The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

doctoremma

So Wolfsbane, all bears are one 'kind', despite there now existing several different species that cannot interbreed? Similarly, all beetles are one kind? All birds?

Again, how are you determining kinds? How a creature looks compared to others? Or it's genetic relationship to others?

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Timothy was a muppet for that bit anyway.

It was Paul who wrote it - and your comment says a lot about your view of the word of God.

*********************************************************************
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

So Wolfsbane, all bears are one 'kind', despite there now existing several different species that cannot interbreed? Similarly, all beetles are one kind? All birds?

Again, how are you determining kinds? How a creature looks compared to others? Or it's genetic relationship to others?

Perhaps genetics can help in identifying 'kinds'. Appearance and similarity of function are no proof - as God could have created such as separate kinds.

Interbreeding is the only positive test. Apply that to the birds, bears, etc.


********************************************************************
Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

Interbreeding is the only positive test. Apply that to the birds, bears, etc.

You said earlier that even animals that could no longer interbreed could be considered the same kind. How does that fit with your statement above, which maps 'kind' to the same basic definition as 'species'.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

On the creationist sites and publications. I've pointed you to them often. You don't agree they successfully refute the evolutionists arguments, but that's your problem.

I have specifically tendered refutations of creationist literature in this thread. For example, here is a paper demonstrating increase in biological information through natural selection of random mutations.

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/14/2794

You are claiming that this has been refuted by creationist literature. Where?

Cossax

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only your dating is wrong then? Still doesn't tell us if it was before or after the Flood.


***********************************************************************
Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Evidence that the dating is wrong?
Evidence that there was a biblical flood?

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

How is the debate settled? You seem to simply reject anything that does not fit into a particular narrative. To be honest this is to be expected since you believe that you have absolute certainty that the Bible as you interpret it is the word of God.

What debate then are you looking for? We have told you a million times that how you describe the scientific community, full of scared scientists and Satan's influences, is not how the scientific community actually is. You simply don't believe us, preferring to hold again to the particular narrative that all of science is pitched against the truth of Christianity.

It does call into question what purpose continuing to debate with you serves?

The debate can only be settled - or at least ended - when one of these occurs:
A. Evolution beyond the Family level is demonstrated.
B. Christ returns and brings all mankind to His judgement seat. They'll know there the truth of all He has told us.

But in the meantime, indications of the scientific facts can be gained by testing the various suggested mechanisms involved in evolution/creation. The story one builds upon the observed mechanisms will not be sure proof of course - other explanations may arise. The controversy over the cosmological constant is an example outside the evolution/creation debate.

The nature of the scientific community is a point of disagreement for us. You do not see the pressure ideology has on evolutionists, but you have no bother seeing it among creationists. You further do not accept the Biblical assessment of the deceptive nature of man's heart - how he will resist anything that would give credence to the God of the Bible. Both of these skew your assessment.

You evolutionist guys must decide on the value of debating with creationists. Creationists are happy to debate with you - at least for an extended time - because we know God uses His truth to convert sinners. We aim to win you to Christ, not to creationism. The latter is an important truth, but not an essential one.



*****************************************************************
Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

You said earlier that even animals that could no longer interbreed could be considered the same kind. How does that fit with your statement above, which maps 'kind' to the same basic definition as 'species'.

How does it map 'kind' to the same basic definition as 'species'? I've said it does not. Are you suggesting all birds are the ones species? I'm not.


*********************************************************************
Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

How does it map 'kind' to the same basic definition as 'species'? I've said it does not. Are you suggesting all birds are the ones species? I'm not.

You have said that the ability to interbreed is indicative of 'kind', indeed the 'only positive test'. This matches how taxonomists determine a 'species'. So domestic dogs are both the same species and the same 'kind'.

Your grouping of 'kind' is wider though, you call it more like a 'family', meaning a 'family of similar animals'? You acknowledge that genetics helps determine the relatedness of different animals. This matches how taxonomists and geneticists determine the relatedness of different animals. Your 'kind' is now defined at the level of 'genus' (dogs and wolves) or even 'family' (dogs, wolves and foxes).

The same processes you accept as valid to map dogs and wolves into the same kind are used to map dogs, wolves and foxes into the same family - the clear patterns of genetic relatedness.

Unless you don't think dogs and wolves are the same kind?

So, how far back does the 'kind' to which dogs belong extend?

Only dogs?
Are dogs and wolves the same kind?
Are dogs, wolves and foxes the same kind?
Are dogs, wolves, foxes, cats and bears the same kind?

oldrnwisr

wolfsbane wrote: »

The debate can only be settled - or at least ended - when one of these occurs:
A. Evolution beyond the Family level is demonstrated.

