Even the scientists themselves usually only know one small area of research, and rely on the writings of others for the big picture.

Aha, we come back to the original question. But this time you have worded it better. Last time you asked for proof. I told you that there is no proof for either creation or evolution. But there is evidence.
Well, the evidence, as I was saying before, is the information that is presented to someone wanting an explanation for the origin, eg. of life. Evidence can usually be assigned to two categories. Either for evolution and against creation, or for creation and against evolution. Before I begin, I should say that evidence is an explanation that an observer thinks is best. Thus two people can look at the same set of data, and interpret it exaclty in opposite ways, and still call it evidence.

Now, if creation was true, then God made genomes that were perfect. After the schism that separated God from his creation (caused by man), genomes were no longer perfect. Chaos and disorder and evil appeared on the scene. One of the results of this chaos is mutations in the genome. If you have ever seen someone suffering from a severe mutation, you will see the picture I have in mind as I write this. Thus it follows that the older our genes get, the worse they are. More time equals more mutations. Do we see genetic diseases on the rise? Yes. Although there are some complicating factors, such as modern medicine, which tends to keep people alive long enough to pass on their defect genes, etc., etc. However, there are some mutations that are not lethal but detrimental and that are newly appearing on the scene. Perhaps you might want a link for this, but actually I forgot where I read it. Some medicine/genetics review somewhere, and not at all creationist.

Another case is the bacterial genomes. In previous posts in this forum I have written pages and pages about it. I studied bacterial genetics and polysaccharide biochemistry in my PhD. I learned that bacterial genomes are getting smaller, as they collect more mutations. Evolutionism predicts that bacteria evolved into humans. To do this they would need to collect more DNA, not less. Creationism predicts that as time goes by, bacterial genomes will grow smaller, while evolution predicts that they will grow bigger. We have the data on this, as there are hundreds of bacterial genomes being sequenced. Bacterial genomes are growing smaller. By studying these genomes, we have discovered that things like parasitic behaviour is most likely the result of loss of genes, not the gain of genes. That would mean there were less (or none) parasites around when God made the world.

This is just one example that I have personally studied where the data points (not proves) to the creationist version. The predictions of the evolutionists were wrong. They have altered their explanations and predictions to fit the new data.

Do you want another example?

I suggest that evolution theory has more data because there are more people trying to make it fit, and more money thrown at it. Have you gone with the majority simply because they are the majority?


HA!
You tried to point out flaws in peoples understanding of scientific theory yet you grossly ignore the fact that if data contraindicates it’s the THEORY that changes not the data

That and are you seriously trying to say that the study of evolution has anywhere NEER the money thrown at it as Christianity does … nor the mass number of people that study and believe it

This really cracks me up! Where have you been? Do you realize that there are major discussions going on now to remove evolution from school curriculums because it is no longer a viable theory. You really need to read some of DR. Richard Leakey's latest findings in reguard to evolution . (In case you did not know , he is one of the world's most renowned anthropologists ) . Here are some fodder for your brain ... If man evolved from apes , why do we still have apes? Evolutionists confuse thier theories with adaptation to make them more viable. Did you know you are more likely to win the lottery every day for 4000 years than a lizard has the chance for his scales to become feathers? Do you realize that mutations are not evolutionary, they are birth defects? Soooo.... how did evolution start? Spontaneous life? What are the odds on that? Here's a thought for ya : If you believe in God and you are wrong , what is the worst that could happen to you ? (Nothing) If you didn't believe in God and he does exist , what's the worst that can happen to you ? ( There's a nasty thought....) :headbang: :eek: :( :confused:

Hehehehe.... amusing. :D

It would be new to me that evolution isn't a viable theory anymore. I'm working with it every day and my job is unthinkable without it.

Here are some fodder for your brain ... If man evolved from apes , why do we still have apes?

I regret to say this, but that's a stereotypical Creationist argument. The answer is, apes around because humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Did you know you are more likely to win the lottery every day for 4000 years than a lizard has the chance for his scales to become feathers?

Birds didn't evolve from lizards, they evolved from theropod dinosaurs (big difference!) and it did take a bit more than 4000 years. ;)

Other than that, it seems you have a multiplicity of other misconception about evolution.

PS: Bruarong, i'm on replying to your earlier post now... please hang on :)

UpwardThrust

HA!
You tried to point out flaws in peoples understanding of scientific theory yet you grossly ignore the fact that if data contraindicates it’s the THEORY that changes not the data

That and are you seriously trying to say that the study of evolution has anywhere NEER the money thrown at it as Christianity does … nor the mass number of people that study and believe it

I don't understand where you got that idea from my posts. Haven't I often said that the explanation changes?

Christianity does have a lot of money, it's true, but their expenditure is more likely to be on mission work (quite rightly so), aid work (sometimes the same thing) and not on creation research. (Yes, I also know that a lot of 'christian' money is mis-spent, but that is a separate issue.) Remember, there are a lot of Christians who accept evolution, and think such money spent on creation research is a waste. Personally, I would rather the money I give to my local church go to the poor chap who can't afford some bread, rather than on creation research.

People who study christianity are not necessarily studying creationism. You have to be a christian (most likely anyway) and a scientist to do research on creationism. There are a few of us around (quite a few in fact) but most of us are just doing research on science, and not specifically on creation science.

Hehehehe.... amusing. :D

It would be new to me that evolution isn't a viable theory anymore. I'm working with it every day and my job is unthinkable without it.

I regret to say this, but that's a stereotypical Creationist argument. The answer is, apes around because humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

PS: Bruarong, i'm on replying to your earlier post now... please hang on :)

What I think he meant was that the natural selection pressure required to select humans from apes would have to be quite strong (particularly given that apes are generally physically stronger than humans). However, if the selection pressure was so strong, why did the apes survive? A question like this won't prove evolution wrong, but it will make someone think a bit before coming up with a creative solution. Even then that explanation may not look very good, particularly if there is no evidence to back it up. Thus the person who holds to the evolution theory is forced to a position of belief in his theory, since the evidence is not (most likely) available.

I am honoured that you are taking the effort to reply to me. I await your posts with anticipation.

Okay thank you for the patience, here's the first part:


Pehaps you would like to indicate exactly which point of our fossil record is not able to fit with the Deluge.
Animal distribution is certainly a puzzle. But so is our complicated models of natural selection, animal migration, predatation, land bridges, and so forth. It would be almost impossible to predict which animal went where. Strange why all the animals with pouches ended up in Australia. But I would not say impossible. From an evolutionary perspective, why did pouches only evolve in Australia and no where else? It does seem a bit unlikely. The answer is natural selection, with very complicated models, perhaps. But that is the same answer that the creationists give.

Ok, regarding Marsupials, that's a long story: First of all, Marsupials are not limited exclusively to Australia (although i can't deny they're usually associated with the continent). In fact there are also marsupials in North and South America (think of the opposums), and they aren't thought to have originated in Australia, either. But I will get to that later.
The second thing I wanted to note is that there are a number of other diagnostic features about Marsupials by which they can be distinguished from other mammals. Specifically, it is their tooth formula. There are four types of teeth in mammals (canines, incisors, pre-molars and molars). The maximum dentition in Marsupials is 5.1.3.4 for the upper jaw and 4.1.3.4 for the lower jaw. This is the tooth configuration of the oppossum, for example. If you add it up, you get 50 teeth, which is quite a lot for such a small animal! Anyways, in comparison the maximum dentition you can have in placental mammals is 3.1.4.3 (both upper and lower jaws). The number of teeth in mammals can be only reduced (Humans for example have 2.1.4.1 - although some humans are lacking wisdom teeth). Hence when you find a mammalian jaw in the fossil record, you can classifiy it based on it's tooth formula. There are more details in the teeth which I can't elaborate here, but, simply put, there's a variety of other diagnostic features.
So that's how we can distinguish marsupials in the fossil record.
So, back to the story of from where marsupials come. The earliest Marsupials - suprisingly - come from the Early Cretaceous of China (the famous Liaoning formation - circa 120 million years ago). From China they migrated towards western North America (note that North America was divided into two halves by a large seaway) in the Late Cretaceous. They are not the only animals who did so. The Ceratopsians did take the same route. Approximately 75 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous, there was a brief land-bridge between western North America and South America which did allow a fauna interchange. Marsupials and Hadrosaurs reached South America, while the Titanosaurs reached North America (from the mid-Cretaceous on there weren't any Sauropods in North America). So that's what the fossil record says here.
In the Paleocene and Eocene epochs, South America, Antarctica and Australia were still connected with each other. Marsupial fossils are known from the early Eocene of Antarctica, and they are known in Australia from the late Eocene where they radiated into the familiar groups. Independent from Australia, a similar but minor radiation occured in South America (similar to Australia, South America was 'A World Apart' for most of the Tertiary). It was smaller there because Marsupials had to compete over ecological niches with other groups such as Notoungulates and Xenarthra. In Australia these competitors didn't exist and Marsupials could radiate into virtually all niches.
Ok, now regarding Antarctica, at the end of the Eocene, the continent finally separated from Australia and South America, causing the formation of the circum-antarctic currents. This did cause the continent to become covered with glacials.
Regarding the northern continents, Marsupials persisted in a insignificant role in North America, Europe and Asia, but they became extinct during the Miocene.
Ok, now comes something interesting: How can there be Marsupials (ie Oppossums) in North America when I said they became extinct in the Miocene. Well, they came from South America.
The present-day Isthmus of Panama formed during the Pliocene, about 3 million years ago. This event is known as the great american fauna interchange. We see in the fossil record how in the north, animals like oppossums, glyptodonts and giant sloths arrive, while in the south animals like mastodonts, tapirs, llamas etc. arrive.
Ok, i stop for now.

Anyways, that's the story of the Marsupials. I'm glad you brought it up, it's something Creationists usually don't deal with.

PS: If you have questions regarding some of the names, i can elaborate that too if you like. :)

Creationism and stuff like that can't possibly go extinct.

There's more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf-life.

Read this topic, it's quite good:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425641


Now, if creation was true, then God made genomes that were perfect. After the schism that separated God from his creation (caused by man), genomes were no longer perfect. Chaos and disorder and evil appeared on the scene. One of the results of this chaos is mutations in the genome. If you have ever seen someone suffering from a severe mutation, you will see the picture I have in mind as I write this. Thus it follows that the older our genes get, the worse they are. More time equals more mutations. Do we see genetic diseases on the rise? Yes. Although there are some complicating factors, such as modern medicine, which tends to keep people alive long enough to pass on their defect genes, etc., etc. However, there are some mutations that are not lethal but detrimental and that are newly appearing on the scene. Perhaps you might want a link for this, but actually I forgot where I read it. Some medicine/genetics review somewhere, and not at all creationist.

Another case is the bacterial genomes. In previous posts in this forum I have written pages and pages about it. I studied bacterial genetics and polysaccharide biochemistry in my PhD. I learned that bacterial genomes are getting smaller, as they collect more mutations. Evolutionism predicts that bacteria evolved into humans. To do this they would need to collect more DNA, not less. Creationism predicts that as time goes by, bacterial genomes will grow smaller, while evolution predicts that they will grow bigger. We have the data on this, as there are hundreds of bacterial genomes being sequenced. Bacterial genomes are growing smaller. By studying these genomes, we have discovered that things like parasitic behaviour is most likely the result of loss of genes, not the gain of genes. That would mean there were less (or none) parasites around when God made the world.


This entire speil means absolutely nothing as shrinking genomes IS NOT A PREDICTION OF CREATIONISM. Predicitons are made based upon the core mechanism of a hypothesis or theory. Creationism does not have a core mechanism capable of making useful predictions.

You're just taking data and saying it's proof of creationism without ever saying why.

By the way, I'd still like to see some cobberation of these claims. I still want to see your credentials.


What I think he meant was that the natural selection pressure required to select humans from apes would have to be quite strong (particularly given that apes are generally physically stronger than humans). However, if the selection pressure was so strong, why did the apes survive? A question like this won't prove evolution wrong, but it will make someone think a bit before coming up with a creative solution. Even then that explanation may not look very good, particularly if there is no evidence to back it up. Thus the person who holds to the evolution theory is forced to a position of belief in his theory, since the evidence is not (most likely) available.

...

Oy vey, destroy your credibility more why don't you?

Do you know anything, anything about population genetics? Population biology in general?

Honestly, this whole thing has devolved into the standard EvC argument where the creationist either doesn't know what he's talking about or he purposely misrepresents theories and data so he can attack his strawman at will.

Okay, here is part two...

I've always been suspicious when people try to tell me that all the continents were joined together at one time in the earth's past. Would that not make the globe a bit lopsided? The wobble in its spin would be terrific.
OK just look at the map of the world, you say, and see how it all fits together like a jigsaw. I say, Ok, but that is not proof that they were together. Another possibility is that the flood waters shaped them that way. Just look at any old river. Each side of a winding river fits with the other side. No one would assume that the banks of the river initially were touching each other, and that they moved apart. No, the water moved the soil away. Back to the ocean again....perhaps those strong ocean currents had a bit to do with the shaping. I'll admit that todays currents are not strong enough to shift millions of cubic kms of soil However, if there were strong currents during the time of the Deluge (most likely), then you could imagine huge rivers of waters shaping the land, making it much like what we see today. No need for slow shifting continents to explain what we observe today.

This is yet another example of how it is possible to have more than one explanation for the 'facts'. Explanations don't prove much, except that humans are clever enough to think things through.

Ok now, regarding plate tectonics, that's a long story as well. When Alfred Wegener proposed this for the first time in the 1920's, he was ridiculed upon. The problem is that he had only two things - the 'jigsaw' as you call it, and the fossil record. He was missing a whole of stuff which wasn't found out until a few decades later.
Regarding the 'terrible wobble' in the spin because of the existence of a supercontinent. I don't think so. The crust is like 5-10 kilometers thick below the Ocean floor and 20-30 kilometers thick below the continents. If you compare that with the diameter of Earth (about 12800 kilometers), this is insignificant.

So, what other evidence is there apart from the 'jigsaw'?
Primarily, the sea floors. If you look at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, you can see the mid-Oceanic ridge (MOR). At that place, you can see how basaltic magma from rises along the ridge and forms new oceanic crust. These basalts basically form the entire oceanic crust. Both radiometric dating and remanent magnetism tell us consistently that the crust is getting older the further away you get from the MOR (as I mentioned the Atlantic didn't exist prior circa 150 million years ago).
In a similar way you can look at the sediments atop of the basalts: they are getting thicker the further away you get (because they get older). These sediments (called radiolarite) are something special: they are deep marine sediments that are largely made up of the skeletal material of single-celled organims with a silicate skeleton - such as radiolaria. The question is, what happened with the carbonate? There exists something called the CCD (carbonate compensation depth), below which carbonate is dissolved in the water. This CCD is somewhat variable - it's depended on temperature, pressure and carbon dioxide content of the water, but it's generally about a kilometer of water depth.
So below the CCD, you'll find now carbonate in the sediments, instead they are largely made up of silicates. There is however an interesting point: The amount of silicate-producers in the marine ecosystems is insignificant small compared to the amount of carbonate producers. As a result, the sedimentation rate of the deep sea sediments is minimal (maybe a milimeter per millennium or so). I think it's self-explanatory what that means if you have radiolarite sediments that are meters thick.

Btw... in the case of your Deluge scenario, I'd expect the sea floor in the Atlantic Ocean to be filled with lots of sediment (heavy terrestrial influence!) from the deluge (obviously, the bulk of the sediments should be located on the oceanfloors, and not on the land). And as I just elaborated, this is not consistent with what we see in reality.

Also, another interesting point would be the mountains. The distribution of mountains on Earth is by no means coincidential, it's because of the plate tectonics that mountains are folded up. If you take a look at India and the Himalaya, you can see how India collided with Asia and formed the Himalaya in the collision. You can also see in the rocks in the mountains how former sea floor has been folded and thrusted up. And then you have the mountains eroding and thus supply the nearby basins with new sediment material. (that's another interesting thing, namely that you can track down the source of material for a sediment). You can also see that older mountains obviously are more heavily eroded than younger ones.

Lastly, there's a rather nifty evidence for Plate Tectonics. In the age of GPS, we can actually measure the movement (yes, the Atlantic is getting wider by a few centimeters each year!).

You see, after all, Wegener was right, and the whole story was by far more than just a jigsaw puzzle. And as you see, I've presented you some more facts, and not just clever explanations. :)

What do you know of Noah's knowledge of boat building? If you were to live as long as Noah, you may have learned quite a few things like that. How do you know those folk didn't have boats?

Because building a 480ft boat out of only wood is impossible. The only wooden ships approaching that size were the chinese treasure galleons that required iron braces to hold them together and leaked so badly they often required constant mechanical pumping to stay afloat. No boat the size of the ark made of only wood could float.

the Bible doesn't say that Noah did any categorization or identification. He probably did some, as much as he was capable of.

Wrong.

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

In other words, God told Noah what to do and left him the tricky task of categorising all the animals. Noah recieved no divine assistance at all, at any point in the story, other than God telling him dimensions and what to do.

Plus, it's not unreasonable that he may have had God's help in that.

Well, as long as you don't mind rewriting holy scripture when it becomes inconveniant, I guess.

Would it be impossible to fill a boat up with food. I doubt it. It may take a long time, perhaps. But there is no reason why Noah could not have employed several hundreds of people to work for him.

No reason to believe he did, it certainly isn't in Genesis. Regardless, there's no way the Ark could have contained all the animals, never mind any food for them. And how would Noah have known what every single type of insect needed to eat and gathered it from across the world?

Remember, there is no reason to assume that these people were ignorant savage cave men who barely knew how to start a fire.

What, aside from that they spend half the Old Testament raping and brutally murdering each other? And anyway, the idea that parasites are degenerate lifeforms is simply not true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html

1. Parasites are far from degenerate. They have lost features that are familiar to us as nonparasites, but they also have acquired many other highly sophisticated features and abilities, allowing them to find their hosts, to survive their hosts' immune systems (often multiple hosts for one parasite), and to survive some otherwise hostile environments within their hosts. Creationists themselves tout the complexity of the immune system; does not circumventing an immune system deserve at least as much credit? Fast-evolving viruses like the common cold show that such adaptations are evolving all the time.

Here are just a few features that parasites have. Similar adaptations are common (Hajek and St. Leger 1994; Zimmer 2000):

* Sacculina, a parasitic barnacle, infests crabs. It prevents the crab from molting and reproducing and induces the crab to care for the parasite's brood as if it were the crab's. Even male crabs are feminized to groom as if they had a female's brood pouch (Zimmer 2000, 79-82).
* The larva of the Hymenoepimecis wasp parasitizes an orb-weaving spider. When the larva is ready to pupate, it modifies the spider's behavior to make it spin a cocoon for the wasp (Eberhard 2000).
* The fungus Entomophthora muscae infects and kills house flies, but before it kills them, it manipulates the fly's behavior to make it crawl to a high place and adopt a sexually receptive pose, behaviors that increase the likelihood of the fungus spreading to other flies (Moller 1993).


2. Evolution often goes the other way; parasites that initially are very harmful become more benign to their host over time. The virulence of a pathogen is generally predictable on the basis of evolutionary principles. For example, parasites are less virulent at low host population densities where the parasites risk destroying available hosts and themselves with them (Nesse and Williams 1994, 57-61; Zimmer 2000, 151-155).

3. Why do organisms have defenses against pathogens in the first place? They would not have been needed in a pre-Fall world without pathogens, and their complexity and effectiveness show that features such as immune systems are not degenerate forms themselves.

Ah, you raise the issue of water. Nowhere does the Bible state that the water covered the entire globe at one single moment, but that it covered the entire land.

That's a lie.

Gen 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Gen 8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

Seriously.

That means that there was probably tsunamis. I suspect that there is enough water in our oceans to make a big enough tsunami.

Enough to cover Mount Everest by 22 and a half feet? You want me to believe that the waters in the oceans of the world are enough to create a tidal wave that would still be almost four miles high when it hit the Himalayas?

At any rate, the Bible says that the water from underground came up and contributed to the flood. I have heard of underground seas. What we don't know, I believe, is the actual amount of water within the earth. Thus, on this basis, I say that you claim of not enough water to be wrong. My reading of the Bible suggests that after the flood, it returned underground.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html

There is absolutely no way anything but an insignicant amount of water can be contained beneath the Earth's crust, certainly not enough to raise global sea levels by 29,057.5 feet.

I don't know if you realize, but if the earth was a perfect globe (no mountains or valleys) the sea water would cover it by more than a meter. That's a lot of water.

Yes. It's a shame it's highest point is 29,035ft above sea level, really.

Okay thank you for the patience, here's the first part:

Ok, regarding Marsupials, that's a long story: First of all, Marsupials are not limited exclusively to Australia (although i can't deny they're usually associated with the continent). In fact there are also marsupials in North and South America (think of the opposums), and they aren't thought to have originated in Australia, either. But I will get to that later.
The second thing I wanted to note is that there are a number of other diagnostic features about Marsupials by which they can be distinguished from other mammals. Specifically, it is their tooth formula. There are four types of teeth in mammals (canines, incisors, pre-molars and molars). The maximum dentition in Marsupials is 5.1.3.4 for the upper jaw and 4.1.3.4 for the lower jaw. This is the tooth configuration of the oppossum, for example. If you add it up, you get 50 teeth, which is quite a lot for such a small animal! Anyways, in comparison the maximum dentition you can have in placental mammals is 3.1.4.3 (both upper and lower jaws). The number of teeth in mammals can be only reduced (Humans for example have 2.1.4.1 - although some humans are lacking wisdom teeth). Hence when you find a mammalian jaw in the fossil record, you can classifiy it based on it's tooth formula. There are more details in the teeth which I can't elaborate here, but, simply put, there's a variety of other diagnostic features.
So that's how we can distinguish marsupials in the fossil record.
So, back to the story of from where marsupials come. The earliest Marsupials - suprisingly - come from the Early Cretaceous of China (the famous Liaoning formation - circa 120 million years ago). From China they migrated towards western North America (note that North America was divided into two halves by a large seaway) in the Late Cretaceous. They are not the only animals who did so. The Ceratopsians did take the same route. Approximately 75 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous, there was a brief land-bridge between western North America and South America which did allow a fauna interchange. Marsupials and Hadrosaurs reached South America, while the Titanosaurs reached North America (from the mid-Cretaceous on there weren't any Sauropods in North America). So that's what the fossil record says here.
In the Paleocene and Eocene epochs, South America, Antarctica and Australia were still connected with each other. Marsupial fossils are known from the early Eocene of Antarctica, and they are known in Australia from the late Eocene where they radiated into the familiar groups. Independent from Australia, a similar but minor radiation occured in South America (similar to Australia, South America was 'A World Apart' for most of the Tertiary). It was smaller there because Marsupials had to compete over ecological niches with other groups such as Notoungulates and Xenarthra. In Australia these competitors didn't exist and Marsupials could radiate into virtually all niches.
Ok, now regarding Antarctica, at the end of the Eocene, the continent finally separated from Australia and South America, causing the formation of the circum-antarctic currents. This did cause the continent to become covered with glacials.
Regarding the northern continents, Marsupials persisted in a insignificant role in North America, Europe and Asia, but they became extinct during the Miocene.
Ok, now comes something interesting: How can there be Marsupials (ie Oppossums) in North America when I said they became extinct in the Miocene. Well, they came from South America.
The present-day Isthmus of Panama formed during the Pliocene, about 3 million years ago. This event is known as the great american fauna interchange. We see in the fossil record how in the north, animals like oppossums, glyptodonts and giant sloths arrive, while in the south animals like mastodonts, tapirs, llamas etc. arrive.
Ok, i stop for now.

Anyways, that's the story of the Marsupials. I'm glad you brought it up, it's something Creationists usually don't deal with.

PS: If you have questions regarding some of the names, i can elaborate that too if you like. :)

Phew, sounds like you have done your homework. I appreciate your effort, and it is an education for me. I don't know enough about this area to even hold a discussion with you, let alone debate it with you. However, if you want to show that creationism can't explain the marsupial 'phenomenom', you have to point out why. You have to include the predictions of the creationists (not just what you think they ought to predict) and show how their predictions are wrong and how the evolutionary predictions are superior and therefore more likely to be right (see my example with the bacterial genomes). So far, you have demonstrated that you know your side of the argument. That is quite important for your own confidence. But if you want to convince someone else, you must present the other side of the argument.

Remember also that what you have presented are explanations that were custom made to fit in with the observations. That is a long way from proof, I'm sure you will agree. Just because your explanations include millions of years, that is not proving that there was really millions of years.

It's not extinct, don't worry. As long as I live and breathe there will be at least one proponent of Creationism.

(It hasn't been that long, maybe a week)

Besides all the "evolutionary proof" in the world doens't negate creationism.
Creationism is just the fact that God did it. There is no HOW in it. For all we know He had a little test tube, some pitri dishes, etc and pushed along the growth of the various species. Perhaps He made things evolve. I'll tell you when I find out.

Make that two. Actually, I'll make this my second to next topic if that makes you guys happy =D!

GMC Military Arms

Because building a 480ft boat out of only wood is impossible. The only wooden ships approaching that size were the chinese treasure galleons that required iron braces to hold them together and leaked so badly they often required constant mechanical pumping to stay afloat. No boat the size of the ark made of only wood could float.

The Chinese failed.....and you say that makes it impossible. But you don't know much of the quality of the wood back then, or of the material they had access to. Do we know if they had iron or some sort of metal back then? Impossible! I think you are impossibly quick to claim impossibility.

In other words, God told Noah what to do and left him the tricky task of categorising all the animals. Noah recieved no divine assistance at all, at any point in the story, other than God telling him dimensions and what to do.

The Biblical account does not include all the details (that would make the Bible far too big). There are examples of details left out of the Bible all the way through the literature. And you are saying that God did not help Noah simply because it failed to specify how He helped him. Would it not be help from God to get all the wild animals into the ark (this was mentioned in the account)? You are the one making the big assumptions here.

Noah have known what every single type of insect needed to eat and gathered it from across the world?

Actually, I don't know how Noah could have done it. Even with God's help it seems like a miracle. What would you say is the probability of Noah pulling it off? Pretty low? But still not as much of a miracle as some of the explanations that the evolutionists come up with.

What, aside from that they spend half the Old Testament raping and brutally murdering each other?

That still happens today. Murder is not an indication of a lack of intelligence. Neither is rape. It's an indication that man is capable of evil, just like the Bible says.

And anyway, the idea that parasites are degenerate lifeforms is simply not true.
Parasites are far from degenerate. They have lost features that are familiar to us as nonparasites, but they also have acquired many other highly sophisticated features and abilities, allowing them to find their hosts, to survive their hosts' immune systems (often multiple hosts for one parasite), and to survive some otherwise hostile environments within their hosts. Creationists themselves tout the complexity of the immune system; does not circumventing an immune system deserve at least as much credit? Fast-evolving viruses like the common cold show that such adaptations are evolving all the time. Here are just a few features that parasites have. Similar adaptations are common (Hajek and St. Leger 1994; Zimmer 2000): Sacculina, a parasitic barnacle, infests crabs. It prevents the crab from molting and reproducing and induces the crab to care for the parasite's brood as if it were the crab's. Even male crabs are feminized to groom as if they had a female's brood pouch (Zimmer 2000, 79-82). The larva of the Hymenoepimecis wasp parasitizes an orb-weaving spider. When the larva is ready to pupate, it modifies the spider's behavior to make it spin a cocoon for the wasp (Eberhard 2000). The fungus Entomophthora muscae infects and kills house flies, but before it kills them, it manipulates the fly's behavior to make it crawl to a high place and adopt a sexually receptive pose, behaviors that increase the likelihood of the fungus spreading to other flies (Moller 1993). Evolution often goes the other way; parasites that initially are very harmful become more benign to their host over time. The virulence of a pathogen is generally predictable on the basis of evolutionary principles. For example, parasites are less virulent at low host population densities where the parasites risk destroying available hosts and themselves with them (Nesse and Williams 1994, 57-61; Zimmer 2000, 151-155). Why do organisms have defenses against pathogens in the first place? They would not have been needed in a pre-Fall world without pathogens, and their complexity and effectiveness show that features such as immune systems are not degenerate forms themselves.

Creationists don't claim that parasites are simple creatures, only that they have lost some information that they needed to live independently. There is evidence for this when you look at the bacterial genomes.
I find it a bit confusing to talk about fast-evolving viruses. It give the impression that viruses are evolving in the sense that one day, if they keep evolving, they might eventually become humans. There is no evidence for that. Perhaps what they mean is that viruses are capable of a complicated process of quickly changing their genes that code for the protein cell walls. This is a mechanism whereby they escape detection by the immune system. This is not evolution, but an inbuilt mechanism already present. They call it evolution. It is a type of adaptation, but certainly not part of the slime to man evolution.

Circumventing the immune system is a clever thing to do. Creationists, to my knowledge, don't deny this. They are not saying that parasites are simple, only that the direction of genetic drift is one towards less complexity.

The one good point they use is that why do e.g. humans have an immune system if there were no parasites at creation. Firstly, the immune system doesn't only exist for parasites. If you have ever had a splinter of e.g. wood in your finger, you would have witnessed an immune response (had you given it a few days). Secondly, there may well have been parasites at creation, but with the role of enhancing the health of the body, even by invoking an immune response. There would have been no parasites that resulted in the death of humans and animals until after the schism.

That's a lie.
Gen 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Gen 8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

Seriously.

I mean, just how far can the poor bird fly?


Enough to cover Mount Everest by 22 and a half feet? You want me to believe that the waters in the oceans of the world are enough to create a tidal wave that would still be almost four miles high when it hit the Himalayas?

That is not impossible, depending on just how much water was there. I would say it is definitely possible. Would require some terrifying power perhaps. But since you are an evolutionist, you should be familiar with believing in the possibility of the unlikely anyway. So what's the problem?

There is absolutely no way anything but an insignicant amount of water can be contained beneath the Earth's crust, certainly not enough to raise global sea levels by 29,057.5 feet.

And I have already disagreed with you that the Bible says that the whole earth was covered by such a depth at one point in time. Consider that it was written from a humans point of view. How is any human going to know how deep the water was all over the earth at one point in time? More likely he was referring to the highest point (or points) that he was aware of. At any rate, you cannot base any strong argument on such a delicate point.

Chaos Experiment

Read this topic, it's quite good: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425641

I had a browse. Sounds like the biology texts books that I read once as part of my undergraduate course. Obviously written by the evolutionists. But I have already considered these explanations presented here, thus, for me, they are far from convincing. They leave me feeling a sort of appreciation for the ability of humans to cling to a hope of a possibility existing in the apparent impossibility.

This entire speil means absolutely nothing as shrinking genomes IS NOT A PREDICTION OF CREATIONISM. Predicitons are made based upon the core mechanism of a hypothesis or theory. Creationism does not have a core mechanism capable of making useful predictions. You're just taking data and saying it's proof of creationism without ever saying why. By the way, I'd still like to see some cobberation of these claims. I still want to see your credentials.

I don't know where you get your data from, but from what I have read, shrinking genomes is a prediction of creationism. It's also what we observe.

By the way, perhaps you would consider posting what you believe to be the core mechanism of evolutionary theory, and then show me how creationism can not possibly also have a core mechanism.

Making a hypothesis is not only something that only a person with an evolutionary slant can do. Any intelligent person can do it. Perhaps your problem is that you have assumed all creationists to be unintelligent. That simply tells me that you are incredibly biased. If you are so intelligent, how about having a look at the other side of the argument?

I never said shrinking genomes is proof of creationism. It can be used as evidence for it. But since the evolutionists already have their explanations in place, it cannot be used as proof.

I don't see the point to presenting my credentials. This debate does not depend on them. I don't see why you just cant take me at my word. Being a poster who prefers creationism doesn't mean that I am dishonest or trying to pull the wool over your eyes for a laugh.

Even if I was just a high school student, if I presented some information and arguments that you have trouble replying to in an intelligent sort of way, then you would have to admit that you have a problem.

Oy vey, destroy your credibility more why don't you? Do you know anything, anything about population genetics? Population biology in general? Honestly, this whole thing has devolved into the standard EvC argument where the creationist either doesn't know what he's talking about or he purposely misrepresents theories and data so he can attack his strawman at will.

Perhaps you would like to present your side of the argument as to why I am so wrong? What is wrong with your debating skills? Must you resort to mockery? I thought we are debating here, because we enjoy it. If you must use mockery, at least you could combine it with some sensible arguments.

The Chinese failed.....and you say that makes it impossible. But you don't know much of the quality of the wood back then, or of the material they had access to. Do we know if they had iron or some sort of metal back then? Impossible! I think you are impossibly quick to claim impossibility.

Argument from ignorance. Are you claiming that there were species of tree Noah didn't take on the ark? If not, what are you claiming, and where is your proof?

And for the love of God, try reading Genesis sometime.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.

Did you see any reference to metal in that list, dictated by God Himself? Are you claiming you know how to build a ship better than God does?

The Biblical account does not include all the details (that would make the Bible far too big). There are examples of details left out of the Bible all the way through the literature. And you are saying that God did not help Noah simply because it failed to specify how He helped him.

No, I am implying it because it explicitly states God did not help him, and states exactly what God's help amounted to. What you are doing is trying to rewrite the Bible with 20% more miracles because you can see the story here is flawed but are deliberately avoiding the obvious conclusion that this means it was never intended to be taken literally.

Actually, I don't know how Noah could have done it. Even with God's help it seems like a miracle. What would you say is the probability of Noah pulling it off? Pretty low? But still not as much of a miracle as some of the explanations that the evolutionists come up with.

Tu quoque fallacy, your opponent's behaviour cannot exhonourate your own. Bombing Dresden did not magically become right because Hitler had bombed London.

And seriously, you don't know anything about how it can be done, you have zero predictive power [predictive is not the same as inclusive power, which creationism and the prophesies of Nostradamas have] and whenever you are challenged you must simply say that God must've known what he was doing. Who's theory is ad hoc here?

I mean, just how far can the poor bird fly?

That's hardly a rebuttal. The mountains were covered. The whole earth. This is something you claim to be divinely inspired and superoir to science, but now you want to take back the words you don't like? Why not just write your own Bible and get things right, then?

That is not impossible, depending on just how much water was there. I would say it is definitely possible. Would require some terrifying power perhaps. But since you are an evolutionist, you should be familiar with believing in the possibility of the unlikely anyway. So what's the problem?

That you're offering no proof other than tu quoque fallacies based on words that don't appear anywhere and an interpretation that directly contradicts Genesis and makes no fucking sense?

And I have already disagreed with you that the Bible says that the whole earth was covered by such a depth at one point in time. Consider that it was written from a humans point of view. How is any human going to know how deep the water was all over the earth at one point in time? More likely he was referring to the highest point (or points) that he was aware of. At any rate, you cannot base any strong argument on such a delicate point.

Ah, so you want me to believe that the seven-day creation account, witnessed by nobody, was exactly so, but when we talk about inconveniant parts of the scripture you're allowed a get-out-of-jail-free card? The Bible explicitly states that the mountains were covered, and even says by how much. It says they were covered by rains and the waters of the earth, not by waves. It says that the waters covered the whole earth, not just the areas a bird could reach.

If you're going to rewrite that because it's inconvenient, what possible validity can we give the creation account?

GMC Military Arms

Argument from ignorance. Are you claiming that there were species of tree Noah didn't take on the ark? If not, what are you claiming, and where is your proof? And for the love of God, try reading Genesis sometime

Thankyou for providing the scripture. I wasn't aware of Noah taking any species of tree with him on the ark. He may have (perhaps for food at least), but it doesn't say that he did.
We are not talking about proof here, just discussing what we find likely and unlikely or even impossible.
I do read Genesis. Usually once through every year. However, I differ from you in that I don't think a detail left out of the account equals proof that it never happened.

Did you see any reference to metal in that list, dictated by God Himself? Are you claiming you know how to build a ship better than God does?

No, not little me. Neither do I see anything in my posts that suggest I know better than God. You, however, do seem to be saying that you know better.

No, I am implying it because it explicitly states God did not help him, and states exactly what God's help amounted to. What you are doing is trying to rewrite the Bible with 20% more miracles because you can see the story here is flawed but are deliberately avoiding the obvious conclusion that this means it was never intended to be taken literally.

Nowhere does it say that God did not help Noah. I have never read that. You are reading that into the account. Perhaps you need to have another read. You are assuming that the only help Noah got from God was the points where it is written in the Bible. From the Mosaic (and Christian) viewpoint, very little is accomplished without God's help, either when it is recognised or when it isn't. Thus when the account was written, the author would have been horrified at your conclusion.

Tu quoque fallacy, your opponent's behaviour cannot exhonourate your own. Bombing Dresden did not magically become right because Hitler had bombed London.

I agree. I acknowledge that the information that I currently possess does not adequately explain how the account of the Bible could have happened. But, after all, what do you expect me to know? Did you want me to introduce you to Noah? We are discussing possibilities here, not proof. You are claiming an impossibility, with basically the same sort of information that I have. It is much harder to prove impossibility than possibility. I was referring you to the situation with e.g. life from non-life, to show this point. I'm not sure you understood it.

And seriously, you don't know anything about how it can be done, you have zero predictive power [predictive is not the same as inclusive power, which creationism and the prophesies of Nostradamas have] and whenever you are challenged you must simply say that God must've known what he was doing. Who's theory is ad hoc here?

And when your theory is challenged, you say that one chance in a million is still a chance, and therefore it must have happened. I don't see your position as being superior at all.

That's hardly a rebuttal. The mountains were covered. The whole earth. This is something you claim to be divinely inspired and superoir to science, but now you want to take back the words you don't like? Why not just write your own Bible and get things right, then?

I meant that it does make sense unless you try to take things out of context. If you claim that having no place for a bird to land equals water covering every point of the globe all at once, I suggest you are trying to make the writer say what he never meant to say. He meant that the land was covered, therefore the bird could not find a place to land. You are trying to stretch the context a bit too far.

That you're offering no proof other than tu quoque fallacies based on words that don't appear anywhere and an interpretation that directly contradicts Genesis and makes no fucking sense?

I've been trying to make sense to you. If I have failed, then perhaps my communication skills are inadequate. I have been saying all along that I am not offering proof to you. I cannot. We are only discussing what we find likely and unlikely. My understanding may appear to contradict Genesis, but that is possibly due to your interpretation, no doubt biased by your firm believe in evolution.

Ah, so you want me to believe that the seven-day creation account, witnessed by nobody, was exactly so, but when we talk about inconveniant parts of the scripture you're allowed a get-out-of-jail-free card? The Bible explicitly states that the mountains were covered, and even says by how much. It says they were covered by rains and the waters of the earth, not by waves. It says that the waters covered the whole earth, not just the areas a bird could reach. If you're going to rewrite that because it's inconvenient, what possible validity can we give the creation account?

All of the Bible was written from a human's point of view, in the sense that what was written had to be understood by a human before it could be written down. (Not completely understood, but at least at the basic level, e.g. the love of God will never really be understood completely.) The Bible also leaves out many details. It's hardly likely that such a great flood would have no great waves. It does say that the foundations of the great deep broke open and released their waters. That would perhaps create some massive waves that make the recent Indonesian one look tiny. Being a creationist does not mean rewriting the Bible, but having enough imagination to try an picture what the writer had in mind. Of course, if you are looking for ways to make it look stupid, that isn't hard to do, for the writer was not in a position to defend himself against your criticisms.

Thankyou for providing the scripture. I wasn't aware of Noah taking any species of tree with him on the ark. He may have (perhaps for food at least), but it doesn't say that he did.

Try using basic logic...

Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground

So Noah must have taken plants on board the Ark, because all life not on the Ark was destroyed by the flood.

No, not little me. Neither do I see anything in my posts that suggest I know better than God. You, however, do seem to be saying that you know better.

I was thinking of preempting that horribly obvious flourish. I'm not pretending I know better than God, because I say God didn't write the Bible and God didn't dictate the dimensions and building materials of the Ark. Since you believe He did, however, you are.

Nowhere does it say that God did not help Noah. I have never read that. You are reading that into the account. Perhaps you need to have another read. You are assuming that the only help Noah got from God was the points where it is written in the Bible.

Argument from ignorance. The Bible is very big on praise and hallelujah whenever God performs anything miraculous, but there's nothing in the Ark account of that nature, and it's quite clear that Noah was left to his own devices; God didn't even bother to tell Noah when the flood waters had dried up. That means no miracles in the Ark story, no matter how much you personally think it requires them.

I agree. I acknowledge that the information that I currently possess does not adequately explain how the account of the Bible could have happened. But, after all, what do you expect me to know?

Apparently you know enough to determine that an account you cannot adequately explain is superior to all of science.

And when your theory is challenged, you say that one chance in a million is still a chance, and therefore it must have happened. I don't see your position as being superior at all.

Cite exactly where I said that, please, or stop making up my arguments for me.

I meant that it does make sense unless you try to take things out of context. If you claim that having no place for a bird to land equals water covering every point of the globe all at once, I suggest you are trying to make the writer say what he never meant to say. He meant that the land was covered, therefore the bird could not find a place to land. You are trying to stretch the context a bit too far.

Bullshit. You want seven days to mean seven days but the whole earth was covered and the mountains exceeded by fifteen cubits to mean 'a bunch of waves ruined stuff because that's fractionally less ludicrous?'

My understanding may appear to contradict Genesis, but that is possibly due to your interpretation, no doubt biased by your firm believe in evolution.

Appeal to motive fallacy. Obviously when you can't attack the argument, attack the arguer's motives for presenting it instead.

All of the Bible was written from a human's point of view, in the sense that what was written had to be understood by a human before it could be written down. (Not completely understood, but at least at the basic level, e.g. the love of God will never really be understood completely.)

So who wrote the first parts of Genesis, when there were no humans? How did Moses write a book that he died at the end of?

The Bible also leaves out many details. It's hardly likely that such a great flood would have no great waves. It does say that the foundations of the great deep broke open and released their waters. That would perhaps create some massive waves that make the recent Indonesian one look tiny.

And would reach the Himalayas four miles high? Please.

Being a creationist does not mean rewriting the Bible, but having enough imagination to try an picture what the writer had in mind.

Yes, and 'cover the mountains by fifteen cubits' in a section that talks about the Ark being on the surface of the waters is obviously talking about huge ridiculous waves that would smash the Ark apart on the nearest mountain range within minutes, rather than talking about the sea becoming impossibly deep. Never mind that the language of the entire passage is in no way consistant with large waves, and mostly emphasies rain.

Look again. Firstly, God names only rain as the cause of the destruction.

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

11 and 12 talk about flooding. Again, emphasis is on a huge additional volume of water, not water moving around.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Gen 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Your reading is totally inconsistant with the language and focus of the verses in question. How could all the high hills and the mountains be covered by waves? How could waves 'bear up the Ark' without smashing it apart as they broke?

<snip>
Argument from ignorance. The Bible is very big on praise and hallelujah whenever God performs anything miraculous, but there's nothing in the Ark account of that nature, and it's quite clear that Noah was left to his own devices; God didn't even bother to tell Noah when the flood waters had dried up. That means no miracles in the Ark story, no matter how much you personally think it requires them.
Wrong.
The bible is very sparing on any kind of detail until Abram.
However, Genesis 7:16
" The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in."
(Bold added by me)

<snip>

Appeal to motive fallacy. Obviously when you can't attack the argument, attack the arguer's motives for presenting it instead.
Wrong.
Your perception of biblical passages is entirely relevant. If he does not interpret a passage in the same manner that you do your argument will have no meaning.
(Like when Creationists ask why there are still apes, evolutionists say they have misinterpreted it)



So who wrote the first parts of Genesis, when there were no humans? How did Moses write a book that he died at the end of?

Abraham wrote them as was dictated to him by God.

<snip>
Your reading is totally inconsistant with the language and focus of the verses in question. How could all the high hills and the mountains be covered by waves? How could waves 'bear up the Ark' without smashing it apart as they broke?
Because the landscape of the planet was different at the time. No huge Himalayas to cover.
If the landmass was generally flatter it would take less effort to flood it.

Like when Creationists ask why there are still apes, evolutionists say they have misinterpreted it


Excuse me for asking, but why shouldn't there be apes according to the evolution theory???

Excuse me for asking, but why shouldn't there be apes according to the evolution theory???
Many Creationists ask "If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" It was done a few posts up.
Evolutionists say we evolved from a common ancestor and that is why both are still around.
So if you are arguing with Evolution you must match your arguments to the evolutionist's interpretation. You cannot* just make up your own interpretation and argue with that.

*Well you can, but you shouldn't.

Many Creationists ask "If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" It was done a few posts up.
Evolutionists say we evolved from a common ancestor and that is why both are still around.
So if you are arguing with Evolution you must match your arguments to the evolutionist's interpretation. You cannot* just make up your own interpretation and argue with that.

*Well you can, but you shouldn't.

But evolution states that
1) Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor (as did all life on earth)
2) The fittest will survive, and apes are more than fit for their environments, fitter than humans would be

I fail to see the contradiction, but I have a feeling I shouldn't get involved in this thread again....

But evolution states that
1) Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor (as did all life on earth)
2) The fittest will survive, and apes are more than fit for their environments, fitter than humans would be

I fail to see the contradiction, but I have a feeling I shouldn't get involved in this thread again....
I'm fairly sure most of us shouldn't be involved, but I digress.
The Creationist question assumes that apes are the progenitors of humans. That is that apes turned into humans, so why are there still apes? Why didn't all apes change?
This is not a legitimate arguement because (as I said above) you are not arguing with the other person's beliefs, you are arguing with what you think they believe. It's basically a strawman.

I'm fairly sure most of us shouldn't be involved, but I digress.
The Creationist question assumes that apes are the progenitors of humans. That is that apes turned into humans, so why are there still apes? Why didn't all apes change?
This is not a legitimate arguement because (as I said above) you are not arguing with the other person's beliefs, you are arguing with what you think they believe. It's basically a strawman.

Because apes didn't "turn into humans", just humans developed out of some apes?
But I think I begin to see your point... you are saying that creationists misunderstood evolution and are basing this argument on that misunderstanding?

Because apes didn't "turn into humans", just humans developed out of some apes?
But I think I begin to see your point... you are saying that creationists misunderstood evolution and are basing this argument on that misunderstanding?
Short version: Yes.

Long version: You know that series of pictures that show various different forms of pre-humans? (Something like this (http://www.avalon.net/~kponto/ponto/evolution.jpg).) Some Creationists put apes at the front of that, then they say if all the other forms in that sequence are extinct why aren't the apes?

Short version: Yes.

Long version: You know that series of pictures that show various different forms of pre-humans? (Something like this (http://www.avalon.net/~kponto/ponto/evolution.jpg).) Some Creationists put apes at the front of that, then they say if all the other forms in that sequence are extinct why aren't the apes?

Which... kind of makes them look rather uniformed. :rolleyes:

I think I got the point, though. It's just that I had never heard that argument before and couldn't see where it came from.

Short version: Yes.

Long version: You know that series of pictures that show various different forms of pre-humans? (Something like this (http://www.avalon.net/~kponto/ponto/evolution.jpg).) Some Creationists put apes at the front of that, then they say if all the other forms in that sequence are extinct why aren't the apes?

It's true that using the explanation of apes and humans having the same anscestor, rather than humans evolving from apes, solves the problem that the creationists were trying to create. Creationists should not use this argument anymore, since it has been explained.

It's true that using the explanation of apes and humans having the same anscestor, rather than humans evolving from apes, solves the problem that the creationists were trying to create. Creationists should not use this argument anymore, since it has been explained.
Of course, to the best of my knowledge such an ancestor has not been found, making such a belief an article of faith. But then there is no faith in Evolution, so the common ancestor is fact because humans are related to apes but apes are still around, therefore we descended from a common ancestor.

GMC Military Arms


Try using basic logic... So Noah must have taken plants on board the Ark, because all life not on the Ark was destroyed by the flood.

Well obviously the writer wasn't referring to bacteria and fungi, which are still living forms. He has something in mind when he wrote those words, and I was trying to picture what it was.

I was thinking of preempting that horribly obvious flourish. I'm not pretending I know better than God, because I say God didn't write the Bible and God didn't dictate the dimensions and building materials of the Ark. Since you believe He did, however, you are.

Sorry, you lost me with your 'logic' there. I keep saying that I don't think I know better than God. I keep suggesting that the Bible perhaps does not include all of the details. And you interpret that to mean that I think I know better than God.

Argument from ignorance. The Bible is very big on praise and hallelujah whenever God performs anything miraculous, but there's nothing in the Ark account of that nature, and it's quite clear that Noah was left to his own devices; God didn't even bother to tell Noah when the flood waters had dried up. That means no miracles in the Ark story, no matter how much you personally think it requires them.

As MM said, your are quite wrong at this point. Noah simply wasn't left to his own devices. God shut the door. God remembered the boat and the people and the animals during the wrath of the flood (that means he took care of them in the big waves). And even a child can see that most of the details were left out, so why should not God have helped Noah with the details? The whole episode has a strong theme about the intervention of God, for man left to his own devices was rapidly turning to chaos. As for the news about the flood waters drying up, God obviously used the dove as a messenger. Why use a miracle when an ordinary bird will do? Noah would have been delighted that one of his beloved animals had finally found a home for itself. I could hardly think of a more special way that God could have indicated the end of the judgement.

Apparently you know enough to determine that an account you cannot adequately explain is superior to all of science.

Now that really makes you sound biased.

And when your theory is challenged, you say that one chance in a million is still a chance, and therefore it must have happened. I don't see your position as being superior at all
Cite exactly where I said that, please, or stop making up my arguments for me.

I admit that you didn't cite this on your recent post. But I thought you were an evolutionist. Are you suggesting that you accept evolutionism but not the part where it says that the possibility that gene mutations and natural selection accounting for the incredible climb from slime to man can not be proven wrong, and thus must have happened?

Bullshit. You want seven days to mean seven days but the whole earth was covered and the mountains exceeded by fifteen cubits to mean 'a bunch of waves ruined stuff because that's fractionally less ludicrous?'

Perhaps you could imagine waves like those that Hollywood depicted converging on New York. I don't really see why you think it ludicrous, except that your posts are consistently painting you as rather biased.

Appeal to motive fallacy. Obviously when you can't attack the argument, attack the arguer's motives for presenting it instead.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to have a sensible and civilised debate with someone who refuses to have a look at the other side of the argument. The biggest problem here is not our arguments, but the bias on which the arguments are based. Therefore, I can barely see a point to continuing the discussion unless you can resist your bias for your own point of view.

So who wrote the first parts of Genesis, when there were no humans? How did Moses write a book that he died at the end of?

This has all been explained. It was apparently Moses who did the writing. Since he was supposed to have close contact with God on a mountain, it is likely that he learned it from God, although there is a possibility also that it was passed down by oral tradition. (I.e God walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the garden, thus Adam and Eve would have learned the creation story and passed it on to their children.) Thus Moses could have written a fairly accurate account, based on these two sources. As for Moses writing about his own death, that is a strawman if I ever saw one. Most christians would accept that Moses played a large part in writing the first five books of the Bible, but also accept that others contributed. There was, for example, Moses' apprentice, Joshua. He could have easily have written about Moses departure. Futhermore, it is likely that the Jewish scribes living much later finally compliled the books as we have them today. I see no problem with these people updating some things like names of places and rivers, etc., without changing the story.

And would reach the Himalayas four miles high? Please.

I see no point in using incredulility here, since it is based on your unwillingness to allow your mind to imagine, and not on that attitidue that since you don't know any more than me about such times you shouldn't rule something out based on your lack of knowledge.

yes, and 'cover the mountains by fifteen cubits' in a section that talks about the Ark being on the surface of the waters is obviously talking about huge ridiculous waves that would smash the Ark apart on the nearest mountain range within minutes, rather than talking about the sea becoming impossibly deep. Never mind that the language of the entire passage is in no way consistant with large waves, and mostly emphasies rain. Look again. Firstly, God names only rain as the cause of the destruction. 11 and 12 talk about flooding. Again, emphasis is on a huge additional volume of water, not water moving around.

It does say that God remembered the boat and the people and the animals. I suppose that means he took care of them.

As for rain being the only source of water, you yourself posted a reference from the Bible that talks about water coming out of the great deep in addition to that from the windows of heaven (Gen 7:11).

Your reading is totally inconsistant with the language and focus of the verses in question. How could all the high hills and the mountains be covered by waves? How could waves 'bear up the Ark' without smashing it apart as they broke?

It so happens that there are people who are alive today and have no doubt that they are only alive because God took care of them. I suggest that he took good care of the boat. Why doesn't he do the same for everyone today? I suggest that since God is very fair, the answer to that must be a little more complicated than we can appreciate right now. However, the Bible says that he has promised that one day we shall 'see clearly'.

Of course, to the best of my knowledge such an ancestor has not been found, making such a belief an article of faith. But then there is no faith in Evolution, so the common ancestor is fact because humans are related to apes but apes are still around, therefore we descended from a common ancestor.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by faith. Compared to the christian faith, the 'faith' than an evolutionist has can hardly be called faith. More like belief (although I'll admit that it can be hard to distinguish between them). However, this belief is, for many people, strong enough for them to rule out the possibility that God exists. When it gets to that point, I see many similarities between that belief and the belief one exercises in any religion.

A lack of evidence for the human/ape ancestor requires a belief that it is there somewhere, or at least that if the evidence is no longer available, that the event really did happen.

Out of interest, what would you say is the difference between belief and faith?

Out of interest, what would you say is the difference between belief and faith?
Degree. A belief can be reversed, but if one has faith, that is unshakable. One can only lose it in its entirety, but not reverse it.

Degree. A belief can be reversed, but if one has faith, that is unshakable. One can only lose it in its entirety, but not reverse it.

Sounds good to me. Mind you, I had to read it several times first.
One thing I don't get is the difference between reversing a faith and losing it entirely. what did you mean by that?

I have not lost my faith (yet anyway) although I have lost several beliefs along the way. I'm not sure where 'reversing a faith' fits in.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by faith. Compared to the christian faith, the 'faith' than an evolutionist has can hardly be called faith. More like belief (although I'll admit that it can be hard to distinguish between them). However, this belief is, for many people, strong enough for them to rule out the possibility that God exists. When it gets to that point, I see many similarities between that belief and the belief one exercises in any religion.

A lack of evidence for the human/ape ancestor requires a belief that it is there somewhere, or at least that if the evidence is no longer available, that the event really did happen.

Out of interest, what would you say is the difference between belief and faith?
I use faith as an expression of religious belief, while 'belief' can be more generic ("I believe he is telling the truth," sort of thing)

personally i think most religions are just founded off of supperstition and it is basically used to comfort people. That's probably why most people don't accept evolution. It's cold hard logic and not comfortable to them

personally i think most religions are just founded off of supperstition and it is basically used to comfort people. That's probably why most people don't accept evolution. It's cold hard logic and not comfortable to them


They were having a nice debate here over origins and you come in and say this? How rude!

Chaos Experiment
I had a browse. Sounds like the biology texts books that I read once as part of my undergraduate course. Obviously written by the evolutionists. But I have already considered these explanations presented here, thus, for me, they are far from convincing. They leave me feeling a sort of appreciation for the ability of humans to cling to a hope of a possibility existing in the apparent impossibility.

So, we show you the entire process is possible (as we have demonstrated in labs around the world) and you still call it impossible?

I don't know where you get your data from, but from what I have read, shrinking genomes is a prediction of creationism. It's also what we observe.

By the way, perhaps you would consider posting what you believe to be the core mechanism of evolutionary theory, and then show me how creationism can not possibly also have a core mechanism.

The core mechanism of evolution is natural selection which acts upon genetic variance within a population. From this you can derive any number of predictions.

Creationism, by its very definition, cannot have a natural mechanism, limited by natural law and the laws of logic, so it cannot make any kind of predictions.

Making a hypothesis is not only something that only a person with an evolutionary slant can do. Any intelligent person can do it. Perhaps your problem is that you have assumed all creationists to be unintelligent. That simply tells me that you are incredibly biased. If you are so intelligent, how about having a look at the other side of the argument?

Oh, I have. I spent a great deal of my childhood reading the Bible. I do not think I ever really believed it, but most certainly not because of any choice of my own (I knew nothing different, I was only first exposed to evolutionary theory at the age of 14, and my entire family up to that point were all creationist catholics for much the same reason).

I have also read innumerable creationist websites that all repeat the same, tired arguments that scientists have been refuting for years.

I never said shrinking genomes is proof of creationism. It can be used as evidence for it. But since the evolutionists already have their explanations in place, it cannot be used as proof.

You see, it cannot be used as proof as there is nothing connecting the two. Genesis never mentions genomes getting smaller and smaller, Eve never turns to Adam and says "Well shit, this monkey's DNA sequences are getting shorter".

I don't see the point to presenting my credentials. This debate does not depend on them. I don't see why you just cant take me at my word. Being a poster who prefers creationism doesn't mean that I am dishonest or trying to pull the wool over your eyes for a laugh.

You see to think we should take your word on experiments and observations as fact because you have been the one doing the experimenting and observing for many years. I find this hard to believe until you present some kind of proof, or at least a cobberation for your story of shrinking genomes being the only observation you've made.

Even if I was just a high school student, if I presented some information and arguments that you have trouble replying to in an intelligent sort of way, then you would have to admit that you have a problem.

And all your information seems to come from personal experience, something you wouldn't have if you were just a high school student.

Perhaps you would like to present your side of the argument as to why I am so wrong? What is wrong with your debating skills? Must you resort to mockery? I thought we are debating here, because we enjoy it. If you must use mockery, at least you could combine it with some sensible arguments.

Ok, I guess it looks like I'm going to have to explain some of the basic fundementals of evolution to you.

Ok, do you want to know why big cats such as lions and tigers can, at times, be more able to survive and produce viable offspring within their environment yet both groups continue to exist? Because evolution only works on a niche level. Niches are individual roles within a specific environment; things like, simplifed, a predator and its prey would be two niches.

Lions and tigers always live within different environments but they both occupy basically the same niche. Introduce them into an environment together, and one or the other will eventually die.

However, take humans and gorillas. They often occupy the same environment, but gorillas will only die when humans move in on their niche or destroy that niche. For now, and especially during man's early evolution on the African plains, they occupied different niches. They never came into direct competition, therefore neither went extinct.

This is fundemental to evolution because every environmental pressure is taken into account by natural selection, including competing species. A the species that is better able to produce more viable offspring within the niche will previal while the other is forced to either evolve, move out of the niche, or go extinct.

Also take note that I'm talking in terms of populations. This is important because evolution is seperated at this point. You have non-speciation changes, which is just the changes in the prevalence of a certain trait within a population. Then you have speciation changes, which is the creation of a new breeding population.

There, simple, now do you understand why apes surviving has no bearing on the existance of humans? We never came into direct competition until recently, and look what's happening to the apes.

Wrong.
The bible is very sparing on any kind of detail until Abram.
However, Genesis 7:16
" The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in."
(Bold added by me)

Wow, God closed a door. The fact that the Ark story explicitly lists everything God did and credits Noah with everything else isn't exactly harmed by that. If you want to say the Bible is incomplete, how do we get the rest of the data? Continued research and refinement, empirical studies?

Or just make stuff up to fill in the holes and hope nobody notices that's exactly what creationists accuse scientists of doing, and exactly what scientists don't do?

Wrong.
Your perception of biblical passages is entirely relevant. If he does not interpret a passage in the same manner that you do your argument will have no meaning.

Wrong, the arguer's motive for presenting evidence is never relevant, only their interpreted evidence itself. He cannot claim my interpretation of the scripture is invalid, nor that it fits the text less adequately , so must instead resort to claiming I'm only saying it because I'm an evolutionist as if that suddenly makes it incorrect.

Because the landscape of the planet was different at the time. No huge Himalayas to cover.
If the landmass was generally flatter it would take less effort to flood it.

You're asking for the Himalayas to have risen within five thousand years, at a rate so fast we should be able to see them changing size by dozens of feet a year? [i]Do we see the Himalayas changing size by dozens of feet a year?

Well obviously the writer wasn't referring to bacteria and fungi, which are still living forms. He has something in mind when he wrote those words, and I was trying to picture what it was.

That's strange, I don't see why that's 'obvious' at all. They're still living things.

Sorry, you lost me with your 'logic' there. I keep saying that I don't think I know better than God. I keep suggesting that the Bible perhaps does not include all of the details. And you interpret that to mean that I think I know better than God.

Ah, so you want the Bible to omit the details that allow it to make any kind of sense? I say again, why should we believe the creation account to be accurate down to the use of the word 'day' if you want the Ark myth to be inaccurate and incomplete?

As MM said, your are quite wrong at this point. Noah simply wasn't left to his own devices. God shut the door. God remembered the boat and the people and the animals during the wrath of the flood (that means he took care of them in the big waves).

No, it means he remembered them. Read the passage.

Gen 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that [was] with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged

The most reasonable reading is that God remembered them and ended the flood, since he made the wind immediately after 'remembering.' This does bring up the rather strange issue that God apparently forgot them during the flood, which is again consistant with my reading and not with yours.

And even a child can see that most of the details were left out, so why should not God have helped Noah with the details? The whole episode has a strong theme about the intervention of God, for man left to his own devices was rapidly turning to chaos.

And so God murdered everyone, in the most bizarre, inefficient and dangerous manner he could think of. Charming.

And thank you for saying my intellect is less than a child's, I really enjoy these cute lil' digs.

As for the news about the flood waters drying up, God obviously used the dove as a messenger.

Which makes sense until you get to 8:15 where God finally bothers to talk to Noah again. If the Dove was a messenger from God, why did God come along afterwards and give Noah another message?

Now that really makes you sound biased.

Biased in favour of the right answer? Yeah, sure.

I admit that you didn't cite this on your recent post. But I thought you were an evolutionist. Are you suggesting that you accept evolutionism but not the part where it says that the possibility that gene mutations and natural selection accounting for the incredible climb from slime to man can not be proven wrong, and thus must have happened?

Except that's not the reason that's generally given. The evidence suggests that the process has occurred and parts of it can even be replicated in the lab. While our understanding of the process is imperfect, it is a thousand times better than creationism which relies on a being who can never be proven to exist. Your process requires miracles, events the chance of which occurring is zero without the intervention of an agency which can never be shown to exist.

Perhaps you could imagine waves like those that Hollywood depicted converging on New York. I don't really see why you think it ludicrous, except that your posts are consistently painting you as rather biased.

Did you see the movie 'Day After Tommorrow' and note that staggerly gigantic wave barely covered the 305ft Statue of Liberty? Can you imagine a wave ninety five times bigger that the one you saw in that film?

Only it wouldn't just be ninety five times bigger, because it would have to be that high when it hit the Himalayas to cover Everest. Can you imagine a wave two hundred and fifty or three hundred times that size? Again, there's no support in the passage for giant silly tidal waves, and silly tidal waves could not cover all the mountains by twenty two and a half feet.

Oh, and here's another line that doesn't agree with you.

Gen 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

How could waves decrease continually until the tops of the mountains were seen, implying they could not be seen at all before that? The tops of the mountains could be seen most of the time if there were only waves washing over them occasionally, no matter how ludicrously huge the waves were.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to have a sensible and civilised debate with someone who refuses to have a look at the other side of the argument. The biggest problem here is not our arguments, but the bias on which the arguments are based. Therefore, I can barely see a point to continuing the discussion unless you can resist your bias for your own point of view.

Ah, the ever popular 'if you stopped disagreeing you'd agree with me.' So you want me to what, shut the fuck up and listen to you, then nod my head? I have approached this subject with an open mind before, the problem is that in the cold light of logic you must either selectively mutilate the Bible by adding parts to it where you need them but regarding other parts as to-the-letter fact or make arguments that don't make the slightest bit of sense, and you still end up with a theory that explains nothing, goes against a huge amount of combined scientific data from almost every field of science, and requires I believe in a vicious God who'd rather destroy the entire world than try to help people.

As for rain being the only source of water, you yourself posted a reference from the Bible that talks about water coming out of the great deep in addition to that from the windows of heaven (Gen 7:11).

I then posted a link to evidence that there cannot be a significant volume of subterreanian water on Earth because it would have boiled away long before Noah's time even if the creationist account is absolutely true. The fountains of the deep [whatever they are] could not have contributed significantly.

It so happens that there are people who are alive today and have no doubt that they are only alive because God took care of them.

There are also people who are sure they are alive because of seatbelts. Maybe seatbelts protected Noah!

I suggest that he took good care of the boat. Why doesn't he do the same for everyone today? I suggest that since God is very fair, the answer to that must be a little more complicated than we can appreciate right now.

That's a very long way to say 'I cannot explain this problem with my theory.' All you can give is an empty promise that if we wait maybe God will appear and tell us.

Again, how is this the better theory when we cannot improve on the gaps in it unless God Himself appears to help us out?

Wow, God closed a door. The fact that the Ark story explicitly lists everything God did and credits Noah with everything else isn't exactly harmed by that. If you want to say the Bible is incomplete, how do we get the rest of the data? Continued research and refinement, empirical studies?
Does it say door? No.
You have read the ark story and think it is a complete listing of everything that occured? That is a fault in your reading, and is not my concern.


Or just make stuff up to fill in the holes and hope nobody notices that's exactly what creationists accuse scientists of doing, and exactly what scientists don't do?
Read my earlier post about common ancestors. We have no evidence for them yet they are accepted because Evolution does not work without them.
We have found no evidence for partially aquatic apes yet many accept it as conditional to evolution.


Wrong, the arguer's motive for presenting evidence is never relevant, only their interpreted evidence itself. He cannot claim my interpretation of the scripture is invalid, nor that it fits the text less adequately [in fact it fits the text better than his does], so must instead resort to claiming I'm only saying it because I'm an evolutionist as if that suddenly makes it incorrect.
I was trying to be polite, but that really doesn't work with you, does it?
I'll be blunt:
Making up your opponents argument and debating this is called a strawman (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). Claiming your opponent's argument is wrong because it negates your strawman is a logical fallacy.

This will be my last response to you. Your posts are emotional and uninformed and I will not be wasting any more of my time on them.
Have a nice day. :)

Chaos Experiment

So, we show you the entire process is possible (as we have demonstrated in labs around the world) and you still call it impossible

Actually, I was under the impression that the entire process in NOT demonstrable. I think we are up to something like a polymerisation of 200 amino acids, a lipid bubble that requires a lightening strike to reproduce, and rather basic RNA-like molecule that helps to form more RNA-like molecules. The problem with each of these examples is that the conditions required for success are not identical, and perhaps not even similar. But what we need for life to come from non-life is a single set of conditions that happens to suit all of the required processes. The more we learn about the right conditions required (e.g. hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor), the further away the likelyhood of this process being demonstrated.

Futhermore, any scienctist worth his salt would have to say that the most basic form of life that he could imagine is still infinitely more complex and precise than anything ever found in the best of stimulated conditions. Yep. Still safe to say that it seems impossible. Though I am open to the possibility of new discoveries altering my current opinion. You, however, cannot claim that the process is demonstrable.


The core mechanism of evolution is natural selection which acts upon genetic variance within a population. From this you can derive any number of predictions. Creationism, by its very definition, cannot have a natural mechanism, limited by natural law and the laws of logic, so it cannot make any kind of predictions.

Creationism recognises both natural selection and genetic variance. It's not written in the Bible, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we don't accept. Indeed, natural selection is perfectly compatible with the Bible, from what I see. They do use laws of logic. And they do make predictions. Sometimes the predictions differ, but not always (e.g. it's possible to have the same prediction based on completely different paths of logic). An example might be the high (genetic) homology between apes and humans. Creationists predict the similarity based on the functions of the genes. Evolutionists base it on the common ancestry. The result is the same. The high level of homology between some bacterial genes and some human genes means that at least for those genes, common ancestry does not explain the homology. Thus the creationist model wins (for me) at that particular point. (Though it has to be said that evolutionism doesn't rule out homology based on function, perhaps except when they try to discredit the predictions of the creationists.)


Oh, I have. I spent a great deal of my childhood reading the Bible. I do not think I ever really believed it, but most certainly not because of any choice of my own (I knew nothing different, I was only first exposed to evolutionary theory at the age of 14, and my entire family up to that point were all creationist catholics for much the same reason). I have also read innumerable creationist websites that all repeat the same, tired arguments that scientists have been refuting for years. I have also read innumerable creationist websites that all repeat the same, tired arguments that scientists have been refuting for years. You see, it cannot be used as proof as there is nothing connecting the two. Genesis never mentions genomes getting smaller and smaller, Eve never turns to Adam and says "Well shit, this monkey's DNA sequences are getting shorter".

If you never believed the Bible, then you were already bias against it, and therefore you cannot say that you gave it a fair chance. Rather, your current acceptance of evolutionism points to your initial bias.
Remember, the Bible is not a science text book. Most christians are not scientists, and therefor are not creation scientists. If you come to the Bible with your evolutionary bias, of course you are not going to be impressed. You have to come to it with an open mind, and perhaps ask the question 'is it true, and are miracles possible?'. Creation theory is based on the Bible, but consists of far more modern theories and logic. It's this that you have to match against evolution theory.
That is why you will never find the creationist prediction of shrinking bacterial genomes in the Bible. It is simply a prediction based on the Bible. The evidence for it is modern studies that investigate genomes, not in the pages of Genesis.

You see to think we should take your word on experiments and observations as fact because you have been the one doing the experimenting and observing for many years. I find this hard to believe until you present some kind of proof, or at least a cobberation for your story of shrinking genomes being the only observation you've made. And all your information seems to come from personal experience, something you wouldn't have if you were just a high school student.

The very least you can think of me is honest. You may think me mislead, (I suspect that you are mislead) but that doesn't offend me (neither should it offend you). If, however, you call me a liar to my face, you are not encouraging an intelligent and polite debate.
If I was particularly good at lying, (and a high school student) I would not hesitate to post something like a scientists credentials on here. Currently, I percieve that even were I to post something, you could still accuse me of lying. The only way to prove it would be if you came and visited me in my lab. (Perhaps then we could have a chat over a nice hot cup of tea--not in the lab of course, for that is verboten.)
As for the shrinking genomes, I have posted a link to this before. (Henrissat, B., Deleury, E. and Coutinho, P.M.: Glycogen metabolism loss: a common marker of parasitic behaviour in bacteria? Trends in Genetics 18 (2002) 437-440.) It's not like I'm making things like that up. Lots of my information does come to me from personal experience. If I was lying, however, an intelligent person would know the right questions to ask in order to see this. If I was telling the truth, then it would be far more authentic of me to use observations that I have personally made, rather than just take stuff from the internet (as I realize a lot of people seem to do).
If you want to satisfy yourself that I am not lying, then go ahead, ask me some questions that will tell you whether I am lying or not.

Ok, I guess it looks like I'm going to have to explain some of the basic fundementals of evolution to you. Ok, do you want to know why big cats such as lions and tigers can, at times, be more able to survive and produce viable offspring within their environment yet both groups continue to exist? Because evolution only works on a niche level. Niches are individual roles within a specific environment; things like, simplifed, a predator and its prey would be two niches. Lions and tigers always live within different environments but they both occupy basically the same niche. Introduce them into an environment together, and one or the other will eventually die. However, take humans and gorillas. They often occupy the same environment, but gorillas will only die when humans move in on their niche or destroy that niche. For now, and especially during man's early evolution on the African plains, they occupied different niches. They never came into direct competition, therefore neither went extinct. This is fundemental to evolution because every environmental pressure is taken into account by natural selection, including competing species. A the species that is better able to produce more viable offspring within the niche will previal while the other is forced to either evolve, move out of the niche, or go extinct. Also take note that I'm talking in terms of populations. This is important because evolution is seperated at this point. You have non-speciation changes, which is just the changes in the prevalence of a certain trait within a population. Then you have speciation changes, which is the creation of a new breeding population. There, simple, now do you understand why apes surviving has no bearing on the existance of humans? We never came into direct competition until recently, and look what's happening to the apes.

Thankyou for going to such effort. You have shown me that you do know at least something of the principles of natural selection. what you may not realize is that the creationists have all long ago accepted natural selection. They also think that genetic mutations can cause natural selection, although they maintain that the great majority of mutations are selected against, meaning the put the organism at a disadvantage, rather than an advantage, and thus that natural selection is unlikely to force humans to evolve from slime.

I do see some points in your explanation that are questionable. For example, when the ancestor of the apes parted ways with the ancestor of the humans, there would not have been much difference between them except for a single mutation (in the context of a single or a few generations). But somehow, based on this single mutation, they were suppose to occupy entirely different habitats? Single mutations among humans today (e.g. eye colour) are hardly likely to do this. They do cause differences in the population, and perhaps even racism (in extreme cases), but this is not the same as claiming that they occupy completely different habitats.

Does it say door? No.
You have read the ark story and think it is a complete listing of everything that occured? That is a fault in your reading, and is not my concern.

Splitting hairs. Can you name another component of the Ark that could be 'shut' that would be significant enough for God Himself to do it? Stating my reading is wrong without bothering to tell me what it's supposed to mean hardly consititutes a rebuttal. Further, if the ark story is so incomplete why should we regard the creation account as authoritive? Where is it incomplete and where is it authoritative?

A text which admits to containing gaping holes which can only be filled by untestable guesswork is no more valid as science than the script of one of the Star Wars movies.

Read my earlier post about common ancestors. We have no evidence for them yet they are accepted because Evolution does not work without them.
We have found no evidence for partially aquatic apes yet many accept it as conditional to evolution.

However, other parts of evolution do work. No part of the Flood myth works. More problematically, it is not required to explain any observed events other than the myth itself, which is impossible to verify through any method but subjective interpretation of a book of ancient tribal myths.

I was trying to be polite, but that really doesn't work with you, does it?
I'll be blunt:
Making up your opponents argument and debating this is called a Strawman. Claiming your opponent's argument is wrong because it negates your strawman is a logical fallacy.

No strawman. Here is Buarong's statement that I quoted.

My understanding may appear to contradict Genesis, but that is possibly due to your interpretation, no doubt biased by your firm believe in evolution.

This did not bother to attack my argument at all, only that my interpretation is 'no doubt biased by my belief in evolution.' This is not a valid rebuttal because it only notes that I have a motive for my interpretation, but not how my interpretation is in any way incorrect or less able to fit the text of the story.

You might want to improve your grasp of logical debating sometime, or at least read what people are quoting before writing your rebuttals. In particular, you should note you have to demonstrate where the fallacy exists rather than just parroting the name and linking to a definition.

This will be my last response to you. Your posts are emotional and uninformed and I will not be wasting any more of my time on them.
Have a nice day. :)

As opposed you your posts, which have attacked supeficial parts of my arguments or not addressed them at all, instead nitpicking minor points and then acting as if you've won some terrific victory. I'm glad you at least recognise your posts were a waste of time.

GMC Military Arms

Wow, God closed a door. The fact that the Ark story explicitly lists everything God did and credits Noah with everything else isn't exactly harmed by that. If you want to say the Bible is incomplete, how do we get the rest of the data? Continued research and refinement, empirical studies?

Well, it actually says that God shut them in. I suppose that meant closing the door. Was such a big door (to fit all the animals in), and they hardly had any friends to push it shut from the outside, so perhaps they did need God to shut it for them.
I think you have to agree that the Bible is not trying to give an account for everything. It gives only the basics. The Christians would explain that only the basics here are needed, and what is really important is later on when God sent his son Jesus into the world, that you and I may have a chance to enter into a relationship with Him that is even better than Adam and Eve's before the schism. That is what I believe the context of Genesis is. If God had a part in writing it, that is what I believe his purpose in it being written was. Even if the writer was not a Christian.
Thus the reason for Genesis is not to provide all the details. That is unnecessary considering its true purpose (according to my interpretation, a Judaistic Jew would obviously disagree with me).

How do we get the rest of the data? I guess we have to admit that we can't and we have to use our imaginations if we want to 'see' it. Does that prove the Biblical account wrong? Hardly.

Or just make stuff up to fill in the holes and hope nobody notices that's exactly what creationists accuse scientists of doing, and exactly what scientists don't do?

The reason why I believe the Genesis account is because I have personally encountered God in my own life, and have found him to be the awesome God that is described in the Bible. Thus, it's not unreasonable to allow my imagination to run free, subjected only to what I think are the laws of nature and possibility, mixed with some room for God to work miracles (he certainly has done some miracles in my life--turned my whole life around). However, I can see that someone like you, who probably hasn't met God yet, will not be happy to accept what I believe in the absence of such an experience for yourself. The Bible does, however, point out the path to that experience with God. It's up to you to check it out for yourself. Your refusal to accept God's invitation will mean that what the Bible says of such people will come true for you--you will never understand. Your acceptance will lead to a completely different situation.

Wrong, the arguer's motive for presenting evidence is never relevant, only their interpreted evidence itself. He cannot claim my interpretation of the scripture is invalid, nor that it fits the text less adequately , so must instead resort to claiming I'm only saying it because I'm an evolutionist as if that suddenly makes it incorrect.

Motive and bias are always relevant, I reckon. Particularly in a discussion between biased people. The best chance one has at coming to the truth is to recognise his bias, and take measures against it, like frequently asking the question 'is my bias misleading me?' I have frequently claimed that your interpretation of the scripture leaves something to be desired (particularly from a Christians point of view, but also from a non biased point of view ....if there is one). A classic example is where you tried to show that the Bible cites the only source of water as rain. And then to solidify your mistake, you quoted a few lines later the very scripture that says that the water came from the heavens AND the springs in the earth. Then you have the brass to say that you read the Bible with more light than I. I think bias is quite important in this case.

You're asking for the Himalayas to have risen within five thousand years, at a rate so fast we should be able to see them changing size by dozens of feet a year? [i]Do we see the Himalayas changing size by dozens of feet a year?

It need not be a steady rising. It could have happened in a series of earthquakes.

That's strange, I don't see why that's 'obvious' at all. They're still living things.

Any scientist will tell you that water doesn't kill bacteria and fungi. Even the writer of the Bible would have known that, had he any knowledge of the existence of bacteria and fungi. (Actually Leviticus does talk about mildew, a type of fungus I suspect.)

Ah, so you want the Bible to omit the details that allow it to make any kind of sense? I say again, why should we believe the creation account to be accurate down to the use of the word 'day' if you want the Ark myth to be inaccurate and incomplete?

Nope, I don't want to omit any details. I wish they had included more. It would have been more satisfying for my curiosity. Which details do you think I want to omit?

No, it means he remembered them. Read the passage. The most reasonable reading is that God remembered them and ended the flood, since he made the wind immediately after 'remembering.' This does bring up the rather strange issue that God apparently forgot them during the flood, which is again consistant with my reading and not with yours.

Are you suggesting that God (the all-knowing) forgot about the boat? In the context of the story, it means that despite his goal of removing human life from the planet, he allowed a single family to survive, and so he removed the water, before they all died of starvation on the boat. I think he was quite successful. And your interpretation here does not fit with the rest of the Bible story (that cultimates in the arrival of Jesus, His death, and ressurrection). As if God could really forget about the ones he loved. I don't think your reading was reasonable at all.


And so God murdered everyone, in the most bizarre, inefficient and dangerous manner he could think of. Charming. And thank you for saying my intellect is less than a child's, I really enjoy these cute lil' digs.

God made them. Therefore he is entitled to do with them as he pleased. That is his privilege. You are entitled the same with the things that you create.
In addition, I think God recognises that there are worse things than death by drowning. Just ask anyone who has been mutilated or raped by a family member. The description of humanity at that time was quite ugly, and it broke God's heart. He had mercy on them, and sent them to judgement. Later, he sent Jesus to them (see the letters written by Apostle Peter) to preach the good news of God's willingness to forgive them and restore them to himself. I find a rather merciful God in action.

As for claiming your intellect was less than a child's, that is something that I never said. Firstly, I apologise for the offense it caused you. I should have written it more clearly. What I had in mind is that when I was a child, I often read the Bible stories, and felt mild frustration that the writers didn't include more detail. I thus came to the conclusion that the writers obviously left out quite a lot of detail. I didn't mean that my intellect as a child was greater than yours is now, but that I didn't share your bias, and thus came to the conclusion that I still think anyone should come to, unless they had a big desire to believe it otherwise.

Except that's not the reason that's generally given. The evidence suggests that the process has occurred and parts of it can even be replicated in the lab. While our understanding of the process is imperfect, it is a thousand times better than creationism which relies on a being who can never be proven to exist. Your process requires miracles, events the chance of which occurring is zero without the intervention of an agency which can never be shown to exist.

Actually, I found this very reason given in one of the links you sent me. Can't remember which, sorry. But anyway, I am convinced that that is a common reason, and one of the best, because it means that such an explanation can never be proven wrong, even if it was shown to be laughably unlikely. The evidence does not suggest that this process has occurred at all. There are parts of it that can be replicated. But they are a long, long, long way away from proving anything. (See my earlier post to chaos theory)

Did you see the movie 'Day After Tommorrow' and note that staggerly gigantic wave barely covered the 305ft Statue of Liberty? Can you imagine a wave ninety five times bigger that the one you saw in that film? Only it wouldn't just be ninety five times bigger, because it would have to be that high when it hit the Himalayas to cover Everest. Can you imagine a wave two hundred and fifty or three hundred times that size? Again, there's no support in the passage for giant silly tidal waves, and silly tidal waves could not cover all the mountains by twenty two and a half feet.

Right, well, now that I have you in the process of imagining, now think about a wave that is 1000 kms long, several thousand wide, thousands of kms from front to back, and several kms deep. That would dwarf anything hollywood has thought of. Is it possible? We haven't seen anything like it. But then we haven't see a world flood either. I'm only using my imagination here. But I still can't see why it should not be possible. (This is therefore not the same sort of imagination one needs to see life coming from non-life.)

Why is it that you are allowed to call my suggestions silly, but I'm not allow to call your intellect like a child's (even though that is not what I meant)?

Ah, the ever popular 'if you stopped disagreeing you'd agree with me.' So you want me to what, shut the fuck up and listen to you, then nod my head? I have approached this subject with an open mind before, the problem is that in the cold light of logic you must either selectively mutilate the Bible by adding parts to it where you need them but regarding other parts as to-the-letter fact or make arguments that don't make the slightest bit of sense, and you still end up with a theory that explains nothing, goes against a huge amount of combined scientific data from almost every field of science, and requires I believe in a vicious God who'd rather destroy the entire world than try to help people.

On the contrary, I hope we can keep discussing things like civilised humans. It's not that I want you to agree with me. All I ask is that you be prepared to have a look at my side of the argument occasionally without being so scared of being 'converted' or something. If you have once had an open mind, then it should be possible again. The 'cold light of logic' that you claim has mutilated the Bible is IMO more like the 'cold light of an unwillingness to believe and a great desire to see it proven wrong'. At least that is what is reads like. I'm willing to accept that you have a good intellect, are capable of objective reasoning, and perhaps even a good fellow/girl. Can you prove that to me? But you and I need patience if we are going to be able to cover the huge areas of differences that separate our belief systems. I can't promise that I will be the perfect debater (I have got annoyed with you several times already), but I am willing to discuss whatever seems profitable for the both of us.

I then posted a link to evidence that there cannot be a significant volume of subterreanian water on Earth because it would have boiled away long before Noah's time even if the creationist account is absolutely true. The fountains of the deep [whatever they are] could not have contributed significantly.

Too late. The damage was done. You demonstrated that you hadn't read the Bible carefully enough and you made a mistake. however, to be fair, I have often made such mistakes too. It doesn't prove anything other than that we are fallible humans.
As for explaining that there could not have been enough water underground simply because the world was so old that it would have boiled away a long time ago....does there not seem something wrong with this argument to you? If Noah's story was true, then it is likely that there was not millions of years to boil away the water anyway.

Well, it actually says that God shut them in. I suppose that meant closing the door. Was such a big door (to fit all the animals in), and they hardly had any friends to push it shut from the outside, so perhaps they did need God to shut it for them.

You're missing the point. The greatest miracle attributed to God in the flood story other than the flood itself is his ability to close a door. As far as we are aware, these are his only actions.

I think you have to agree that the Bible is not trying to give an account for everything. It gives only the basics. The Christians would explain that only the basics here are needed, and what is really important is later on when God sent his son Jesus into the world, that you and I may have a chance to enter into a relationship with Him that is even better than Adam and Eve's before the schism.

That's strange, my mother is a Christian and says the Bible is sketchy on detail because many of the stories in it aren't intended to be taken literally. My grandmothers, regular churchgoers all their lives, say the same. Are you sure you're not confusing the minority of Christian fundamentalists with the much larger number of mainstream Christians in order to make it look like you have a point?

How do we get the rest of the data? I guess we have to admit that we can't and we have to use our imaginations if we want to 'see' it. Does that prove the Biblical account wrong? Hardly.

We have to 'imagine' the evidence, a criteria which means I can prove Elvis is still alive and Attila the Hun shot John F Kennedy?

Why do we need to prove it wrong anyway, being as the Bible is the only evidence for it to begin with? It must be shown to be at least slightly valid before disproving it becomes necessary.

The reason why I believe the Genesis account is because I have personally encountered God in my own life, and have found him to be the awesome God that is described in the Bible.

You mean you [i]think you have encountered God.

However, I can see that someone like you, who probably hasn't met God yet, will not be happy to accept what I believe in the absence of such an experience for yourself.

Ah, so I must accept your conclusion before I can receive any evidence. Marvellous. It's a shame I used to be a Christian, really...Strangely, I still didn't believe the Ark story was anything but a myth. Guess maybe my magical evidence package got lost in the mail.

Motive and bias are always relevant, I reckon.

They're not. Quality of arguments and logic are relevant. If Stalin told you 1+1 was two as part of some diabolical scheme, his statement would still be true and valid.

A classic example is where you tried to show that the Bible cites the only source of water as rain. And then to solidify your mistake, you quoted a few lines later the very scripture that says that the water came from the heavens AND the springs in the earth.

To give the ridiculous nitpick far more attention than it really deserves: Did I?

Never mind that the language of the entire passage is in no way consistant with large waves, and mostly emphasies rain.

MOSTLY does not mean ONLY. It's quite clear that you're willing to resort to outright lies in order to find something to attack. I was fully aware of what 7:11 said, since I prefaced it with

11 and 12 talk about flooding. Again, emphasis is on a huge additional volume of water, not water moving around.

Does 'a huge additional volume of water' equate to 'Only rain?' God says the only source of water will be rain and a reference to breaking underwater fountains is hardly conclusive proof of anything, but I never claimed the only source of water was rain. My claim was that there was no reference to the flood involving massive waves, one you have yet to offer any valid rebuttal to.

Then you have the brass to say that you read the Bible with more light than I. I think bias is quite important in this case.

Yes, yours. You're so biased you're now apparently resorting to lying about my previous posts in the hope I don't remember what I said.

It need not be a steady rising. It could have happened in a series of earthquakes.

Such incredibly violent earthquakes would have metamorphosed the minerals in the mountains and released colossal amounts of energy. No trace of such earthquakes exists, and there is no record of them in any historical account. This means that you must also credit the disappearance of the evidence as a miracle, at which point we start getting into the realm of the absurd, since you can prove any hypothesis if you allow all the evidence for it to be arbitrarily and magically destroyed.

Nope, I don't want to omit any details. I wish they had included more. It would have been more satisfying for my curiosity. Which details do you think I want to omit?

You want it to be incomplete when you need to add parts to stop the more embarrassing parts being so silly. However, you want it to be complete when you want to believe that particular part of it. If the flood myth is so badly incomplete, why should we believe there was ever a global flood at all?

Are you suggesting that God (the all-knowing) forgot about the boat?

No, the Holy scripture is. Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve could hide from an all-knowing God [Gen 3:9]? Are you suggesting an all-knowing all-powerful God would be worried that humans would become omnipotent if they could build a big tower [Gen 11:6]?

In the context of the story, it means that despite his goal of removing human life from the planet, he allowed a single family to survive, and so he removed the water, before they all died of starvation on the boat. I think he was quite successful.

Aside from that God's power allows him to divide the waters [remember Moses?] so the Ark was totally unnecessary. Why would a perfect God place people in a boat where he would have to conjure dozens of miracles to keep them alive when he could simply have told them to stay in a walled garden?

And your interpretation here does not fit with the rest of the Bible story (that cultimates in the arrival of Jesus, His death, and ressurrection).

Neither does God murdering billions of defenceless, blameless animals and millions of babies who had never had a chance to do anything wrong fit with the idea of a loving and merciful God. Bible stories, last I checked, were not required to form a coherent whole, that's why most Christians know not to try to take the whole thing at any kind of face value.

God made them. Therefore he is entitled to do with them as he pleased. That is his privilege. You are entitled the same with the things that you create.

Including pets I breed? My children? That's horrible reasoning!

In addition, I think God recognises that there are worse things than death by drowning. Just ask anyone who has been mutilated or raped by a family member.

Drowning is not fast or painless; for anyone who can swim, it is a slow, lingering death. By that reasoning that Nazis were nice because there were worse ways to exterminate the Jews than gas chambers. Genocide is never good or just.

The description of humanity at that time was quite ugly, and it broke God's heart. He had mercy on them, and sent them to judgement.

Including the babies who could not possibly have committed any crime? This is terrifying reasoning because one can excuse any crime this way. And again, what had the animals and plants done?

Firstly, I apologise for the offense it caused you. I should have written it more clearly.

Not offence, mild amusement at the implied hypocrisy. I'm a fan of Maddox, I'm pretty much totally immune to being offended.

But anyway, I am convinced that that is a common reason, and one of the best, because it means that such an explanation can never be proven wrong, even if it was shown to be laughably unlikely.

'Cannot be disproven' is bad science; that you believe it's 'one of the best' reasons is somewhat telling. Darwin himself stated a list of discoveries that would prove his theory false. We have yet to find any of them.

The evidence does not suggest that this process has occurred at all.

And you dare try to paint yourself as unbiased?

Right, well, now that I have you in the process of imagining, now think about a wave that is 1000 kms long, several thousand wide, thousands of kms from front to back, and several kms deep. That would dwarf anything hollywood has thought of.

And would still not be as tall as Everest, which is more than 'several' kilometres deep. Nor would it be as tall as it would need to be to reach Everest. This is a failure of your imagination, not mine.

Is it possible? We haven't seen anything like it. But then we haven't see a world flood either. I'm only using my imagination here. But I still can't see why it should not be possible. (This is therefore not the same sort of imagination one needs to see life coming from non-life.)

Argument from ignorance. There is no reason to believe there has ever been a world flood other than words in an old book. There is greater evidence for the existence of Darth Vader than there is for the Biblical flood.

The waves you presuppose are not supported by anything but your need for this theory to be valid. There is no force in existence [aside from a massive asteroid impact that would leave incredibly obvious signs of it's passing] that could raise such a wave, no evidence in existence that such a wave has ever risen and no need for such a wave to have ever risen to explain any observation other than the highly selective literal interpretation of an old book.

Why is it that you are allowed to call my suggestions silly, but I'm not allow to call your intellect like a child's (even though that is not what I meant)?

Because your suggestions are silly. You've made no attempt to produce any evidence to support them, nor even any calculations to demonstrate they are even physically possible. Every time you are challenged you either invent a hypothesis out of thin air, providing no evidence for it other than a claim it's 'obviously' true, or claim a physics-defying miracle because your conclusion must be right. Does it not occur to you that a necessity for dozens of undocumented miracles might just mean that the global flood did not happen?

On the contrary, I hope we can keep discussing things like civilised humans. It's not that I want you to agree with me. All I ask is that you be prepared to have a look at my side of the argument occasionally without being so scared of being 'converted' or something.

I have; around six months ago I invited a group of Jehovah's Witnesses to put their case for creationism to me, and lent them several hours of my time in the morning for weeks, additionally reading their literature and looking over materials they got from the internet. Your side makes no sense and requires me to selectively interpret the Bible in a certain precise configuration [Why that particular configuration?] before I have any reason to believe it, and then ignore all of the scientific evidence against that conclusion from every field of science from biology and chemistry to geology to astrophysics.

If you have once had an open mind, then it should be possible again. The 'cold light of logic' that you claim has mutilated the Bible is IMO more like the 'cold light of an unwillingness to believe and a great desire to see it proven wrong'.

As opposed to your cold light of unwillingness to even consider that your particular interpretation of the Bible might be wrong? Read Luke 6:42 lately?

Too late. The damage was done. You demonstrated that you hadn't read the Bible carefully enough and you made a mistake.

As said, I made no such error. The error was your poor reading of my post, or your deliberate misrepresentation of it. Take your pick.

As for explaining that there could not have been enough water underground simply because the world was so old that it would have boiled away a long time ago....does there not seem something wrong with this argument to you? If Noah's story was true, then it is likely that there was not millions of years to boil away the water anyway.

Irrelevant. It would not take millions of years for that water to boil away [and despite your bald-faced lie I never claimed it would], it would take hours, days at most. It had at very least Noah's lifetime of six hundred years. I said that even if the creation story was exactly true the water would have boiled away long before the flood, you counter by stating I said that water would take millions of years to boil? Seriously...

OH man. GMC, I love you deeper than I thought possible. Attila shot JFK? Classic. Oh, there are so many of them. Every line is like sweet, sweet poetry. Really funny, accurate, scientifically sound poetry.

Broomhilda, or whatever your name is, you've got to come to grips with the fact that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If The Bible is inerrant, it's inerrant. If it's not, it's not. Unless you can come up with some other way to break the book down (Perhaps the Yahweist is inerrant, but the Deuteronomist is not?) that is how things have to be (of course, the Yahweist wrote both stories that you are spinning about).

I'd like to quickly bring up, because it is SO fucking interesting, the reasoning for the flood. God flooded the earth, not because of the sins of man, but because angels were having sex with human women and those women were giving birth to giants who God didn't like (I suppose this is why the flood had to be so high). God said he would destroy all these abominations to which the angels replied by sending the wisest human, Enoch, up to debate with God. After a week or two, God decided that he won the debate, but that Enoch was still pretty darn smart (having stood face-to-face with God, and all) so a compromise was reached: God would flood the earth, save Noah, send all the offending angels downward (the fall) and turn Enoch into The Metatron (voice of God, God's messenger).

That Christians have abandoned this part of the story is sad, because it is world's more dramatically interesting than what we are left with. Sure, it's less believable, and I understand why they want to distance themselves from it. But Noah's story, as GMC and many others have demonstrated, is severely unbelievable from the get-go, so why blue-ball those that enjoy a good story?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruarong
In addition, I think God recognises that there are worse things than death by drowning. Just ask anyone who has been mutilated or raped by a family member.

You mean like how Noah's family raped each other after the flood? Sorry, I just thought that example was far too apropos to pass up.

Can we do something funny here and bring up some arguments against the flood that don't even need an acceptance of the very scientifically sound study of geology and geography?

God flooded the world and killed off everybody but Noah and his family? But what about the numerous civilizations that existed at the supposed time of Noah that continued on, many until today? The Native Americans, Mongoloids, Pacific Islanders, many African communities and even some Europeans (based upon recent archeological finds) all date back farther than creationist accounts even date the universe, let alone the flood. Did God send arks to a whole bunch of other people and neglect to tell anybody about it?

Some people have used the story of Gilgamesh to try and prove the story of Noah. By literalist, fundamental Christian's perceptions (so VERY heavily biased, by the by), the talk of a flood within this book (the oldest one we know of) proves that the flood happened. But, of course, had the flood happened the author of Gilgamesh, and indeed Gilgamesh himself, would not have been around to write or be written of. Gilgamesh was not a real person, sure, but his author must have been.

So what is the explanation for why these two stories, and several others, mention a similar flood? The answer is likely two-fold. First off, and this is fairly undisputable, the flood story of Genesis has its roots in older Sumerian and Babylonian myths. This is true for much of The Yahweist's writings and makes perfect sense, as when the Jews first had the opportunity, knowledge, and ability to write down their religion they had already fairly well assimilated with these peoples. Of course, in the Babylonian flood myth which is primarily responsible for the Hebrew one, there were two Gods to explain, Marduk and Tiamut. Considering the binaries of this and other stories from the Babylonian/Hebrew tradition, this makes a lot more sense. When the Jews started dabbling in monotheism Yaweh had to incorporate the portfolios of two contradictory deities, and it is for this reason that the old testament God seems so bi-polar and irrational.

It is interesting that the explanation previously given for God's motivation for the flood (before my, more bibically correct one) was that of man's chaos. This is particularly interesting not for its open-ended connotations, but for its unconscious literary amorphisms. You see, the Hebrew word for "flood", as is seen in the Genesis account, is also the Hebrew word for "chaos".

Take from this what you will, as far as God's capacity for civility and infinite love through brutal genocide and destruction goes.

Oops, forgot the second part of my "two-fold" flood story explanation. Sorry to keep posting.

The first part, as I said, has to do with the roots of the Biblical story laying the Babylonian myths that Gilgamesh follows.

But the second is quite interesting on an anthropological level. There may have been (evidence is as of yet inconclusive) a rather significant flood in the area which The Babylonians inhabited. This, if it is true, was not due to forty days of rain, or underground water reserves or tidal waves or what have you, but by over-running rivers. This flood could have been quite severe for the area. If you look at the flood-waters that regularly hit parts of The American Mid-West, it is easy to imagine sedintary people looking about and vainly assuming that these kinds of waters covered the entire earth. Even if they did not believe this, they might have said so hyperbolically. The problem is that hyperbole is one of those things that doesn't fare well in the long term. Eventually people say "no, no, that's LITERALLY what they meant". This is a pity. It's worse still when the same thing happens to sarcasm.

Chaos Experiment

Actually, I was under the impression that the entire process in NOT demonstrable. I think we are up to something like a polymerisation of 200 amino acids, a lipid bubble that requires a lightening strike to reproduce, and rather basic RNA-like molecule that helps to form more RNA-like molecules. The problem with each of these examples is that the conditions required for success are not identical, and perhaps not even similar. But what we need for life to come from non-life is a single set of conditions that happens to suit all of the required processes. The more we learn about the right conditions required (e.g. hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor), the further away the likelyhood of this process being demonstrated.

For now I will drop this portion of the argument as we are entering an area I am not well educated in. I will continue to do research and perhaps reraise this debate once I have found sufficient data on these experiments.

Creationism recognises both natural selection and genetic variance. It's not written in the Bible, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we don't accept. Indeed, natural selection is perfectly compatible with the Bible, from what I see. They do use laws of logic. And they do make predictions. Sometimes the predictions differ, but not always (e.g. it's possible to have the same prediction based on completely different paths of logic). An example might be the high (genetic) homology between apes and humans. Creationists predict the similarity based on the functions of the genes. Evolutionists base it on the common ancestry. The result is the same. The high level of homology between some bacterial genes and some human genes means that at least for those genes, common ancestry does not explain the homology. Thus the creationist model wins (for me) at that particular point. (Though it has to be said that evolutionism doesn't rule out homology based on function, perhaps except when they try to discredit the predictions of the creationists.)

Than what is your core mechanism from which you derive all these predictions? You cannot claim to have a theory or a model without an observable mechanism that can be used to make useful predictions. It isn't science.

If you never believed the Bible, then you were already bias against it, and therefore you cannot say that you gave it a fair chance. Rather, your current acceptance of evolutionism points to your initial bias.

Again, I read it very often. My non-belief in it wasn't any kind of rejection, the belief just never clicked. It wasn't any conscious decision, I just never did. Plus, you don't have to actually have supported the other side to get a fundemental enough understanding of it to reject it. I met with evolution long after I stopped reading the Bible, yet I still hadn't ever really accepted creationism.

Remember, the Bible is not a science text book. Most christians are not scientists, and therefor are not creation scientists. If you come to the Bible with your evolutionary bias, of course you are not going to be impressed. You have to come to it with an open mind, and perhaps ask the question 'is it true, and are miracles possible?'. Creation theory is based on the Bible, but consists of far more modern theories and logic. It's this that you have to match against evolution theory.

Please stop calling creationism a theory. It is not, never will be, and can not be a scientific theory.

And asking one's self "Are miracles possible?" as justification of creationism is quite akin to asking one's self "Does she really exist?" in pertenance to the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn. It cannot be used as convincing evidence in any way because it depends on the perception of a singular human. Science is a collaboration of millions of humans (indeed, it is the great uniter).

That is why you will never find the creationist prediction of shrinking bacterial genomes in the Bible. It is simply a prediction based on the Bible. The evidence for it is modern studies that investigate genomes, not in the pages of Genesis.

How is it based in the Bible? What core mechanism does the Bible present that allows you to hypothesize it and derive predictions from it? If you want creationism to be a scientific theory, you must observe it under scientific rigour.

The very least you can think of me is honest. You may think me mislead, (I suspect that you are mislead) but that doesn't offend me (neither should it offend you). If, however, you call me a liar to my face, you are not encouraging an intelligent and polite debate.
If I was particularly good at lying, (and a high school student) I would not hesitate to post something like a scientists credentials on here. Currently, I percieve that even were I to post something, you could still accuse me of lying. The only way to prove it would be if you came and visited me in my lab. (Perhaps then we could have a chat over a nice hot cup of tea--not in the lab of course, for that is verboten.)

You do me a disservice. I would honestly simply like to see your credentials to see whether or not I can honestly take your word for it. Even just something you've submitted to a journal on the subject of gene loss would be sufficient.

As for the shrinking genomes, I have posted a link to this before. (Henrissat, B., Deleury, E. and Coutinho, P.M.: Glycogen metabolism loss: a common marker of parasitic behaviour in bacteria? Trends in Genetics 18 (2002) 437-440.) It's not like I'm making things like that up.

I apologize, I must have missed it, mind reposting?

Lots of my information does come to me from personal experience. If I was lying, however, an intelligent person would know the right questions to ask in order to see this. If I was telling the truth, then it would be far more authentic of me to use observations that I have personally made, rather than just take stuff from the internet (as I realize a lot of people seem to do).

On the contrary, cobberated personal observations is all we really have.

Thankyou for going to such effort. You have shown me that you do know at least something of the principles of natural selection. what you may not realize is that the creationists have all long ago accepted natural selection. They also think that genetic mutations can cause natural selection, although they maintain that the great majority of mutations are selected against, meaning the put the organism at a disadvantage, rather than an advantage, and thus that natural selection is unlikely to force humans to evolve from slime.

If you accept natural selection, why do you reject evolution? It is the core mechanism upon which the rest of the theory is built.

I do see some points in your explanation that are questionable. For example, when the ancestor of the apes parted ways with the ancestor of the humans, there would not have been much difference between them except for a single mutation (in the context of a single or a few generations). But somehow, based on this single mutation, they were suppose to occupy entirely different habitats? Single mutations among humans today (e.g. eye colour) are hardly likely to do this. They do cause differences in the population, and perhaps even racism (in extreme cases), but this is not the same as claiming that they occupy completely different habitats.

Actually, there need not be a single mutation between the generations that lived entirely in the trees and the one that started going down to pick up the bananas they'd dropped. The thing here is that, when they stopped going up into the trees entirely, they found themselves in a new niche, one that had different environmental pressures. They were cut off from the initial tree living population and thus isolated, which would allow for the evolution of a new species. Thus, humans. Suddenly the slightly more upright ones had an advantage on the savannahs of middle Africa. The ones who could stretch slightly more towards an upright position than the others had an advantage.

Also, now they were exposed to huge varieties of meat and, since we were a social species at that point, behavioral evolution also comes into play. Those family lines that taught their children to eat meat were able to grow larger brains. This produced more and more intelligent individuals who were able to survive better and produce offspring who they could teach likewise. Those with a genetic predisposition towards larger brain pans would have an advantage.

You see, evolution works on so many levels, genetic and behavioral, but always on one object: isolated breeding populations in a specific niche.

If I might try to tackle the science proposed a little bit, with the qualifier that I am no evolutionary biologist, but merely someone who makes evolutionary biology a hobby:

Quote:
Actually, I was under the impression that the entire process in NOT demonstrable. I think we are up to something like a polymerisation of 200 amino acids, a lipid bubble that requires a lightening strike to reproduce, and rather basic RNA-like molecule that helps to form more RNA-like molecules. The problem with each of these examples is that the conditions required for success are not identical, and perhaps not even similar. But what we need for life to come from non-life is a single set of conditions that happens to suit all of the required processes. The more we learn about the right conditions required (e.g. hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor), the further away the likelyhood of this process being demonstrated.

You are right to say that the entire process is not demonstratable. But no serious evolutionary biologist thinks it should be. The problem with this obstensible quagmire is that nobody believes that there was such a thing as "not-life" suddenly transmuting into "life". First off, it is important to note that "life" is a terribly difficult thing to define. In our daily, layman lives this might not seem the case, but when you really think about it, any taxonomy that includes trees, fungi and Joe Garogiola is going to be a tough fit. Even today the controversy rages over whether or not viruses are living.

Is it possible for one thing to be "more alive" than another? Sort of, but not really. If we broadly describe life as a complex system that is able to maintain homeostasis, than we are tempted to say "either it's alive or it's not". But life is more like handwriting analysis, in that while a signature may vary quite a bit, it is impossible for something to be sort of an "a" and sort of a "b" simultaneously, except to a viewer who is unclear as to the writer's intention.

No evolutionist I know believes that RNA/DNA and what-have-you were the first replicators. That science is able to come so close to creating these things simply from scratch is amazing, but the primordial soup theory of life denies the basic tenant of evolution: natural selection through mutation.

We may never know what the first replicators were like. They would obviously not have been nearly as good at it (both as far as rates of replication and fidelity in replication goes) as the cells we see around us today. So they have been cast aside, rendered exstinct many millions of years ago. Even if they had survived until only a matter of thousands of years ago (which they almost assuredly did not for the aforementioned reasons) there were be no trace of them, as they would leave behind no fossils or such evidence.

A theory that has been growing in popularity over the last few decades for the origins of life is the crystalline-silicon theory. I won't get into its every technical detail, sufficive to say that there is some curiously good evidence for biological life first evolving to help with replication of series of geometric silicon features. If we look at the way silicon works, we see some sights that look remarkably like information carrying. Silicon forms in geometric patterns that confer that self-same pattern to loose layers that come upon it. If that geometric pattern is damaged, then new layers will take on that damage, more-or-less and with some mutation.

If a particular geometry were better at, for example, drying up creek beds then that silt would dry, and flake and spread, releasing more and more of its progeny throughout the world. Research has shown that certain carbon-based structures can be set to form upon certain silicon silt patterns. These carbon-based structures could be said to have a symbiotic relationship with the silt, in that they could aid with replication and be replicated thereby. So you have a case of early carbon-life piggybacking on soil patterns. Until mutation has grown to the point where the carbon structures are far better at replication than the silt, at which time they abandon the dirt and move on to greater things. Even this would probably not have looked exactly like RNA/DNA, and certainly not like early eubacteriums, but they do offer a good start towards where we are today.

The data for this theory is surprisingly tenable, considering how fantastic the story seems. It's particularly amusing to think that life may indeed have started from clay, as the second Genesis creation story suggests for the ingress of Adam. It is more than a bit far-fetched to think that this points to an early human knowledge of its possible ancestry.



Quote:
Creationism recognises both natural selection and genetic variance. It's not written in the Bible, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we don't accept. Indeed, natural selection is perfectly compatible with the Bible, from what I see. They do use laws of logic. And they do make predictions. Sometimes the predictions differ, but not always (e.g. it's possible to have the same prediction based on completely different paths of logic). An example might be the high (genetic) homology between apes and humans. Creationists predict the similarity based on the functions of the genes. Evolutionists base it on the common ancestry. The result is the same. The high level of homology between some bacterial genes and some human genes means that at least for those genes, common ancestry does not explain the homology. Thus the creationist model wins (for me) at that particular point. (Though it has to be said that evolutionism doesn't rule out homology based on function, perhaps except when they try to discredit the predictions of the creationists.)

Homology is actually a great argument for evolutionists (most things are). It is worth noting that humans do, at some point (by evolution) share common ancestry with bacteria, and that certain pieces of DNA help us track all life to common roots, particularly the histone sequence. A lot of junk DNA has lasted many millions of years, which leads some rather boxed-up evolutionists to confusion. But it really shouldn't. People would do well to remember that evolution is about passing genes, not individuals or populations or species. It acts through these things, yes, but at the end of the day we are but code-carriers. If these genes have been able to travel along on us, we shouldn't be perplexed by there lack of expressed phenotype. It is not their job to help us survive, but our job for them to. Certain seemingly phenotopic homology actually lends great creedence to evolution.

Take, for instance, echo-location amongst different populations of bats. It would seem that echo-location developed amongst a number of bat species independently. This makes sense, because bats more-or-less occupy the same niche, regardless of location or convergence point. The key thing here is that even in their ostensible homology, they are not actually genetically, or even functionally similar in their uses. Although they all have echo-location (well, a few species do not) they developed it in different ways and they do not look genetically similar.

This makes sense for a number of things. Eyes, for instance, have been developed seperately in many species. One might point to this as an example of a super-natural homology, but the eyes of different species sometimes have very different genetic codes behind them and function in very different ways. It is more than likely that most species which developed full eyes came from a convergence animal that already had photoscopic cells of some kind, but even if some did not it is nowhere near improbable. After all, it's sort of a matter of "keeping up with the Jones'". If one animal in an eco-system can see, anything that doesn't learn how to pretty quickly is going to be in trouble, especially if the thing that does is a predator.

As for "genome shrinking", it is not nearly as universal and pre-emenant as you imply on this thread. And in cases where genome shrinking is anything more than minute, good explanations abound. Such as the genome shrinking in pohtosynthetic, marine prokayotes. Genome reduction amongst them has been well attributed to a nutrient-poor environmental niche occupied by Prochlorococcus (the species in question). This phenomenon is sometimes taken to the extreme in obligate intracellular organisms.

No biggy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruarong
In addition, I think God recognises that there are worse things than death by drowning. Just ask anyone who has been mutilated or raped by a family member.

You mean like how Noah's family raped each other after the flood? Sorry, I just thought that example was far too apropos to pass up.


Umm.....I don't know where THAT came from....but I think you are thinking of Lot not Noah. Noah had a wife. Their 3 kids all had wives. No rape happened.



Can we do something funny here and bring up some arguments against the flood that don't even need an acceptance of the very scientifically sound study of geology and geography?

God flooded the world and killed off everybody but Noah and his family? But what about the numerous civilizations that existed at the supposed time of Noah that continued on, many until today? The Native Americans, Mongoloids, Pacific Islanders, many African communities and even some Europeans (based upon recent archeological finds) all date back farther than creationist accounts even date the universe, let alone the flood. Did God send arks to a whole bunch of other people and neglect to tell anybody about it?


Oh, and as for where the Native Americans came from. Recent research leads them to believe Europe and possibly the middle east. I'll try and find the Articles. This is due to cultural and biological findings. (before you go saying that they couldn't due to no boats, that has been tested too and they could have.

As for the dates being messed up. Well, scientists describe the time of Noah as comparably far in the past as the populations of said areas. Either the cronology was misinterpretted or the scientific dating proceedures could be off. Frankly I'd vote on the dating methods. It has been a theory of mine that the formula they use to date things is off by either a constant or a power. I'm working on proving this at the moment so it may take a while.

GMC Military Arms

You're missing the point. The greatest miracle attributed to God in the flood story other than the flood itself is his ability to close a door. As far as we are aware, these are his only actions.

And if you think these are His only actions, based on your reading of the Genesis account, your reading is quite different from mine. For I have understood that in order to get the animals in the ark, one must have something of a miracle, no? OK the Bible does not say that God did it (although that depends on what translation I am reading), but experience with wild animals has taught me that this indeed would be a miracle or impossible.


That's strange, my mother is a Christian and says the Bible is sketchy on detail because many of the stories in it aren't intended to be taken literally. My grandmothers, regular churchgoers all their lives, say the same. Are you sure you're not confusing the minority of Christian fundamentalists with the much larger number of mainstream Christians in order to make it look like you have a point?

If your elders have taught you that, then there is little wonder that you rejected the Bible altogether. This is a common occurance, I think. People stop believing that the miracles were possible. The next generation rejects the Bible altogether. Sure, not proving much. But fits in with my thoughts. Once you stop accepting the power of God, the next step is to stop believing in Him. If mainstream christianity no longer accepts the power of God, no wonder mainstream christianity is disappearing, and being replaced by the new and vibrant one, e.g. the chinese church.


We have to 'imagine' the evidence, a criteria which means I can prove Elvis is still alive and Attila the Hun shot John F Kennedy?

There is plenty of imagination on your side of the debate too. Imagination doesn't prove an explanation. I have not proven the flood to you, neither have I really tried to. All I have done is question your conclusions where you have declared it impossible. So far, you are depending on incredility, or on taking the Bible out of context or by assuming that God was only involved in exaclty the parts where the writer wrote them in. (I still don't know why you have assumed this.)

Why do we need to prove it wrong anyway, being as the Bible is the only evidence for it to begin with? It must be shown to be at least slightly valid before disproving it becomes necessary.

I consider the evidence to be there, but that it is interpreted differently. The great amounts of coal, fossil fuels, etc. scattered right around the world fits in with a great flood that buried great amounts of vegetation and animal bodies. Evolutionists interpret this differenty, but having an alternative explanation is not disproving the first one.

You mean you [i]think you have encountered God.

Correct.

Ah, so I must accept your conclusion before I can receive any evidence. Marvellous. It's a shame I used to be a Christian, really...Strangely, I still didn't believe the Ark story was anything but a myth. Guess maybe my magical evidence package got lost in the mail.

That's what my understanding of the Bible is. I wonder what your definition of a Christian is. If you really knew Jesus, why would you turn away from the only one who really loved you perfectly? Answer (from a Christian point of view): you either didn't know him, or you are one hell of a mystery.


They're not. Quality of arguments and logic are relevant. If Stalin told you 1+1 was two as part of some diabolical scheme, his statement would still be true and valid.

That sort of logic (1+1) is hardly relevant in this debate, since we are dealing with unknows and things that can't be proven. Creation and evolution are not mathematics. We are discussing two different ways to interpret the evidence. Even if your argument were perfectly logical, it would not mean it was true. Logic may help us arrive at the truth, but objectivity is also a requirement, as is honesty.


To give the ridiculous nitpick far more attention than it really deserves: Did I?

MOSTLY does not mean ONLY. It's quite clear that you're willing to resort to outright lies in order to find something to attack. I was fully aware of what 7:11 said, since I prefaced it with Never mind that the language of the entire passage is in no way consistant with large waves, and mostly emphasies rain

Aha, then I missed it, for I thought you had only emphasised the rain. My apologies here.

GMC Military Arms


Does 'a huge additional volume of water' equate to 'Only rain?' God says the only source of water will be rain and a reference to breaking underwater fountains is hardly conclusive proof of anything, but I never claimed the only source of water was rain. My claim was that there was no reference to the flood involving massive waves, one you have yet to offer any valid rebuttal to.

In this case, there is no experimental evidence for or against the presence of waves in the flood. You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove me right. It was a product of my imagination. However, I see no reason why it shouldn't stand, for it seems possible to me.

Yes, yours. You're so biased you're now apparently resorting to lying about my previous posts in the hope I don't remember what I said.

Oh, I'm lying now, am I? Do you have proof of this, or is this another of your assumptions that are based on your hostility to God and the Bible and anything associated with them?

Such incredibly violent earthquakes would have metamorphosed the minerals in the mountains and released colossal amounts of energy. No trace of such earthquakes exists, and there is no record of them in any historical account. This means that you must also credit the disappearance of the evidence as a miracle, at which point we start getting into the realm of the absurd, since you can prove any hypothesis if you allow all the evidence for it to be arbitrarily and magically destroyed.

When I know more about the details, I will be in a position to discuss them further. I'm not interested in going into the absurd. Would you mind suggesting a link where I could read up on this?


You want it to be incomplete when you need to add parts to stop the more embarrassing parts being so silly. However, you want it to be complete when you want to believe that particular part of it. If the flood myth is so badly incomplete, why should we believe there was ever a global flood at all?

So you are suggesting that because the Biblical account leaves out some details, it is a badly written account? Do you think it was written by scientists for scientists? Or even for sceptics? I see nothing embarassing in it. Which bit do you see? As for the assumption that a badly written account equals something that should not be believed in.....that's a bit over the top. You only have to be willing to accept it to see that most of the problems you have with it will disappear. That does say something about your bias.

Aside from that God's power allows him to divide the waters [remember Moses?] so the Ark was totally unnecessary. Why would a perfect God place people in a boat where he would have to conjure dozens of miracles to keep them alive when he could simply have told them to stay in a walled garden?

Now you are into deciding what God should and shouldn't do, and what would have been better. Put together with your lack of understanding of the situation (you weren't there) and your disbelief in God, that makes you sound incredibly arrogant and ignorant. Surely this isn't so.


Neither does God murdering billions of defenceless, blameless animals and millions of babies who had never had a chance to do anything wrong fit with the idea of a loving and merciful God. Bible stories, last I checked, were not required to form a coherent whole, that's why most Christians know not to try to take the whole thing at any kind of face value.

Neither does a statement like this make you sound good. God can't murder. He is the creator. He can take life or give it as he pleases. He is not governed by laws. However, He is entirely good, and can not do something that is against His nature ie evil. Thus, if God takes a life or a million lives, he will do it in the best interest of those lives, since He is love, and that is his motivation. We may not understand it, but our understanding doesn't govern God's will. He will do what is right, regardless of whether it is within our understanding or not.
You may have been taught that the Bible stories don't make a coherent whole, but that is contrary to my understanding. I see great coherancy.

Including pets I breed? My children? That's horrible reasoning!

You don't create pets. You may breed them, and children. But in the case of children, you are only passing on your genes. To create is to make something out of nothing. I doubt that humans are capable of creating anything material.

Drowning is not fast or painless; for anyone who can swim, it is a slow, lingering death. By that reasoning that Nazis were nice because there were worse ways to exterminate the Jews than gas chambers. Genocide is never good or just.

I never said drowning was nice. But innocent people (e.g., the newborn, or the preborn) are often suffering at the hands of others. People also suffer at the hands of God. This doesn't mean God has done wrong, since love sometimes hurts. Love also sometimes means death, e.g., Jesus. But that doesn't prove that God is capable of evil.

Not offence, mild amusement at the implied hypocrisy. I'm a fan of Maddox, I'm pretty much totally immune to being offended.

I don't believe that you can not be offended, although perhaps I am not capable of it. Unless you have an iron will, and I've yet to see one, only arrogance (combined with ignorance) would make such a claim. However, I've no wish to offend you.

GMC Military Arms

'Cannot be disproven' is bad science; that you believe it's 'one of the best' reasons is somewhat telling. Darwin himself stated a list of discoveries that would prove his theory false. We have yet to find any of them.

It seems as though you entirely missed my point here. perhaps I did not make myself clear. I meant "cannot be disproven" is one of the best arguments for e.g. life from non-life or evolution from slime to man via natural selection. Since we can't observe the process, indeed, some parts look impossible, but since they cannot be disproven, they stand. I never said that I use this argument. My reason for believing what I believe is because I took a chance, accepted God at his word, and discovered Him to be true in my own personal life. You have condemned evolutionary theory (the part that depends on the unlikely being not only possible but also true) as being bad science.


And you dare try to paint yourself as unbiased?

Nope. I have never at any point said this. I have said, however, that i will try not to let my bias get the better of me and prevent me from seeing the other side of the argument. It's a good way to keep oneself from being narrow minded.

And would still not be as tall as Everest, which is more than 'several' kilometres deep. Nor would it be as tall as it would need to be to reach Everest. This is a failure of your imagination, not mine.

But if the wave was travelling fast enough, then the land underneath the wave would easily push the water to such a height.


Argument from ignorance. There is no reason to believe there has ever been a world flood other than words in an old book. There is greater evidence for the existence of Darth Vader than there is for the Biblical flood.

Now, now. You are far too hasty. You sound like very much like a person who says, your posts look silly after mine, therefore you must be stupid. There is plenty of evidence, but you have to be careful with the interpretation. I will admit, though, that finding fossils of animals near the tops of mountains does fit in well with a massive flood. Not proof, but I guess it's evidence the easily fits in with a massive flood.


The waves you presuppose are not supported by anything but your need for this theory to be valid. There is no force in existence [aside from a massive asteroid impact that would leave incredibly obvious signs of it's passing] that could raise such a wave, no evidence in existence that such a wave has ever risen and no need for such a wave to have ever risen to explain any observation other than the highly selective literal interpretation of an old book.

Hasty conclusions, I see you have. I was under the impression that some evolutionists also invoke the use of waves (e.g. from the asteroid impact that apparently wiped out the dinosaurs). I'm not the only one to imagine the waves. And something had to move a lot of dirt very quickly to cover all the vegetation before it rotted, in order to make the coal.

Because your suggestions are silly. You've made no attempt to produce any evidence to support them, nor even any calculations to demonstrate they are even physically possible. Every time you are challenged you either invent a hypothesis out of thin air, providing no evidence for it other than a claim it's 'obviously' true, or claim a physics-defying miracle because your conclusion must be right. Does it not occur to you that a necessity for dozens of undocumented miracles might just mean that the global flood did not happen?

I suppose a man could go through his whole life and miss all the miracles that were there to be seen if only he had the eyes to see them. I'm not surprised that I seem silly to you, for you can't allow what I believe to be true. Your world would shatter if you ever saw a miracle for yourself. Even then I suspect you would no longer believe your eyes, those organs that you have trusted so well.

I don't claim to be a good debator. I'm still learning the ropes. If there is a lack in my ability, that doesn't make my belief wrong. So far, most of the evidence that I have for a great flood is indirect. It comes to me from my encounter with God, that has shown me that what the Bible says is likely to be true. I can't share this evidence that I have with you, for you don't believe. Therefore, the most of the good evidence that I have must be left out of the debate, since it is unfair of me to demand that you also believe. Therefore, we are both left with the same sort of data, and different interpretations. I look at world, and see that there could have been a great flood. I also realize that just about everything I see can been explained without God, although some of the explanations are apparently without anything more than wishful thinking.

I have; around six months ago I invited a group of Jehovah's Witnesses to put their case for creationism to me, and lent them several hours of my time in the morning for weeks, additionally reading their literature and looking over materials they got from the internet. Your side makes no sense and requires me to selectively interpret the Bible in a certain precise configuration [Why that particular configuration?] before I have any reason to believe it, and then ignore all of the scientific evidence against that conclusion from every field of science from biology and chemistry to geology to astrophysics.

Interesting. Yes, I too have had chats with the JWs. But I found that I could not use reason with them. They wouldn't listen to my side of the argument at all. When I made a point, they changed the subject. To be fair, I suppose not all JWs have to be they way that I found them. But I am not surprised that they failed to convince you. This experience of yours is hardly what I would call "giving it a go". That's not even getting your toes wet. And I don"t think it's fair of you to say that they are on my side. Since they don't accept that Jesus is God (the critical issue of Christianity) it could also be argued that they are closer to your position.

You don't have proof. You have explanations. Unless you were there to prove it with mathematical formulas. You are not even a witness. You have accepted someone's word, as I have accepted someone's word. You have a preference for one side. As I do. It's likely that the side each person chooses with make sense to him, while the other side will make much less sense (depending on the level of bias, I suppose).


As opposed to your cold light of unwillingness to even consider that your particular interpretation of the Bible might be wrong? Read Luke 6:42 lately?

Who says that I haven't considered it? Isn't that what I have been saying all along? I'm not free of bias, but I do recognise that I must work against it, and not give in to the desire to think the other side silly. I must allow reason to persuade. As I have said before, the thing I hold on to is a personal relationship with my Maker. Everything else can go, even the creation explanation. That puts me in a much more objective position than you. For I doubt that you could let go of your explanation. Or can you?

Irrelevant. It would not take millions of years for that water to boil away [and despite your bald-faced lie I never claimed it would], it would take hours, days at most. It had at very least Noah's lifetime of six hundred years. I said that even if the creation story was exactly true the water would have boiled away long before the flood, you counter by stating I said that water would take millions of years to boil? Seriously...

Right. I assumed that you were using millions of years, and I got it wrong.
However, I see no reason why the water in the earth should have evaporated in even 2 000 years. Where do you get this information from? What was the link again? Would it be like huge steam geysers where millions of liters of water came rushing out of the ground? Is there evidence for this? And isn't there quite a lot of water in the ground still?

Sorry for not replying again to this topic, my schedule has been kinda limited lately. :(


Anyways, I'd like to bring something up here - namely another point where the Creationist view doesn't match with what can be see in reality. I reckon that the Deluge story refers to an underground source for the water (i remember something along the lines of "fountains of the great deep"), and Creationists often imply that there should be some subterranean ocean existing. They however do not deal with the informations we have about the interior of Earth, which strongly speak against the existence of any subterranean ocean.

First of all, how do we know about Earth's interior? Well, first of all we have seismic data. Lot's of it (since quite a number of Earthquakes happen per year).
There are two kinds of waves that move through a material: P-waves (Pressure) and S-waves (Shear). While the first ones can move through both liquid and solid, the latter ones can only move through solid. By that we are aware of the existence of the liquid outer core which is however most likely composed of liquid iron and nickel (it must be something with relative high density to account for Earth's mass since the mantle and crust consist of comparably lighter materials).
Another evidence we have is so-called xenoliths. These are debris of rocks from great depths that are dragged along with by magma as it rises up.
Mineralogists can do high-pressure experiments and verify under what conditions these minerals form, and by this we can see from what depth they came, and this gives us further information about the interior.

So... there we go once again.

Flatearth

Broomhilda, or whatever your name is, you've got to come to grips with the fact that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If The Bible is inerrant, it's inerrant. If it's not, it's not. Unless you can come up with some other way to break the book down (Perhaps the Yahweist is inerrant, but the Deuteronomist is not?) that is how things have to be (of course, the Yahweist wrote both stories that you are spinning about).

Bruarong. It's an Australian aboriginal name. No one alive seems to know what it means. It's also the name of the community where I grew up. Also the site of some great evils against the original Australians. But that is another story.

Inerrency is not something that can be proven at this stage. My life experience is consistent with it being inerrent. But I can not prove this to you. At any rate, nobody has been able to prove to me that there are errors in it that make the account unreliable. Such errors that have been found are minor, and do not change the original message. Perhaps you would like to show me an example of some error that is clearly an original message changing error. I'm not a Bible scholar, but perhaps I could have a go at it.

I'd like to quickly bring up, because it is SO fucking interesting, the reasoning for the flood. God flooded the earth, not because of the sins of man, but because angels were having sex with human women and those women were giving birth to giants who God didn't like (I suppose this is why the flood had to be so high). God said he would destroy all these abominations to which the angels replied by sending the wisest human, Enoch, up to debate with God. After a week or two, God decided that he won the debate, but that Enoch was still pretty darn smart (having stood face-to-face with God, and all) so a compromise was reached: God would flood the earth, save Noah, send all the offending angels downward (the fall) and turn Enoch into The Metatron (voice of God, God's messenger).

Not that interesting to me.

That Christians have abandoned this part of the story is sad, because it is world's more dramatically interesting than what we are left with. Sure, it's less believable, and I understand why they want to distance themselves from it. But Noah's story, as GMC and many others have demonstrated, is severely unbelievable from the get-go, so why blue-ball those that enjoy a good story?[/

GMC has shown me why he thinks the account is severely unbelievable. Mostly it has to do with his bias, since he can't allow for the possibility of miracles, something that the account depends on. Thus anyone with the same bias will agree with him, no doubt, and it is no wonder that you appreciate his posts. If, one the other hand, one could accept that miracles were possible, and one is humble enough to allow that he doesn't know all the facts, or even what is likely or unlikely, then the story becomes believable.

Wisjersey

Sorry for not replying again to this topic, my schedule has been kinda limited lately. :(

Don't worry, I'm not assuming that you are running away. I also have times when I don't have time.

Anyways, I'd like to bring something up here - namely another point where the Creationist view doesn't match with what can be see in reality. I reckon that the Deluge story refers to an underground source for the water (i remember something along the lines of "fountains of the great deep"), and Creationists often imply that there should be some subterranean ocean existing. They however do not deal with the informations we have about the interior of Earth, which strongly speak against the existence of any subterranean ocean.

Not even underground seas? I thought differently. What was your source of information?


First of all, how do we know about Earth's interior? Well, first of all we have seismic data. Lot's of it (since quite a number of Earthquakes happen per year).
There are two kinds of waves that move through a material: P-waves (Pressure) and S-waves (Shear). While the first ones can move through both liquid and solid, the latter ones can only move through solid. By that we are aware of the existence of the liquid outer core which is however most likely composed of liquid iron and nickel (it must be something with relative high density to account for Earth's mass since the mantle and crust consist of comparably lighter materials).

hmmm, not VERY convincing, but perhaps you have a point. I have to see the original explanation, perhaps. It is unlikely that we shall find a continuous ocean in the crust, perhaps, although we do have a lot of water in the crust (I don't know if anybody questions this.)

Another evidence we have is so-called xenoliths. These are debris of rocks from great depths that are dragged along with by magma as it rises up.
Mineralogists can do high-pressure experiments and verify under what conditions these minerals form, and by this we can see from what depth they came, and this gives us further information about the interior.

OK, but does that mean we can rule out underground seas? Would you be likely to find an underground sea underneath the magna upheavals?

Not even underground seas? I thought differently. What was your source of information?

If you are talking about underground lakes and rivers (like you can find them in limestone karsts), yes it exists but it's quite little.


hmmm, not VERY convincing, but perhaps you have a point. I have to see the original explanation, perhaps. It is unlikely that we shall find a continuous ocean in the crust, perhaps, although we do have a lot of water in the crust (I don't know if anybody questions this.)

Yes, there is some content of water in the crust, i don't know how big it is, though. I remember that water is a minor content of the magma. However, at greater depths it is almost entirely replaced by carbon dioxide (which is, as you may perhaps know, a liquid under greater pressures). I'd have to look it up, though. Regarding sources, these two come into my mind right now:
C.M.R. Fowler - The Solid Earth - An introduction into global geophysics
Press, Siever - Understanding Earth

At least it should be in there, otherwise I have to look a bit further.

OK, but does that mean we can rule out underground seas? Would you be likely to find an underground sea underneath the magna upheavals?

I don't think so. Earth does have differentiated layers because of a difference in density. Mantle materials have a much higher density than water.

Chaos Experiment

For now I will drop this portion of the argument as we are entering an area I am not well educated in. I will continue to do research and perhaps reraise this debate once I have found sufficient data on these experiments.

Fair enough.

Than what is your core mechanism from which you derive all these predictions? You cannot claim to have a theory or a model without an observable mechanism that can be used to make useful predictions. It isn't science.

The core mechanism is that things started out good. Then things got bad, due to the schism. The result was an increase in disorder. 2nd law of thermodynamics. Intelligence (e.g. genes) resist disorder using natural selection. Natural selection helps preseve genes. Most mutations are harmful and are thus removed. The struggle can be obseved today. Creationists predicts that antibiotic resistance, parasitic behaviour, immunity are all aspects of natural selection at work, and is evidence of the inbuilt mechanisms in organisms that "fight" against the tendency to disorder. Have I satisfied your question yet?

Again, I read it very often. My non-belief in it wasn't any kind of rejection, the belief just never clicked. It wasn't any conscious decision, I just never did. Plus, you don't have to actually have supported the other side to get a fundemental enough understanding of it to reject it. I met with evolution long after I stopped reading the Bible, yet I still hadn't ever really accepted creationism.

It's true that you don't have to believe the other side to get a GENERAL idea of what it is. But I maintain that unless you specifically gave your life over to God as something that really belongs to Him anyway (as the creator) and chose to allow him to show you how real he is, then you have never really been on the "other side", but looked at it from the outside. This would mean that you cannot fairly compare the two sides.

Please stop calling creationism a theory. It is not, never will be, and can not be a scientific theory.

I accept your criticism. Actually, I try to call creationism an explanation, just as an attempt to be "correct". But then I have to say that abiogenesis is also "just" an explanation, and not scientific theory, since life from non-life cannot be repeated. The same can be said of evolution of slime to man. We see some things than can be interpreted as evidence (by the hopefuls) but this is still not (strictly speaking) part of science theory.


And asking one's self "Are miracles possible?" as justification of creationism is quite akin to asking one's self "Does she really exist?" in pertenance to the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn. It cannot be used as convincing evidence in any way because it depends on the perception of a singular human. Science is a collaboration of millions of humans (indeed, it is the great uniter).

Not a justification of creationism. Of course it cannot be used as convincing evidence. Nowhere have I even suggested this. An inability to pose such a question means the bias is unchecked. It is an attempt to prevent one's bias from misleading oneself. You completely took my point out of context. If you are so able to take things I have said out of context, does this not suggest to you that your bias is making you make such mistakes?



How is it based in the Bible? What core mechanism does the Bible present that allows you to hypothesize it and derive predictions from it? If you want creationism to be a scientific theory, you must observe it under scientific rigour.

Quite right! A job for the archeologists, not the biologists. However, as evolution explanations include abiogenesis (just read it in many science text books) so creationism includes the creation account. Thus, when the Bible says that God created humans as humans, we can predict that humans will never evolve into something else, or that monkeys will never evolve into humans. I'm not sure why you are not seeing my point here. So far, this experiment remains beyond the ability of science. Perhaps a better example is that we can predict that humans will not produce any more new genes. That, as far as I know, is holding true so far.


You do me a disservice. I would honestly simply like to see your credentials to see whether or not I can honestly take your word for it. Even just something you've submitted to a journal on the subject of gene loss would be sufficient.

I'm only a baby scientist. I have two publications, and three more in the pipeline. If you are so curious about my credetials, I may consider emailing you directly, rather then posting it. But what could I give you that you would believe?

If you accept natural selection, why do you reject evolution? It is the core mechanism upon which the rest of the theory is built.

Natural selection is something we observe, and can repeat (I do the experiments almost daily). Evolution from slime to man is something that cannot be repeated. There is an assumption that natural selection accounts for such evolution, but it has not been proven, and based on the creationist predictions, will never be proven. Natural selection is the basis of many creationist predictions, and is not owned by the evolutionists, though it was Dawin who was the publicist for it.

Actually, there need not be a single mutation between the generations that lived entirely in the trees and the one that started going down to pick up the bananas they'd dropped. The thing here is that, when they stopped going up into the trees entirely, they found themselves in a new niche, one that had different environmental pressures. They were cut off from the initial tree living population and thus isolated, which would allow for the evolution of a new species. Thus, humans. Suddenly the slightly more upright ones had an advantage on the savannahs of middle Africa. The ones who could stretch slightly more towards an upright position than the others had an advantage.

Your explanation of "slightly more upright" is unlikely to be due to a single mutation, and hardly likely to split populations apart. Though I can't prove it impossible. You have to admit that, based on observations of todays populations and animal behaviour, it doesn't appear very likely. Using words like "suddenly" sounds a bit strange in the context of evolution. A son who can reach further than his mother is hardly likely to therefore leave his mother. I don't like your explanation at all.

Also, now they were exposed to huge varieties of meat and, since we were a social species at that point, behavioral evolution also comes into play. Those family lines that taught their children to eat meat were able to grow larger brains. This produced more and more intelligent individuals who were able to survive better and produce offspring who they could teach likewise. Those with a genetic predisposition towards larger brain pans would have an advantage.

Yes, this part I understand, although I think that some of the monkeys will eat meat too. And all the carnivores like dogs and cats should also have grown bigger heads, and be just as intelligent as us, base on the explanation you have given. Or have I missed something?

You see, evolution works on so many levels, genetic and behavioral, but always on one object: isolated breeding populations in a specific niche.

Aha, your explanations will always sound better when you include the idea of isolated populations. This is a favourite with the evolutionists. We have indeed observed quite strange and unpredicted "things" arising out of such situations.
No one doubts that the evolutionists have accumulated a great deal of explanations that have been custom made to fit the data. The moment they are wrong with a prediction, they modify their explanation. That means that so long as there is someone available to modify the explanation, evolutionism will always have an explanation available. Perhaps this gives the impression that it is always right, but only to those who have not looked at it a bit.

Wisjersey

Quote:
OK, but does that mean we can rule out underground seas? Would you be likely to find an underground sea underneath the magna upheavals?


I don't think so. Earth does have differentiated layers because of a difference in density. Mantle materials have a much higher density than water.

Actually, that was my point. There is no point to studying the rocks that come from the magna upheavels because they were unlikely have have been anywhere near an underground sea.

You haven't found any major errors?

Alright, let's have at it:

First off, if you track the timelines in The Bible (which is fairly easy, due to that long list of progeny in Genesis) you'll see that, according to The Bible, the universe was created in 4004 B.C.

Now, even if you can somehow get over carbon dating, and cosmology and dinosaurs and every bit of scientific evidence that this is an absolutely absurd idea, there's still something that gets in the way: There were HUMAN civilizations well before this date.

Second off, the creation story states that God parted the seas to create the oceans on the land and the great sea that is the sky. I've been on airplanes and seen people in space and, near as I can tell, the sky is not an ocean.

Third, what sort of miracle is it that allows Noah to note only gather a pair of EVERY animal on earth (there are, of course, hundreds of millions) onto a boat 480 feet in length, from every climate and location in the world, allows them to live for forty days despite the fact that they would never fit, let alone have enough food, let alone be able to all survive in one climate?

No evidence of a flood has ever been found. The stories of the Old Testament (particularly Genesis) are by and large reproductions of Babylonian myths. The version of Christianity you see before you today bares almost no resemblence to the original practice, let alone the Jewish faith of Moses (who, by the by, believed in many Gods, but only worshipped one).

The Jews were never slaves in Egypt, they were contractors. The body of the son of The Pharoah was found and he died from a fall, not the angel of death. Men have as many ribs as women. There is no garden of Eden. Snakes don't talk.

If the universe is too complicated to have come about on its own, then it stands to reason that the creator of said universe, being as complicated if not more so, couldn't have either.

You can't live in the body of a whale. The Bible has been altered continuously and in significant ways since first it was written. Jericho didn't crumble.

And evolution is the single most authenticated and evidenced scientific theory ever to have come about.

Actually, that was my point. There is no point to studying the rocks that come from the magna upheavels because they were unlikely have have been anywhere near an underground sea.

Well, where else would you search? Below the oceanic crust? Below the 'basement' of the continents? It doesn't matter on the question, really. Once you get beyond Earth's crust, things become relatively homogenous (the most heterogenous parts are actually the continents).

Edit:

Bruarong, you may actually want to take a look at this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9080221&postcount=29) which i posted in another thread. I don't know, perhaps you could also say something on turtle DNA...

Flatearth
First off, if you track the timelines in The Bible (which is fairly easy, due to that long list of progeny in Genesis) you'll see that, according to The Bible, the universe was created in 4004 B.C.

Now, even if you can somehow get over carbon dating, and cosmology and dinosaurs and every bit of scientific evidence that this is an absolutely absurd idea, there's still something that gets in the way: There were HUMAN civilizations well before this date.

Such dating depends on a carbon dating method that assumes long ages. Hardly a good basis for disproving the Bible.

Second off, the creation story states that God parted the seas to create the oceans on the land and the great sea that is the sky. I've been on airplanes and seen people in space and, near as I can tell, the sky is not an ocean.

The Bible says thats how God made it, not necessarily how we should find it today. I don't know any creationist who says it should be there now.


Third, what sort of miracle is it that allows Noah to note only gather a pair of EVERY animal on earth (there are, of course, hundreds of millions) onto a boat 480 feet in length, from every climate and location in the world, allows them to live for forty days despite the fact that they would never fit, let alone have enough food, let alone be able to all survive in one climate?

Lets say he was not working with millions, but that the number he had were much less. And they were wildtypes. In other words, they adapted to their environments after the flood to produce the millions of species we see today, eg the ancestor of the wolf and the dog were most likely one and the same. No one knows what the climate was like before the flood but it is likely that it didn't have the extreme cold and hot that we see today.

No evidence of a flood has ever been found. The stories of the Old Testament (particularly Genesis) are by and large reproductions of Babylonian myths. The version of Christianity you see before you today bares almost no resemblence to the original practice, let alone the Jewish faith of Moses (who, by the by, believed in many Gods, but only worshipped one).

Plenty of evidence if you look for it. Massive lake formations in the middle of Australia (no water there now) that was left over from the flood. Fossils of sea creatures on top of mountains. Layers of sediment all over the world that had to be laid down by water. Coal and fossil fuels everywhere. Evidence of rapid burial by heaps of dirt, to avoid the decay. The vast sources of oil and coal today suggest that there must have been a great deal of buried vegetation. Massive extinction of a huge number of animals (ones that didn't get on the ark or couldn't survive the post flood conditions). Huge erosion sites that can only be explained by a vast amount of water i.e. grand canyon.
This is not proof I'm presenting, but evidence that easily fits with a great flood.

The Jews were never slaves in Egypt, they were contractors. The body of the son of The Pharoah was found and he died from a fall, not the angel of death. Men have as many ribs as women. There is no garden of Eden. Snakes don't talk.

The Hebrews were slaves, according the what I have read about Egyptian archeological findings. There was a stone that apparently recorded one of the Pharoes using Hebrew slaves to build his pyramid.
I've no idea how they found a body that old, or if they could prove that he died from a fall, and that it was the son referred to in the Bible. Have you been reading too much scifi?
Of course men have as many ribs as women. The Bible never states that Adam's son also had one rib short. God took his rib, not the genes that code for the rib.
How do you expect the Garden of Eden to survive the Great Flood?
The part about the snake was where Satan manipulated the snakes body. It is only possible if miracles are possible. Rather a devisive issue.

If the universe is too complicated to have come about on its own, then it stands to reason that the creator of said universe, being as complicated if not more so, couldn't have either.

Not, that is not the true reason for believing in the creator. The best reason is because the creator is your best friend. The Bible tells us how this is possible.

You can't live in the body of a whale. The Bible has been altered continuously and in significant ways since first it was written. Jericho didn't crumble.

You can if God allows it. The message of the Bible has not been altered. We are able to compare modern versions with things like the dead sea scrolls, and the Christian copy of the OT with the Jewish copy, and determine just how much has been changed. Apparently nothing of any consequence or detriment to the Christian faith.

And evolution is the single most authenticated and evidenced scientific theory ever to have come about.

Ah, another point of debate.

If you were trying to present a good case why someone should not believe the Bible, I suggest you have another go.

Well, where else would you search? Below the oceanic crust? Below the 'basement' of the continents? It doesn't matter on the question, really. Once you get beyond Earth's crust, things become relatively homogenous (the most heterogenous parts are actually the continents).


Homogenous??? That means it's all fluid???

Homogenous??? That means it's all fluid???

Nope. That's not what i mean. What i mean is that by the composition of minerals, it's relatively homogenous. Think of minerals like olivin...

Unfortunatley, Creationism is very much alive.
In the area known as the Bible Belt, the outdated practicings of vitalism are accepted and taught. Thankfully, much of our nation has at least considered Darwinism and his desciples. It seems we have progressed since the Scopes trial, but the area that presecuted Scopes has not.

Such dating depends on a carbon dating method that assumes long ages. Hardly a good basis for disproving the Bible.


You just reminded me I haven't been dealing with radiometric dating in this discussion. It's a fairly complex topic as well, but, let me point out some major basics first:

The dating via carbon-14 is used only on bones and other organic material which is younger than about 50,000 years old. Note that it's a very bad (but sadly frequent) Creationist argument to claim that some recent bones have been dated to a few hundred thousand years. No carbon dating would produce that.

There's a number of other methods (uranium-lead, thorium-lead, potassium-argon, samarium-neodymium and rubidium-strontium) which are used for dating magmatic rocks. It's a very complex topic - and each of the methods have their limits, but generally they work reasonably well - and on top of that they fit into the context of the results all the other methods produce.

"-Such dating depends on a carbon dating method that assumes long ages. Hardly a good basis for disproving the Bible."

Our knowledge of history and its timelines do not rely only upon carbon dating. Besides which, carbon dating, along with , uranium-thorium-lead dating and potassium-argon dating are all very established sciences. So is the counting of tree rings, the placement of sedimentary levels, the fossil record (which is particularly useful because we can tell by what creatures evolved when) and, of course, RECORDS OF HUMAN CIVILIZATIONS. These civilizations existed tangibly for thousands of years, through convergences, and can be tracked far before 4004 BC.

"-The Bible says thats how God made it, not necessarily how we should find it today. I don't know any creationist who says it should be there now."

Oh, I see. The Bible is literally true as long as you don't read it literally. Gotcha.

"-Lets say he was not working with millions, but that the number he had were much less. And they were wildtypes. In other words, they adapted to their environments after the flood to produce the millions of species we see today, eg the ancestor of the wolf and the dog were most likely one and the same. No one knows what the climate was like before the flood but it is likely that it didn't have the extreme cold and hot that we see today."

First off, people have a very good idea what the climate was like in most places millions of years ago, let alone a few paltry thousand when it was almost identical to today. If you ignore everything that science has ever collected your theory might work, as long as common sense wasn't brought into things. Also, are you allowing for evolution AFTER the flood? What sort of ridiculous hypocracy is this? Wolves and dogs didn't evolve from a different "wildtype", dogs were breed from wolves. And man has been doing so since way before 4004 BC.


"-Plenty of evidence if you look for it. Massive lake formations in the middle of Australia (no water there now) that was left over from the flood. Fossils of sea creatures on top of mountains. Layers of sediment all over the world that had to be laid down by water. Coal and fossil fuels everywhere. Evidence of rapid burial by heaps of dirt, to avoid the decay. The vast sources of oil and coal today suggest that there must have been a great deal of buried vegetation. Massive extinction of a huge number of animals (ones that didn't get on the ark or couldn't survive the post flood conditions). Huge erosion sites that can only be explained by a vast amount of water i.e. grand canyon.
This is not proof I'm presenting, but evidence that easily fits with a great flood."

Those massive lake formations date further back than the time of the flood and are almost certainly glacial in origin. A forty day flood would not create dry lake beds with hundreds of years of life embedded within them. The grand canyon is far older than the supposed flood and was etched away over millions of years by rivers and tributaries. And oil does not form in four thousand years, it forms over hundreds of thousands of years. Your ignorance to geology and geography is unbelievable. People hypothesized that layers of sediment would have been layed down by the flood, but no such layer has been found. Don't believe me? Here's the breakdown of world-wide geological levels:

Cenozoic:
Neogene
Holocene
Pleistocene
Pliocene
Miocene
Palaeogene
Oligocene
Eocene
Palaeocene

I could go on, but that would get into the mesozoic period, which dates to around thirty-five million years ago, far predating the flood and, by your beliefs, the creation of the world.


"-The Hebrews were slaves, according the what I have read about Egyptian archeological findings. There was a stone that apparently recorded one of the Pharoes using Hebrew slaves to build his pyramid.
I've no idea how they found a body that old, or if they could prove that he died from a fall, and that it was the son referred to in the Bible. Have you been reading too much scifi?"

What you have read about Egyptian archeological findings is wrong. Almost all archeologists I know (I live with one, by the way) say that The Hebrews were a nomadic trade peoples and that evidence of their camps has been found with no signs of coercion. Further more, they definitely didn't build the pyramids because the pyramids were built at an entirely different time than when they were there, as slaves or contractors.

They find bodies that old all the time, and much older. In case you hadn't been paying attention to Egyptian burial rites. They determined that he died from a fall through the use of forensic science on the giant crack in his skull. It's your book that has magical talking snakes tempting people with apples and frogs raining from the skies, I wouldn't accuse me of reading sci-fi.

"-Of course men have as many ribs as women. The Bible never states that Adam's son also had one rib short. God took his rib, not the genes that code for the rib."

That was a joke.

"How do you expect the Garden of Eden to survive the Great Flood?"
Didn't most other things? According to my archeological evidence many civilizations lived right through that non-existent flood.

"-The part about the snake was where Satan manipulated the snakes body. It is only possible if miracles are possible. Rather a devisive issue."

Actually, the snake was not manipulated by Satan, as at the time Satan wouldn't have fallen. Satan did not fall until around the time of the great flood. Because this is what the great flood was about. The snake was a demon, because at the time of the writing of the creation myth demons were widely believed in. I could get into the original first woman, who predated Eve, Lillith, but I'm sure you'd just turn your nose up. After all, you don't care much for the history or knowledge of your religion either.


"Not, that is not the true reason for believing in the creator. The best reason is because the creator is your best friend. The Bible tells us how this is possible."

Fine.


"You can if God allows it."

That's what this comes down to, doesn't it? You say that Military and I and whoever else are failing to look at your side of the story, failing to keep an open mind. But you will ignore and deny every logical and scientific fact in order to fit your book. You've accused others of bias against The Bible, but you are biased against anything that is not. And it is that ignorance that leads to the "The Bible says so so that's that" defense, even when you really don't even understand The Bible.


" The message of the Bible has not been altered. We are able to compare modern versions with things like the dead sea scrolls, and the Christian copy of the OT with the Jewish copy, and determine just how much has been changed. Apparently nothing of any consequence or detriment to the Christian faith."

This is absolutely untrue. For a short list of major changes, see the following:

Thirty-three books of the Old Testament were eliminated in one foul swoop. They are now known as The Apocrypha, a word that has come to mean "forbidden" where at the time these books were thought of as the most Holy.

Between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles there is much difference. The Catholic Bible includes a number of books which were eliminated in the Protestant, such as The Book of Wisdom.

It is well documented that early Christian scholars changed and added things to the story of Jesus in order to make him match the OT prophecies. This was not done out of dishonesty, but rather an assumption that these things must have happened because of a stalwart belief that he was The Messiah. Even still, they have no backing before several centuries into the AD period.

Certain figures and details have been altered through mistranslation or lump translations. For instance, "Hell" as we see it in the modern Bible is a combination of a number of words, none of which is what we now think of as Hell. Shoel is one, the Hebrew idea of afterlife that is the destination of all dead, not specifically good or evil, another is a junkyard outside of Jerusalem which, like modern Junkyards, burnt methane and sulphur gas to avoid explosions: this is where we get the idea of fire and brimstone. The Devil is another great example. Lucifer was a top angel who's job was to test man, he never fell but has been incorporated into the idea of the fallen Satan, who has also been combined with a demon who lived in the wilderness outside of Eden who Lillith, Adam's first wife, went to after she was cast out.

Lillith is a HUGE glaring hole in The Modern Bible, and has led to so much confusion it is hard to see how creationists make do. After all, in Genesis there appear to be two creation stories, one where man and woman are made at the same time and one where Eve is created from Adam's rib. THe reasons for the disparancy is the exclusion of the story of Lillith.

The original Church that followed Jesus Christ was led by Jesus' brother, James The Just and, some say, Simon Magus. The church held radically different ideas from those of modern Christianity and was destroyed by Paul.


And evolution is the single most authenticated and evidenced scientific theory ever to have come about.

"Ah, another point of debate."

Not really. Every field of earthly science, from paleontology, archeology, zoology, taxonomy, geology, geography, genetics, biology and et cetera and et cetera and et cetera all reached the conclusion of evolution seperately. Everything lines up throughout all these sciences perfectly. If you choose to ignore this, it is only through your own tunnel vision. And that tunnel vision must be very staunched, because more millions of facts have been collected proving evolution than gravity itself (literally).



"If you were trying to present a good case why someone should not believe the Bible, I suggest you have another go."

I've made a very good case, as long as the person isn't a hands-over-the-ears type who has drunk the kool-aid and won't listen to any sort of logic and reason. That, my friend, is the only flaw with my case: the person it is made to.

Originally Posted by Buarong
Plenty of evidence if you look for it. Massive lake formations in the middle of Australia (no water there now) that was left over from the flood. Ahahahaha! No, I'm sorry, but I mean come on! Do you know anything about geology?! I'll give you a hint about those lake formations, Australia is one of the oldest continents on the planet.

Plenty of evidence if you look for it. Massive lake formations in the middle of Australia (no water there now) that was left over from the flood. Fossils of sea creatures on top of mountains. Layers of sediment all over the world that had to be laid down by water. Coal and fossil fuels everywhere. Evidence of rapid burial by heaps of dirt, to avoid the decay. The vast sources of oil and coal today suggest that there must have been a great deal of buried vegetation. Massive extinction of a huge number of animals (ones that didn't get on the ark or couldn't survive the post flood conditions). Huge erosion sites that can only be explained by a vast amount of water i.e. grand canyon.
This is not proof I'm presenting, but evidence that easily fits with a great flood.

Evidence for the flood? At first sight, yes, it may give the impression of a global flood, however if you look at it in detail, the evidence is overwhelming that the sediments were deposited slowly over millions of years. Let me elaborate:

First of all there's a multiplicity of strata all over the world that certainly formed without the presence of water - think about clastic and aeolian sediments, which formed by gravity and by wind, without influence of water. And if you look at the sediments that formed under the influence of water, you'll recognize that there's a big difference between fluviatil, limnic, shallow marine and deep marine sediments. I think that i mentioned a few posts ago marine plankton, which doesn't occur in terrestrial sediments. Similarly, there's a multiplicity of other animal groups (take echinoderms or trilobites for example) that only occur in the sea and never in freshwater.
In a Deluge scenario, I'd expect that everything should be mixed.
Also, I mentioned that in a deluge scenario, most aquatic life should have died because of the change in salinity. Oh, and talking about salt, there also exist evaporites. I have heard Creationists claiming that these sediments were formed after the flood, but again, looking at it in detail this is implausible. A great example would be the Miocene salt deposits in the Mediterranean sea. How would you have salt deposits on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea in a Deluge scenario? This would imply that the Mediterranean dried out (the truth is, it indeed dried out, but that was 6 million years ago). Another striking example of evaporites are the Jurassic salt sediments in Texas, which occur nowhere at the surface but are well-known in their existence from the multiple boreholes. The amazing thing there is that there are Cretaceous oil deposits above the evaporites. If you assume as a Creationist that the salts are formed in the aftermath of the deluge and that oil formed during the deluge, this is clearly inconsistent. Therefore, yet another argument against deluge.
Regarding coal, if you take a look at it, there are strata of coal and sandstones that are interchanging with each other. A great deal of vegetation was buried, yes, but this happened over a very long amount of time.
Regarding the sediments from central Australia, I have to admit my knowledge of geology of Australia is limited, but are you refering to the Eromanga Sea from the Early Cretaceous? I can assure you it formed over millions of years, because how else would you be able to get in-situ grown reefs (reefs are one of those things I wished Creationists would pay attention to).
Regarding Grand Canyon, certainly water was involved there, but this was the water of the Colorado river as it cut into the rock below. You can see how it cut through Paleozoic sediments.

Finally, I'd like to mention something on fossils found on mountain tops (I reckon this is a classical Creationist argument - although it is not a very good one). If you look at it, you can see that these sediments have been folded up, sometimes even overthrusted. This can only happen because the mountains were folded. Take a look at the Himalaya (where India collided into Asia), take a look at the Alps (where Africa collided into Europe - and actually still is in the process of colliding). You may also want to take a look at the actual sediments in the mountains, they are perfectly in the gological/chronological context.

Oh, and to get back to the sediments, it is worthy to notify that there's obviously a connection between what is eroded away and what is deposited in the sediments. The material is basically the same (although the high-pressure minerals that are not stable under surface conditions decay into others). By analyzing the material of sediments you can see where the original material came from and you can see that gigantic mountain ranges existed at some parts where today only gently sloped hills exist. And not suprisingly - the material of these mountains can easily have been sea floor before.

A few months ago, I myself found a well-rounded boulder with marine fossils (brachiopods and crinoids) in it. The boulder did come from Triassic conglomerate (river sediments), while the material of the boulder was sedimented much earlier (Devonian).

Think about this:
- Sedimentation during Devonian
- Formation of mountains in Carboniferous (Variscian Orogeny)
- Deposition of river sediments in Triassic

I think it's kinda obvious that this cannot have formed during a Deluge - evidence doesn't fit easily. I have the overwhelming impression it doesn't fit at all.

As you noted in post #358 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9059767&postcount=358), Creationists keep old arguments because they feel these are still good ones. I get the impression in many cases, they don't bother to check if they are veritable or not - hence they cannot know if these are good ones or not. I wonder however in many cases if this is done intentionally (something that is very counter-productive to Creationism IMHO) or - like in your case simply because of the lack of insight into the specific topic.

Edit: I totally forgot to mention the Ice ages, or evidence for previous glaciation long before that...

Those massive lake formations date further back than the time of the flood and are almost certainly glacial in origin. A forty day flood would not create dry lake beds with hundreds of years of life embedded within them. The grand canyon is far older than the supposed flood and was etched away over millions of years by rivers and tributaries. And oil does not form in four thousand years, it forms over hundreds of thousands of years. Your ignorance to geology and geography is unbelievable. People hypothesized that layers of sediment would have been layed down by the flood, but no such layer has been found. Don't believe me? Here's the breakdown of world-wide geological levels:

Cenozoic:
Neogene
Holocene
Pleistocene
Pliocene
Miocene
Palaeogene
Oligocene
Eocene
Palaeocene

I could go on, but that would get into the mesozoic period, which dates to around thirty-five million years ago, far predating the flood and, by your beliefs, the creation of the world.

Actually, you're having an error there: the end of the Mesozoic was not thirty-five million years ago (that would be late Eocene), it was approximately sixty-five million years ago. Regarding the lake sediments, they are unlikely to be of glacial origin. Australia was clearly free of ice during the last ice age. And as I elaborated earlier, the sediments Bruarong is refering to are probably the marine sediments of the Eromanga Sea - an inland ocean that existed in Australia during the Early Cretaceous.

For I have understood that in order to get the animals in the ark, one must have something of a miracle, no?

Yes, this is part of the reason the myth is impossible. Miracles are by definition impossible, or they wouldn't be miracles.

OK the Bible does not say that God did it (although that depends on what translation I am reading)

Don't try that angle, no translation credits God with gathering the animals on Noah's behalf but then generating huge-ass waves to make his life as difficult as possible.

There is plenty of imagination on your side of the debate too.

Yay, more comparing inventing miracles to cover the gaps in an old story to creating theories to explain experimental data gathered under controlled conditions. Do you really think this helps you out?

So far, you are depending on incredility, or on taking the Bible out of context or by assuming that God was only involved in exaclty the parts where the writer wrote them in. (I still don't know why you have assumed this.)

Because if you want to be a YEC you require certain parts of the Bible, specifically the word 'day,' to be totally accurate. How can this be, if the Bible is so badly incomplete that the Ark myth makes no sense without a pet YEC to sit on my shoulder and tell me where the miracles should go?

I consider the evidence to be there, but that it is interpreted differently. The great amounts of coal, fossil fuels, etc. scattered right around the world fits in with a great flood that buried great amounts of vegetation and animal bodies.

And these were compressed so fast we should be able to form coal artificially in bulk? Please.

Evolutionists interpret this differenty, but having an alternative explanation is not disproving the first one.

It is when the first explanation makes absolutely no sense. Familiar with Occam's Razor?

That's what my understanding of the Bible is. I wonder what your definition of a Christian is. If you really knew Jesus, why would you turn away from the only one who really loved you perfectly? Answer (from a Christian point of view): you either didn't know him, or you are one hell of a mystery.

Ah, everyone's favourite No True Scotsman Fallacy (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm).

That sort of logic (1+1) is hardly relevant in this debate, since we are dealing with unknows and things that can't be proven. Creation and evolution are not mathematics.

Fallacy of an extended analogy. The point was that the statement was true regardless of the reason for it's presentation. What the true statement in the analogy happens to be is irrelevant.

We are discussing two different ways to interpret the evidence. Even if your argument were perfectly logical, it would not mean it was true.

Correct. However, since your argument has no evidence, contradicts the Bible and depends on you pulling miracles out of thin air, I have more than just logic on my side.

Aha, then I missed it, for I thought you had only emphasised the rain. My apologies here.

But your apologies will soon be replaced with RAR!

In this case, there is no experimental evidence for or against the presence of waves in the flood.

No, there is no evidence at all. You made it up.

You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove me right. It was a product of my imagination. However, I see no reason why it shouldn't stand, for it seems possible to me.

Then why don't you believe in evolution, which is ten thousand times more plausible than physics-defying miracle-waves not mentioned by any religious scholar but you?

[Regarding the claim that I had said there was 'only rain' involved] Yes, yours. You're so biased you're now apparently resorting to lying about my previous posts in the hope I don't remember what I said.

Oh, I'm lying now, am I? Do you have proof of this, or is this another of your assumptions that are based on your hostility to God and the Bible and anything associated with them?

Ah, here's that RAR! It's evidence that you distorted my quote to make your point, and were either lying or misreading. Chopping the quote into two posts in the hope that people won't see there first half where you accused my of saying something I never said won't fool anyone, least of all me.

When I know more about the details, I will be in a position to discuss them further. I'm not interested in going into the absurd. Would you mind suggesting a link where I could read up on this?

Find yourself a textbook on plate tectonics at your local library and read it? I draw the line at doing your research for you.

So you are suggesting that because the Biblical account leaves out some details, it is a badly written account? Do you think it was written by scientists for scientists? Or even for sceptics?

If it is not written for skeptics the only possible conclusion is God wants to send people to hell and made the book as unconvincing as possible so he could send more. Does that sound like a loving God?

I see nothing embarassing in it. Which bit do you see? As for the assumption that a badly written account equals something that should not be believed in.....that's a bit over the top.

Badly written 'primary source' + no evidence + no possibility of corroboration = No belief.

You only have to be willing to accept it to see that most of the problems you have with it will disappear. That does say something about your bias.

The same would apply to most ridiculous theories. I need only accept Batman into my life to realise the Bat Signal I've been sending up must be very slightly wrong and that's why he isn't coming.

Now you are into deciding what God should and shouldn't do, and what would have been better. Put together with your lack of understanding of the situation (you weren't there) and your disbelief in God, that makes you sound incredibly arrogant and ignorant. Surely this isn't so.

Why? If God supposes to be worthy of our respect, he cannot place himself beyond our ability to question his actions. What you are doing here is using classic circular thinking; presupposing God is perfect and having your arguments flow from there, rather than examining his behaviour to determine if He is perfect.

Neither does a statement like this make you sound good. God can't murder. He is the creator. He can take life or give it as he pleases. He is not governed by laws.

Garbage, morality is morality, whether you are child, man or God. Mass-murder does not suddenly become ok just because you happen to be very powerful.

However, He is entirely good, and can not do something that is against His nature ie evil.

Strange, the Bible says he is perfectly capable of evil.

Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

2 Samuel 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

Jeremiah 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jeremiah 18:11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Want any more?

Thus, if God takes a life or a million lives, he will do it in the best interest of those lives, since He is love, and that is his motivation.

Strange, his sense of 'love' sounds an awful lot like Stalin's.

You may have been taught that the Bible stories don't make a coherent whole, but that is contrary to my understanding. I see great coherancy.

Then present evidence for this great coherency. That ranks just above 'You're wrong!' and 'I'm not listening!' in the system of valid rebuttals.

You don't create pets. You may breed them, and children. But in the case of children, you are only passing on your genes. To create is to make something out of nothing. I doubt that humans are capable of creating anything material.

You said I was free to do as I please with anything I create, and now you say I can't create anything? Firstly, if you think honestly think raising a child is nothing more than a matter of passing on your genes...Well, o_O

Second, the Bible disagrees with you [unsurprisingly]; God is constantly referred to as our father, the heavenly father, the holy father, and so on. He refers to us as his children. It's quite clear that the parent-child analogy is entirely sound, and you cannot murder your children just because you think it's what's best for them.

I never said drowning was nice. But innocent people (e.g., the newborn, or the preborn) are often suffering at the hands of others. People also suffer at the hands of God. This doesn't mean God has done wrong, since love sometimes hurts.

What? Because people suffer unjustly, it's ok for God to murder then entire population of the planet except eight people? How the hell does that follow?

I don't believe that you can not be offended, although perhaps I am not capable of it. Unless you have an iron will, and I've yet to see one, only arrogance (combined with ignorance) would make such a claim. However, I've no wish to offend you.

Odd, you sure throw a lot of insults for someone who isn't trying to offend me.

...You have condemned evolutionary theory (the part that depends on the unlikely being not only possible but also true) as being bad science.

Do not substitute your own ignorance of evolution theory for my arguments.

But if the wave was travelling fast enough, then the land underneath the wave would easily push the water to such a height.

'Easily?' You really think putting words like 'easily' and 'obviously' in front of impossible claims will save you? Give me some energy calculations that show this wave could exist, and demonstrate where this energy could have come from.

I will admit, though, that finding fossils of animals near the tops of mountains does fit in well with a massive flood. Not proof, but I guess it's evidence the easily fits in with a massive flood.

As long as you ignore that plate tectonics explains it better [the mountains were not always that high and grew over many millions of years] without requiring a huge, ridiculous flood. So, slothful induction fallacy for you there.

Hasty conclusions, I see you have. I was under the impression that some evolutionists also invoke the use of waves (e.g. from the asteroid impact that apparently wiped out the dinosaurs).

Talk like Yoda, I see you do. And because they speak of waves they must be talking of waves four miles tall? That's quite an amazing leap in logic.

I'm not the only one to imagine the waves. And something had to move a lot of dirt very quickly to cover all the vegetation before it rotted, in order to make the coal.

Why? Coal is organic matter deposited slowly over many thousands of years and then compacted over tens of thousands or millions of years. Nothing 'needs to move a lot of dirt quickly' to explain coal.

I suppose a man could go through his whole life and miss all the miracles that were there to be seen if only he had the eyes to see them. I'm not surprised that I seem silly to you, for you can't allow what I believe to be true. Your world would shatter if you ever saw a miracle for yourself. Even then I suspect you would no longer believe your eyes, those organs that you have trusted so well.

I always believe my eyes, I just don't dole out miracles to mundane phenomena like you seem to.

I don't claim to be a good debator. I'm still learning the ropes. If there is a lack in my ability, that doesn't make my belief wrong.

If, however, you are unable to provide any indication that your beliefs have any scientific validity, that does not point to them being right.

This experience of yours is hardly what I would call "giving it a go". That's not even getting your toes wet.

So what would you judge as 'giving it a go?' Believing it without question?

And I don"t think it's fair of you to say that they are on my side. Since they don't accept that Jesus is God (the critical issue of Christianity) it could also be argued that they are closer to your position.

Red Herring. They are YECs, the divinity of Jesus has nothing to do with this debate.

You don't have proof. You have explanations.

Explanations which happen to produce predictions which can be tested under fair test conditions and shown to be accurate.

As I have said before, the thing I hold on to is a personal relationship with my Maker. Everything else can go, even the creation explanation. That puts me in a much more objective position than you. For I doubt that you could let go of your explanation. Or can you?

Let's get this straight, you want me, for no reason, to ignore my own research, my education and the fact that your arguments make no sense and...What? Mindlessly follow you?

Right. I assumed that you were using millions of years, and I got it wrong.
However, I see no reason why the water in the earth should have evaporated in even 2 000 years. Where do you get this information from?

Why is it I require information to falsify your ridiculous claims but you require no evidence to make them? That's a burden of proof fallacy. Provide some evidence for your hypothesis that the molten mantle of the Earth would take greater than two thousand years to evaporate a significant quantity of water from an underground ocean.

And isn't there quite a lot of water in the ground still?

Is there? I'm not going to run around looking for evidence to prove your arguments for you. Google exists, use it.

Actually, you're having an error there: the end of the Mesozoic was not thirty-five million years ago (that would be late Eocene), it was approximately sixty-five million years ago. Regarding the lake sediments, they are unlikely to be of glacial origin. Australia was clearly free of ice during the last ice age. And as I elaborated earlier, the sediments Bruarong is refering to are probably the marine sediments of the Eromanga Sea - an inland ocean that existed in Australia during the Early Cretaceous.

Sixty-five million? Wouldn't that have been Cretaceous? Well, I'll take your word for it. Geology is not nearly my strong point. Thanks for the correction.

Oh, I just saw this, the most hilarious creationist argument of all:

Lets say he was not working with millions, but that the number he had were much less. And they were wildtypes. In other words, they adapted to their environments after the flood to produce the millions of species we see today, eg the ancestor of the wolf and the dog were most likely one and the same.

Wait....Evolution is wrong, but the flood myth requires speciation following the animals leaving the Ark, which is macroevolution? So not only is your theory dependant on an event which cannot be shown to exist, after all this dancing around you now want macroevolution to be possible [and possible so rapidly we should be able to see it occur] to make the Ark myth work!

Sixty-five million? Wouldn't that have been Cretaceous? Well, I'll take your word for it. Geology is not nearly my strong point. Thanks for the correction.

No problem there. It's explained easily: the Cretaceous is part of the Mesozoic (it's Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous). At the end of the Cretaceous, you have that mass extinction event where Dinosaurs and a multiplicity of other groups of lifeforms dissappear.

Oh, I just saw this, the most hilarious creationist argument of all:



Wait....Evolution is wrong, but the flood myth requires speciation following the animals leaving the Ark, which is macroevolution? So not only is your theory dependant on an event which cannot be shown to exist, after all this dancing around you now want macroevolution to be possible [and possible so rapidly we should be able to see it occur] to make the Ark myth work!


Funny enough, I've seen this argument for the flood by creationists more than a handful of times. The brilliant hypocracy of it all is almost Euclidean in its geometric and poetic beauty.

Ahahahaha! No, I'm sorry, but I mean come on! Do you know anything about geology?! I'll give you a hint about those lake formations, Australia is one of the oldest continents on the planet.

Proof doesn't come from having explanations.

GMC Military Arms

You wrote such a long post, that I would need some time to reply. I'm keen to have a go, but currently I am really tied up with too many things, and don't have to time. Forum discussion has to take a back seat, temporarily.

Cheers

Proof doesn't come from having explanations.

Logically speaking, that statement can also be reversed to be used against your position.

Please try again.

Oh, I just saw this, the most hilarious creationist argument of all:



Wait....Evolution is wrong, but the flood myth requires speciation following the animals leaving the Ark, which is macroevolution? So not only is your theory dependant on an event which cannot be shown to exist, after all this dancing around you now want macroevolution to be possible [and possible so rapidly we should be able to see it occur] to make the Ark myth work!

My example of there being a common ancestor for the wolf and the domisticated dog is hardly an example of the so called macroevolution. That was a pretty cheap shot.

My example of there being a common ancestor for the wolf and the domisticated dog is hardly an example of the so called macroevolution. That was a pretty cheap shot.

Heh, looks like you're employing the standard creationist tactic of moving the goal-posts around.

How do you define macro-evolution?

My example of there being a common ancestor for the wolf and the domisticated dog is hardly an example of the so called macroevolution. That was a pretty cheap shot.

Interesting. You espouse the view that the wolf and domesticated dog had a common ancestor. So that would mean the great many species of canines we see nowadays all had a similar ancestor.

And yet you deny the possibility that homonid species had a common ancestor before?

Rather selective with your examples are you not?

My example of there being a common ancestor for the wolf and the domisticated dog is hardly an example of the so called macroevolution. That was a pretty cheap shot.

Wrong, any kind of speciation is an example of macroevolution, which is evolution on the level of the formation of new species and above. How on Earth can you debate evolution if you don't even know what it is?

GMC Military Arms

Yes, this is part of the reason the myth is impossible. Miracles are by definition impossible, or they wouldn't be miracles.

Not impossible for God though.



Don't try that angle, no translation credits God with gathering the animals on Noah's behalf but then generating huge-ass waves to make his life as difficult as possible.

You are still using a point that I showed you a while ago doesn't work. You simply can't assume that all the miracles ever done had to be recorded in the Bible. The writers themselves consider that God is in the process of upholding the laws of nature. Thus nothing is possible without God.


Because if you want to be a YEC you require certain parts of the Bible, specifically the word 'day,' to be totally accurate. How can this be, if the Bible is so badly incomplete that the Ark myth makes no sense without a pet YEC to sit on my shoulder and tell me where the miracles should go?

The description in Genesis of the day God used to make the earth is evening and morning. That's difficult to interpret it any other way. And when it comes to the Ark story, my acceptance in the power of God simply means that I have no trouble with not knowing the details in the gaps. You seem to be saying that gaps equals impossibility. I say gaps equals ignorance and therefore imagination is the next best thing, so long as it is sensible.


And these were compressed so fast we should be able to form coal artificially in bulk? Please.

I have read somewhere that we still don't know how long it takes to form coal, depending on the pressure and heat involved.


Ah, everyone's favourite No True Scotsman Fallacy (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm).

Sounds like you want to categorize everything I say. I'm not sure what you pupose is with that. In this case, you are making the claim that you were once a Christian. I am challenging that claim, since I maintain that Christian is some who communes with the living Jesus. If you have never done this, then you have never been a Christian. I think that is the critical point here. You may argue with my definition of a christian, but I can point out some scriptures that show this.

Fallacy of an extended analogy. The point was that the statement was true regardless of the reason for it's presentation. What the true statement in the analogy happens to be is irrelevant.

Well, when you used examples that are not relevant to the argument, I get the feeling that you don't understand your point.

Correct. However, since your argument has no evidence, contradicts the Bible and depends on you pulling miracles out of thin air, I have more than just logic on my side.

Evidence?? You keep challenging me to prove evidence for you. When I do you present your explanations. And then say that I have no evidence, because your explanations are better than mine. (Of course they will always look better to you since you have ruled out the possibility of miracles.) So you have set me the impossible task of proving something to you, and then claiming victory. Even if creation was true (to see it from your point of view) I feel that this tactic of yours would always prevent me from proving it to you. There is a problem here. Are you arguing just to win it. For I'm not interested in who "wins". The truth is more important. If you use such a logic in oder to win, there is no hope of finding the truth.


But your apologies will soon be replaced with RAR!

You can craft your posts to make you look good, and your predictive powers to seem impressive.


Then why don't you believe in evolution, which is ten thousand times more plausible than physics-defying miracle-waves not mentioned by any religious scholar but you?

Wrong. Evolutionists use waves too. So do the creationists.
So you want me to believe in evolution because a wave is less likely than evolution from slime to man or life from non-life? I don't follow your logic.

Ah, here's that RAR! It's evidence that you distorted my quote to make your point, and were either lying or misreading. Chopping the quote into two posts in the hope that people won't see there first half where you accused my of saying something I never said won't fool anyone, least of all me.

Come off it. I'm not that sneaky. This is a discussion between two people, you and me. To accuse me of trying to impress the "others" with lying and trickery seems a bit silly. This is another hint that you are set on "winning" any way you can. Relax a little.


If it is not written for skeptics the only possible conclusion is God wants to send people to hell and made the book as unconvincing as possible so he could send more. Does that sound like a loving God?

And when you speak out of your bias, the God you refuse to believe in will always be painted as a bad unfair chap who is not worth believing in anyway. That's what I call unconvincing.


Badly written 'primary source' + no evidence + no possibility of corroboration = No belief.

Badly written he says. I wonder if you have ever tried to write something like that. Anything you have ever written could also be pulled to bits, particularly by biased people. The evidence is there. It has been reinterpreted. But that doesn't mean it's not there. Neither should we expect that all the gaps are filled in. That doesn't follow. No possibility of corroboration? That is hardly the fault of the writers. Particularly when they clearly point out that the way to check it out is to take the path of believing. That may not seem very fair to you. But it did to me, when I was considering making that step. I'm not the only one with such a testimony.

The same would apply to most ridiculous theories. I need only accept Batman into my life to realise the Bat Signal I've been sending up must be very slightly wrong and that's why he isn't coming.

the same would apply to every theory. But the difference is that the closer one gets to the truth, the more true he realizes it is, particularly if he is careful enough to check the bias levels and keep asking the right questions (e.g. am I deluding myself here). If a belief system is false, however, when a person who is interested in the truth is in that false belief system, it is a matter of time before the falseness is uncovered. If the person in a false belief system no longer searches for truth, then the chance of him ever realising that his belief system is false is quite limited.


Why? If God supposes to be worthy of our respect, he cannot place himself beyond our ability to question his actions. What you are doing here is using classic circular thinking; presupposing God is perfect and having your arguments flow from there, rather than examining his behaviour to determine if He is perfect.

Im a firm believer in questioning God's actions. At the same time, I realize that my ability to think and reason are limited, while His wisdom is unlimited. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to question my own reasons, and abilities, and perhaps allow that God does know better than I. For example, I grew up in a home with only my mother. I used to think God was quite unfair to let this happen. I used to conclude that He was therefor not completely good. Now that I have grown a bit older, I see that I was the one who was wrong, in this issue, and that God's reasoning was good. We are all children, in a sense, and trying to judge the actions of our heavenly Father according to our limited reason is dangerous. Not that we shouldn't question. But I have learned to be more careful with my conclusions.


Garbage, morality is morality, whether you are child, man or God. Mass-murder does not suddenly become ok just because you happen to be very powerful.

God created. He gave life. He is entitled to take it again. He is not a man, and not tied to the laws of man. Therefore he is not a murdered.

Bruarong, I want you to look at this quote and think about it.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

Do not automatically assume your god exists as you have been doing this entire debate, just think about what this quote implies.

If a belief system is false, however, when a person who is interested in the truth is in that false belief system, it is a matter of time before the falseness is uncovered. If the person in a false belief system no longer searches for truth, then the chance of him ever realising that his belief system is false is quite limited.
Not necessarily. It may be that restrictions imposed by his belief system prevent him from discovering it's falseness. It certainly seems that with all of this arguing over creationism vs. evolution, neither side has realized the falseness of their beliefs, even though they both seem to be searching for the truth.

Im a firm believer in questioning God's actions. At the same time, I realize that my ability to think and reason are limited, while His wisdom is unlimited. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to question my own reasons, and abilities, and perhaps allow that God does know better than I. For example, I grew up in a home with only my mother. I used to think God was quite unfair to let this happen. I used to conclude that He was therefor not completely good. Now that I have grown a bit older, I see that I was the one who was wrong, in this issue, and that God's reasoning was good. We are all children, in a sense, and trying to judge the actions of our heavenly Father according to our limited reason is dangerous. Not that we shouldn't question. But I have learned to be more careful with my conclusions.
This may seem like nit-picking, but what criteria are you using to judge god's actions, and how strictly do you follow them? Clearly, those criteria have changed over time, as evidenced by your example. I'm just bringing this up because there are probably Christians who claim to question god's actions, but if he decided to kill everyone right now, they would assume he had a reason and accept it solely on faith, even though they would die too. (that last sentence probably didn't make much sense, but hopefully you at least see what I was trying to say.)

GMC Military Arms

Strange, the Bible says he is perfectly capable of evil.

Quoting the Old King James and using it as proof that God is evil is not winning you any victory points here. My version of the Bible talks about threats and harm, rather than evil. I suppose that is what the writers really meant, in the context of what they were writing. God uses discipline in order that good might prevail. The discipline hurts, but is necessary in a world where people are deliberately doing the wrong thing. Discipline is also evidence of love.

If you want to demonstrate that God is evil, you will have to do it from an analysis of his purpose, no from looking at words from an old English translation. You have taken it out of context.


Strange, his sense of 'love' sounds an awful lot like Stalin's.

Stalin didn't send his only son to die in your place.



Then present evidence for this great coherency. That ranks just above 'You're wrong!' and 'I'm not listening!' in the system of valid rebuttals.

The Gospel begins with man and God in perfect harmony, in a paradise. Man is offered a chance to be like God, even though God warns that this will lead to death. Man chooses death. That causes untold suffering around the world. God is heartbroken. His wanted unity and harmony. But he found misery and suffering. Man had chosen his own way, and he must pay for the consequences. God's love was great. He had a plan. It first became apparent with Abraham. He wanted to make a people of his own. Ones that would learn how to love Him, and teach the whole world about the freedom that comes from loving and honouring him. The people got it wrong again and again. God persisted. He gave them the laws to show them the way (Moses). He worked miracles to prevent them from destroying themselves. But it appeared useless, for it seems that mans bent for evil was to strong. When presented with the truth, they ether rejected it outright, or they became super religious/self-righteous (and thus another form of rejection). There were the exceptions, but they shone like lights in the darkness of hatred and ignorance. So when God's plan ripened, he sent his son Jesus to the world. The Jews rejected him (the very people who were chosen to teach others how to know God), and clamoured for his death. Rome obliged. The deed was done. Man solidified his rejection of God by ending the life of his son. God's wisdom was deeper. In the face of such hatred, he turned the tables, and sent a small band of loyal followers with the good news that God still loved humans enough to set them free of their plight if only they believed. The offer was incredible. A better relationship than the one Adam and Eve had. One founded on forgiveness and love. Jesus said that one who have been forgiven much has much love. I have obviously left out a lot. But this, I believe, is the message of the Bible. I see the coherancy.


You said I was free to do as I please with anything I create, and now you say I can't create anything? Firstly, if you think honestly think raising a child is nothing more than a matter of passing on your genes...Well, o_O

Raising a child is one thing. Having sex that produces a child is another. But neither of them is creating. Therefore, you have not nor ever will create a child. It is God who gives life. If you take it unlawfully, you are a murdered.

Second, the Bible disagrees with you [unsurprisingly]; God is constantly referred to as our father, the heavenly father, the holy father, and so on. He refers to us as his children. It's quite clear that the parent-child analogy is entirely sound, and you cannot murder your children just because you think it's what's best for them.

God is a Father. Since He gave life, He is entitled to take it. Perhaps it would help to think of God being with us both on this side of death, and on the side, simultaneously. Thus when a small baby dies, He lets go of them on this side, and takes them into His arms on the other side.


What? Because people suffer unjustly, it's ok for God to murder then entire population of the planet except eight people? How the hell does that follow?

If it was murder, I would agree. But I have said that when God takes a life, he isn't murdering, he is taking it back.


Odd, you sure throw a lot of insults for someone who isn't trying to offend me.

I thought it safer since I was writing to someone I couldn't offend. And I never meant it as an insult, but something that I see as true, given that all humans IMO are capable of being offended.


As long as you ignore that plate tectonics explains it better [the mountains were not always that high and grew over many millions of years] without requiring a huge, ridiculous flood. So, slothful induction fallacy for you there.

I was under the impression that the evolutionists have dated most of the mountain ranges at a mere 2-4 million years. That's like yesterday in the evolutionary time scale. Amazing that they all appeared at the same time. A pity their dating methods are based on billions of years.


Why? Coal is organic matter deposited slowly over many thousands of years and then compacted over tens of thousands or millions of years. Nothing 'needs to move a lot of dirt quickly' to explain coal.

If a tree isn't buried, it takes perhaps a decade or two to rot. Given that many of the coal seams are so huge, it seems unlikely that the trees sank into a swamp, collected together, to produce the huge seams. More likely that they were pushed together (e.g. a great flood) and then buried rapidly, placed under tremendous amounts of pressure and heat, and turned into coal and oil.

I always believe my eyes, I just don't dole out miracles to mundane phenomena like you seem to.

and yet you believe in things like love and faith and forgiveness and compassion, but you have never seen them. Eyes are not the only important part of perception. We use our imagination and our reason to see.


So what would you judge as 'giving it a go?' Believing it without question?

Read the Bible, and ask God for help to find the truth. Search for truth, and invite God to be a part of it, if He is real.

Red Herring. They are YECs, the divinity of Jesus has nothing to do with this debate.

If Jesus is not God, then He didn't rise from the dead, and thus the miracles are unlikely. I see this as a central issue here.


Explanations which happen to produce predictions which can be tested under fair test conditions and shown to be accurate.

Although evolution from slime to man has never been tested, nor life from non-life. How does your point help?

Let's get this straight, you want me, for no reason, to ignore my own research, my education and the fact that your arguments make no sense and...What? Mindlessly follow you?

Never. Not without your mind. It is God's gift to you. Not to follow me, I am only a pilgrim like you. Follow Jesus if you want to find the truth (IMO).

Why is it I require information to falsify your ridiculous claims but you require no evidence to make them? That's a burden of proof fallacy. Provide some evidence for your hypothesis that the molten mantle of the Earth would take greater than two thousand years to evaporate a significant quantity of water from an underground ocean.

The claims were made by the writers of the Bible, not me. They also say that you have to take the path of belief if you want to prove them. Otherwise you will just have to sort through the data and interpret it according to whichever bias you happen to have.

I don't know why the mantle would have to be molten. I see no reason for the water to be evaporated. Why should I consider this suggestion to be even worth my while researching?

Bruarong, I want you to look at this quote and think about it.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

Do not automatically assume your god exists as you have been doing this entire debate, just think about what this quote implies.

You are quite right to question me. I appreciate that every belief should be questioned, perhaps even on a regular basis. However, every time I ask myself the question, why do I believe in God?, I come to the same conclusion. He personally turned my life around. I was heading in one direction. And now everything is so different. I still have struggles and problems and limitations, but I see that now I'm on a journey, and although I can't imagine why it happened to me, I find myself holding the hand of Jesus on the journey.

Jesus claimed that he was the only way to the Father.

Fluidics

Not necessarily. It may be that restrictions imposed by his belief system prevent him from discovering it's falseness. It certainly seems that with all of this arguing over creationism vs. evolution, neither side has realized the falseness of their beliefs, even though they both seem to be searching for the truth.

Good point. I should have included this in my earlier post. I was too brief. When a particular belief system prevents you from asking questions about it's truth or validity, it has to be said that such a belief effectively blocks against such a "health check" This doesn't prove the belief false, however, just dangerous. One minor point is that the belief's official position may be one of non-questioning, or the non-questioning attitude may come from the insecurities of the individual. Either way, the person is left in a dangerous position.

This may seem like nit-picking, but what criteria are you using to judge god's actions, and how strictly do you follow them? Clearly, those criteria have changed over time, as evidenced by your example. I'm just bringing this up because there are probably Christians who claim to question god's actions, but if he decided to kill everyone right now, they would assume he had a reason and accept it solely on faith, even though they would die too. (that last sentence probably didn't make much sense, but hopefully you at least see what I was trying to say.)

Well, that is another good point. Struth. Where did you come from? I don't see that as nit-picking at all. I think I do see what you are saying. To be consistent with what I was saying, though, I think I would take the position of Job. Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him. This may seem illogical, but is perfectely reasonable (to me anyway) in the context of a deep relationship with a good deal of trust involved.

Great post! Evolution has always been a myth, and was only invented by Satanists in order to brainwash and confuse the weak minded and win their souls. The best thing of all, will be that heaven will be so comfortable and peaceful, since only a handful of us true believers will be there, while all the rest of you poor weak minded sinners will be confinened to a cramped and miserable existence in the lake fire. Enjoy your eternal stays as slaves to Satan! GOD bless all who believe in the truth, which even a blind man could understand! GOD will prevail! Ask forgiveness, and accept and put your lives and faith in GOD allmighty..... before it's to late! May GOD guide all you lost sheep, before it's too late. Amen!

Wrong, any kind of speciation is an example of macroevolution, which is evolution on the level of the formation of new species and above. How on Earth can you debate evolution if you don't even know what it is?

The issue of speciation is under quite a lot of debate. If two animals of the same species can no longer breed, since one of them has a new mutation, do they belong to two different species?

I think I read of an example with the fruit fly, where a male was no longer able to catch the female to mate with her, due to a mutation.

Therefore, if the definition of a species is under question, you can hardly say that a new species is evidence of macroevolution.

Great post! Evolution has always been a myth, and was only invented by Satanists in order to brainwash and confuse the weak minded and win their souls. The best thing of all, will be that heaven will be so comfortable and peaceful, since only a handful of us true believers will be there, while all the rest of you poor weak minded sinners will be confinened to a crampt and miserable existence in the lake fire. Enjoy your eternal stays as slaves to Satan! GOD bless all who believe in the truth, wich even a blind man could understand! GOD will prevail! Ask forgiveness, and accept and put your lives and faith in GOD allmighty..... before it's to late! May GOD guide all you lost sheep, before it's too late. Amen!

Please, you will only upset people unnecessarily. We are trying to have an open minded discussion here. Messages like that are perhaps better reserved for people who have never heard anything (even then I doubt anyone will like being called a poor weak minded sinner). I personally vouch for great intellects in this debate (compared to mine anyway).
Try adding a bit of consideration and manners to your message. Currently it is a jagged oversized pill.

Non Aligned States

Proof doesn't come from having explanations.

Logically speaking, that statement can also be reversed to be used against your position.

Please try again.[/QUOTE]

I agree. That statement applies to everyone. I was using it in this case because it appears that someone had forgotten this. I wasn't using it to attack evolution. I think everyone would do well to keep in mind our limitations.

Not impossible for God though.

Again, this standard of 'proof' allows you to prove any claim from 'God created the Earth' to 'Tiger Woods sank the Bismarck.'

You are still using a point that I showed you a while ago doesn't work. You simply can't assume that all the miracles ever done had to be recorded in the Bible. The writers themselves consider that God is in the process of upholding the laws of nature. Thus nothing is possible without God.

Constantly restating that same ridiculously flawed argument doesn't make it any more valid. If the text is incomplete it is not without flaw. If it is too incomplete to be useful we must ask serious questions about its validity.

The description in Genesis of the day God used to make the earth is evening and morning. That's difficult to interpret it any other way.

Aside from as a metaphor for spring and summer, autumn and winter [a year?]. Do you know that the evening and the morning formed a literal 24-hour day while God was making the Earth? How could there be an evening and a morning at all before God created the sun on the Fourth day?

You seem to be saying that gaps equals impossibility. I say gaps equals ignorance and therefore imagination is the next best thing, so long as it is sensible.

And your criteria for sensible are very different to anyone else's, it seems.

I have read somewhere that we still don't know how long it takes to form coal, depending on the pressure and heat involved.

Very well, I will bow to the unnamed authority of 'something you read somewhere.' If I read on a toilet wall that evolution is true, can I enter that into this debate too?

In this case, you are making the claim that you were once a Christian. I am challenging that claim, since I maintain that Christian is some who communes with the living Jesus. If you have never done this, then you have never been a Christian. I think that is the critical point here. You may argue with my definition of a christian, but I can point out some scriptures that show this.

Which is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I can point you to some scripture that says if you wear polycotton you should be put to death, that means nothing. I considered myself a Christian, studied the Bible and believed in God and the story of salvation. Your attempt to move the goalposts by forcing me to adhere to your definition of Christian is just rhetorical wankery.

Well, when you used examples that are not relevant to the argument, I get the feeling that you don't understand your point.

The example was of a true statement. It was intended to prove the true statement was not affected by the speaker's motives. Your failure to understand this does not affect my understanding of anything.

Evidence?? You keep challenging me to prove evidence for you. When I do you present your explanations. And then say that I have no evidence, because your explanations are better than mine. (Of course they will always look better to you since you have ruled out the possibility of miracles.)

Miracles and speculation are not evidence.

So you have set me the impossible task of proving something to you, and then claiming victory. Even if creation was true (to see it from your point of view) I feel that this tactic of yours would always prevent me from proving it to you.

Of course it will, because it isn't true! All these insults about my 'bias' or refusal to see the other side melt in the face of the single fact that you are completely ignoring the obvious conclusion that your inability to offer any kind of acceptable proof is because you don't have a valid hypothesis.

You can craft your posts to make you look good, and your predictive powers to seem impressive.

Um...Thank you?

Wrong. Evolutionists use waves too. So do the creationists.

No, evolutionists do not 'use' waves. Science expects that the K-T asteroid created enormous waves during it's impact, but that is quite different to wave magically appearing from nowhere.

And when you speak out of your bias, the God you refuse to believe in will always be painted as a bad unfair chap who is not worth believing in anyway. That's what I call unconvincing.

Or if I objectively evaluate the brutal genocides and terrible crimes against humanity he carried out or assisted in throughout the Old Testament without locking into my head that he's 'good' first. Who's biased here?

Badly written he says. I wonder if you have ever tried to write something like that.

Your whole argument is centred on the idea that the Ark account is full of plot holes. It therefore is badly written.

But it did to me, when I was considering making that step. I'm not the only one with such a testimony.

Plenty of people think they've seen UFOs and Elvis, too.

If a belief system is false, however, when a person who is interested in the truth is in that false belief system, it is a matter of time before the falseness is uncovered. If the person in a false belief system no longer searches for truth, then the chance of him ever realising that his belief system is false is quite limited.

Nonsense. Anyone can believe in anything just by ignoring the proper evidence. Who are you to decide that all other systems of belief but yours are 'false,' anyway? Haven't you considered that yours might be false?

We are all children, in a sense, and trying to judge the actions of our heavenly Father according to our limited reason is dangerous. Not that we shouldn't question. But I have learned to be more careful with my conclusions.

What the hell is wrong with you? Genocide is wrong! There is never a good reason to slaughter millions of people arbitrarily.

God created. He gave life. He is entitled to take it again. He is not a man, and not tied to the laws of man. Therefore he is not a murdered.

The laws of the Bible are his laws. If he is incapable of following the standards he sees fit to set for us, he should not expect our respect.

Quoting the Old King James and using it as proof that God is evil is not winning you any victory points here. My version of the Bible talks about threats and harm, rather than evil. I suppose that is what the writers really meant, in the context of what they were writing.

Ah, so obviously your version [which you haven't bothered to name or provide the alternate quotes from, I see] must be the right one because it supports you. Let's go for round two, shall we?

God has 'evil spirits,' too...

Judges 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

1 Samuel 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
16:15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.
16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
[...]
6:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

1 Samuel 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand.

1 Samuel 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.

2 Kings 21:12 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle.

Jeremiah 42:10 If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you.

As a random aside, since God created Satan, God is clearly capable of not only creating evil, but creating ultimate evil.

God uses discipline in order that good might prevail. The discipline hurts, but is necessary in a world where people are deliberately doing the wrong thing. Discipline is also evidence of love.

Mass murder is not discipline.

If you want to demonstrate that God is evil, you will have to do it from an analysis of his purpose, no from looking at words from an old English translation. You have taken it out of context.

The 'context' being accepting that he must be good before evaluating any of the evidence?

Stalin didn't send his only son to die in your place.

Can you prove God did? Of course you can't.

The Gospel begins with man and God in perfect harmony, in a paradise. Man is offered a chance to be like God, even though God warns that this will lead to death.

Wrong. God throws man out of the garden before he can eat of the tree of life and become another God. It is only by God's action that Adam dies, it has nothing to do with eating the apple from the tree of knowledge.

Man chooses death. That causes untold suffering around the world.

Which is clearly Adam's fault rather than God's for not letting him eat from the tree of life? Please.

...I see the coherancy.

Yes, because you cut out the God-assisted genocide, rape and mass-murder of the Old Testament. So yes, if you cut out big lumps of it The Bible looks coherent.

Raising a child is one thing. Having sex that produces a child is another. But neither of them is creating. Therefore, you have not nor ever will create a child. It is God who gives life. If you take it unlawfully, you are a murdered.

And if God takes it, he is a murderer.

God is a Father. Since He gave life, He is entitled to take it. Perhaps it would help to think of God being with us both on this side of death, and on the side, simultaneously. Thus when a small baby dies, He lets go of them on this side, and takes them into His arms on the other side.

Garbage. Why does God say 'thou shalt not kill' if it's ok? If it's not ok for us, it's not ok when he does it either.

If it was murder, I would agree. But I have said that when God takes a life, he isn't murdering, he is taking it back.

It isn't his to take. You can't give life to reasoning, feeling beings and then murder them whenever you like. The picture you are painting is of a psychopath, not a loving creature.

I was under the impression that the evolutionists have dated most of the mountain ranges at a mere 2-4 million years.

Then you're even more ignorant of science than I thought. Geology has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. And where is the proof of this? Do you think you can just invent these figures and ask me to scurry off and find you sources?

More likely that they were pushed together (e.g. a great flood) and then buried rapidly, placed under tremendous amounts of pressure and heat, and turned into coal and oil.

And where did this pressure and heat come from?

and yet you believe in things like love and faith and forgiveness and compassion, but you have never seen them. Eyes are not the only important part of perception. We use our imagination and our reason to see.

Sophistry. I can directly observe compassion and love by the actions of the one carrying them out. The fact that I cannot see the abstract action is like saying that eyes aren't important because I cannot perceive 'blue' independently of something blue.

Read the Bible, and ask God for help to find the truth. Search for truth, and invite God to be a part of it, if He is real.

In other words, I must accept God is real in order to accept God is real. Classic circular logic.

If Jesus is not God, then He didn't rise from the dead, and thus the miracles are unlikely. I see this as a central issue here.

Wrong. Your ignorance of science can now be placed alongside your ignorance of other faiths. JWs believe that Jesus was the divine son of God but not God himself. At best, that is a difference on a par with the tiny difference between Catholic and Protestant interpretations of the 'blood of Christ' line, and it still has nothing to do with the fact that JWs are still YECs.

Although evolution from slime to man has never been tested, nor life from non-life. How does your point help?

Sophistry. I said it can generate predictions that can be tested, and you respond by asking that predictions that cannot be tested, be tested? And that one of those predictions not even be part of the theory of evolution?

The claims were made by the writers of the Bible, not me.

Appeal to authority. The claims were made by you, because you are here and they are dead.

I don't know why the mantle would have to be molten. I see no reason for the water to be evaporated. Why should I consider this suggestion to be even worth my while researching?

Because you're trying to make a claim based on it. If you want to make that claim, you should be willing to provide some hard numbers to back it up, especially since this is one of the few arguments you've made which you can back up with hard numbers.

The issue of speciation is under quite a lot of debate. If two animals of the same species can no longer breed, since one of them has a new mutation, do they belong to two different species?

Yes, aside from you talking about individuals instead of populations. That is the scientific definition of different species, ones that cannot mate and produce fertile offspring.

I think I read of an example with the fruit fly, where a male was no longer able to catch the female to mate with her, due to a mutation.

Sophistry. I cannot catch Jennifer Lopez to mate with her, does that mean Jennifer Lopez is not the same species as me?

Therefore, if the definition of a species is under question, you can hardly say that a new species is evidence of macroevolution.

Sadly, it's not. Your laughable attempt to move the goalposts aside, macroevolution is defined as species level and above with the current scientific definition of 'species,' not whatever one you just invented.

<very large snip>

That is officially the longest post I have ever seen. :(

I was under the impression that the evolutionists have dated most of the mountain ranges at a mere 2-4 million years. That's like yesterday in the evolutionary time scale. Amazing that they all appeared at the same time. A pity their dating methods are based on billions of years.

From did you get that impression from? I can assure you that's not correct. Virtually all mountain ranges are older than that. There are several phases of mountain formations (aka orogeny) in Earth's history:

Grenville Orogeny (Proterozoic, circa 1.2 billion years ago) - Canada.
- Occured during the formation of the supercontinent Rodinia.

Caledonian Orogeny (Silurian Period)
- Collision of Avalonia (microcontinent breaking off from Gondwana) with Laurentia (North America + Greenland). Includes Grampian mountains in Scotland.

Variscian Orogeny (Carboniferous Period)
- caused by collision of Gondwana and Laurussia, forming Pangaea (mountain range includes Ouichita Mountains, Appalachians, and continuing in western and central Europe (Iberian penninsula, Massiv Central, Ardennes, Bohemian Massif)).

Ural Orogeny (Permian Period)
- collision of Siberia with Pangaea (Pangaea achieves it's largest completion).

Cimmerian Orogeny (Triassic and Jurassic)
- caused by the collision of Cimmeria (a micro-continent that separated from Gondwana) with Laurasia. (mountain range stretching across Turkey, Iran, Tibet, South-East Asia)

Laramide Orogeny (Late Cretaceous to Eocene)
- formation of the Rocky Mountains

Alpine Orogeny (Eocene onwards)
- collision of Africa with Eurasia

Himalayan Orogeny (Eocene onwards)
- collision of India with Eurasia

Certainly not 2-4 million years ago. Also notice that again - this does fits consistently into the whole geological/paleontological context.

If a tree isn't buried, it takes perhaps a decade or two to rot. Given that many of the coal seams are so huge, it seems unlikely that the trees sank into a swamp, collected together, to produce the huge seams. More likely that they were pushed together (e.g. a great flood) and then buried rapidly, placed under tremendous amounts of pressure and heat, and turned into coal and oil.

Trees will not rot if they are under anoxic conditions, because most bacteria require oxygen for the decomposition process. Also, i recommend you read this earlier post of myself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9082374&postcount=467). I've posted some examples there where you can see that the Deluge model is totally incapable of explaining these phenomenons.

Great post! Evolution has always been a myth, and was only invented by Satanists in order to brainwash and confuse the weak minded and win their souls. The best thing of all, will be that heaven will be so comfortable and peaceful, since only a handful of us true believers will be there, while all the rest of you poor weak minded sinners will be confinened to a cramped and miserable existence in the lake fire. Enjoy your eternal stays as slaves to Satan! GOD bless all who believe in the truth, which even a blind man could understand! GOD will prevail! Ask forgiveness, and accept and put your lives and faith in GOD allmighty..... before it's to late! May GOD guide all you lost sheep, before it's too late. Amen!

LOL, highly amusing. :D

Evolution is not a myth, it's reality. Even if you find that frustrating, you have to live with it. It certainly wasn't invented by 'Satanists', but discovered by open-minded who did not allow their eyes to be blinded by ignorant religious dogma. Genesis is only a myth. You probably have not noticed, but I believe into the truth - to the best of our knowledge - and not into inconsistent old myths that fail to teach us about the nature of the universe.

As can be seen from the following list of data collected from numerous investigators and abridged from a similar chart by evolutionists Ollier and Pain in The Origin of Mountains, 2000, pp. 304-306

Mountain Chain/ Plateau/Rift Years Since Main Uplift
Europe

Swiss Alps
Apennines Mtns.
Pyrenees Mtns.
Baetic Cordillera
Carpathian Mtns.
Caucasus Mnts.
Ural Mtns.
Sudeten Mtns.
<2 million
1-2 million
2-5 million
2-5 million
2-5 million
<2 million
1-2 million
1-5 million
Asia
Tibetan Plateau
Himalaya Mtns.
Kunlun Mtns.
Tien Shan Mtns.
Shanxi Mtns.
Japanese Mtns.
Taiwan Mtns.
<3.4 million
<3.4 million
<4 million
<2 million
<3 million
<5 million
<5 million
North America
Sierra Nevada Mtns.
Main Colorado Plateau
Bighorn Mtns.
Rocky Mtns.
Canadian Cordillera
Cascade Range
<2 million
<3 million
<3 million
<5 million
2-5 million
4-5 million
South America
Chilean Andes
Bolivian Andes
Ecuadorian Andes
<5 million
<5 million
<5 million
Africa
Ethiopian Rift
Western Rift
Ruwenzori Mtns.
<2.9 million
<3 million
<3 million

Other
New Guinea Mtns.
New Zealand Mtns.
2 million
<5 million

GMC Military Arms

Again, this standard of 'proof' allows you to prove any claim from 'God created the Earth' to 'Tiger Woods sank the Bismarck.'

I wasn't proving anything with such a statement. I was pointing out that in the context of a Christians' belief, your point was not logical. It only works in your belief system.

Constantly restating that same ridiculously flawed argument doesn't make it any more valid. If the text is incomplete it is not without flaw. If it is too incomplete to be useful we must ask serious questions about its validity.

I guess that's the issue, isn't it. Just how useful the Genesis account is depends on its purpose. It explains the basis of the Gospel. It does not give us all the details of exactly what happened. Why should it? To satisfy your curiosity. The holes in the Genesis account are certainly not the reason you have chosen to accept your particular belief system. You seem to be suggesting that because Genesis leaves parts out (that would not contribute any more understanding to the Gospel) it is therefore invalid and untrustworthy. I don't follow your logic.


Aside from as a metaphor for spring and summer, autumn and winter [a year?]. Do you know that the evening and the morning formed a literal 24-hour day while God was making the Earth? How could there be an evening and a morning at all before God created the sun on the Fourth day?

If the writer didn't mean a period of a day, he could have easily written something else there, instead of an evening and morning, as have been shown in the prophetic books, where they simply write "times". Thus he was most likely referring to the period of one day. This does not necessarily mean that there had to be a sunset and a sunrise. The sun is not necessarily a part of his definition.


Very well, I will bow to the unnamed authority of 'something you read somewhere.' If I read on a toilet wall that evolution is true, can I enter that into this debate too?

Yeah, terrible of me not to spend the hours looking it up. At anyrate, I think the assumption that coal formation needs millions of years is suspect. More like having the right conditions is the critical issue.

Which is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I can point you to some scripture that says if you wear polycotton you should be put to death, that means nothing. I considered myself a Christian, studied the Bible and believed in God and the story of salvation. Your attempt to move the goalposts by forcing me to adhere to your definition of Christian is just rhetorical wankery.

No, I'm pointing out that your assumption (that you were a Christian) is based on your previous experience. If you can't say that you were a Christian, based on what the Bible defines as a Christian, then your assumption is not valid. Not moving the goal posts at all, just the simple rules of logic.

The example was of a true statement. It was intended to prove the true statement was not affected by the speaker's motives. Your failure to understand this does not affect my understanding of anything.

And my point was that since we are not dealing with evidence that can be proven, your example was not valid. IMO, bias is almost everything here, since every piece of scientific evidence that I have ever studied in detail can be explained in more than one way. Logic can be used within any argument, but that also will not allow us to get to some sort of proof like 1+1=2 in this case.

Of course it will, because it isn't true! All these insults about my 'bias' or refusal to see the other side melt in the face of the single fact that you are completely ignoring the obvious conclusion that your inability to offer any kind of acceptable proof is because you don't have a valid hypothesis.

My biggest complaint with your bias stems from my observation that you are using your bias to "prove" creation false. I find that not logical. I'm not sure what makes you think that creation science doesn't have a hypothesis. Of course it's going to be different from the evolutionary one, so you may not recognise it. But it's there alright. I have posted it several times earlier.

You too are short of proof. That is a limitation we both have. Your accusations based on this are therefore invalid.


No, evolutionists do not 'use' waves. Science expects that the K-T asteroid created enormous waves during it's impact, but that is quite different to wave magically appearing from nowhere.

So you do use waves. What was that about me being the only one with the waves theory? As for there being no reasons for them, that is something I never said. Who knows, it could have been an asteroid, or maybe something else. I certainly don't see why the Bible HAD to include every detail in the account. As I pointed out before, it's not necessary for its purpose.

As can be seen from the following list of data collected from numerous investigators and abridged from a similar chart by evolutionists Ollier and Pain in The Origin of Mountains, 2000, pp. 304-306


Woa, i'm positive there's a number of flagrant errors in that data. Btw, what do you mean with 'abridged'?

- Appenines, Carpathians and Pyrenees should be at least Miocene (more than 5 million years ago)
- Ural mountains are certainly Permian in age
- Sudety mountains are Carboniferous in age (part of Variscian Orogeny)
- The Himalayas began formation in the Eocene.
- The Andes and Rockies are Late Cretaceous in Age.

Btw, also note the list excluded Appalachians, Grampians, Grenville Orogens, Massif Central, Atlas mountains, etc. which are all clearly older.

PS: I recommend reading "The Evolving Continents" by Brian F. Windley on the topic.

We can not ignore science and what it tells us about the universe. Creationism does not ignore science. Creationism challenges evolutionary interpretations of science that are unscientific and irrational.

Evolution is a inappropriately small word used to describe a vast mixture of genuine science and questionable theories. For example, chemical evolution, neo Darwinian theory, fossil record, natural selection etc can all be referred to as evolution.

It is therefore possible to accept aspects of evolution, for example, the process of mutation and natural selection, and reject others, for example, the idea that the totality of evolution from amoeba to man plus the wide branching of life forms that we know today all happened because of a sequence of beneficial mutations and natural selection.

As a scientist I find 'evolution' difficult to accept as a rational explanation for life. I believe creationism provides a logical and plausible alternative explanation for what caused the explosion of life that we see today.

In my opinion, both theories should be respected as different interpretations of science and people should be left to make up their own mind about which is more plausible without being branded an idiot or likened to a flat earth supporter.

As a scientist I find 'evolution' difficult to accept as a rational explanation for life. I believe creationism provides a logical and plausible alternative explanation for what caused the explosion of life that we see today.

In my opinion, both theories should be respected as different interpretations of science and people should be left to make up their own mind about which is more plausible without being branded an idiot or likened to a flat earth supporter.
Please describe the testable, falsifiable hypotheses set forth by Creation theory.

Hello! Creationism is a story.
Evolution is a theory.
I'm not here to patronise anyone, but I don't really think the battle's over :sniper: . If there is a battle :mp5: , because if you go to a school where I come from, you get taught about the 'Synthesis' view, which explains how we can agree. Telegram me for more!!!!!!!