That's great. So we can settle this now then.

We have observed interfamilial hybrids.



The bird on the left in the photo above is a hybrid of the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus, family Phasianinae) and a guineafowl (Numida meleagris, family Numididae).

However, even such a hybrid isn't necessary to show that creationism is full of crap.

Firstly, membership of a kind depends on the ability to interbreed. That presents a problem whenever lists of kinds are produced by creationists. Take the Felidae kind or baramin for example. There are 42 members of the Felidae baramin. Considering the possibility of different outcomes with male-female crosses of different species, the total number of possible pairings is 1722. There have only ever been 67 confirmed pairings within this group however, or 3% so the creationist postulate looks a little shaky.

Secondly, the intention of the creationists who first began to study kinds was to create a new picture of evolution, replacing the tree of life with the creationist orchard below.



This approach is equally baseless because the only thing necessary to undermine this idea is to show where any two kinds share a common ancestor, which has been found repeatedly, particularly humans and other apes, feliformes and caniformes and even whales and hippos.

Thirdly, the creationists who have made it their business to specialise in this kind of snake-oil selling have already by their own publications shown themselves to be dishonest and unscientific.

From the definitive work "Understanding the Pattern of Life":

"We creationists rest instead on the philosophical and biblical foundation...Since we believe that something like a diverse unit of biological creation must exist, detecting baramins becomes a matter of adjusting our context until the baraminic limits emerge"

"Clearly when the Bible claims discontinuity, any other evidence is unnecessary. As a result, the quality of the Australopithecine or whale series is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity between humans and apes and whales and land creatures."

Finally, given that this is the Christian forum I have to say wolfsbane that you and all the other creationists are doing a great disservice to your religion. I think that to suggest that the word kind as originally used in the hebrew bible has any kind of specific meaning in relation to modern biology is to utterly denigrate the message of the original story. If I were a Christian I would be terribly offended that someone who also proclaims to be a Christian would twist the Bible in such a way in order to peddle some pseudoscientific bullcrap.

Wh1stler

wolfsbane wrote: »

********************************************************************
1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

You must have a great deal of sympathy for the Afghan Taliban then.

doctoremma

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, the intention of the creationists who first began to study kinds was to create a new picture of evolution, replacing the tree of life with the creationist orchard below.



This approach is equally baseless because the only thing necessary to undermine this idea is to show where any two kinds share a common ancestor, which has been found repeatedly, particularly humans and other apes, feliformes and caniformes and even whales and hippos.

I came across an article (and references therein), discussing the use of creationist tools to prove evolution: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml

Discussion of the first paper in the article:
Biologist Phil Senter of the Fayette State University in North Carolina, US, has published the second of two papers that uses creation science techniques to examine the fossil record. In the first, published in 2010, he used a technique called classic multidimensional scaling (CMDS) to evaluate the appearance of coelurosaurian dinosaurs over geological time. CMDS is derived from a branch of creation science called baraminology, which classifies organisms according to a creationist framework...Animals fall into types, or baramins, which were created independently, but have diversified since...Dr Senter has no real issue with the methodology – as he points out in the 2010 paper, mathematics has no creed. But he argues that if CMDS shows that dinosaurs do show transitional forms, and are in fact genetically related to each other, then creationists are in a bit of a bind...Dr Senter’s 2010 study did, of course, show that coelurosaurian dinosaurs are related

And a response from a person involved in developing the exploited tool: http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/phil-senter-does-it-again.html
My long-time readers know that I'm not one to just kneejerk a response, but my first impressions after reading Senter's conclusion is that there's a lot of confusion about what statistical baraminology can and can't do. And that's my fault, so shame on me. I'll be mulling over my response to these confusions in the near future.

*scraping sound of moving goalposts*

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The debate can only be settled - or at least ended - when one of these occurs:
A. Evolution beyond the Family level is demonstrated.

Demonstrated in what way?

By definition if we could observe in a lab in one or two generates an evolution beyond "family level" that would in fact disprove Darwinian evolution.

You reject, I assume, historical evidence for these evolutions (such as genetic markers, fossil record etc?) You want to actually see it in real time?

wolfsbane wrote: »

B. Christ returns and brings all mankind to His judgement seat. They'll know there the truth of all He has told us.

And if this never happens?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But in the meantime, indications of the scientific facts can be gained by testing the various suggested mechanisms involved in evolution/creation.

But you reject this.

For example, you dismiss all radiometeric dating, based on a few cases where the systems have failed, despite the millions of cases where radiometeric dating has been shown to be accurate through cross verification (ie a number of different methods all giving the same date).

What is the point of presenting you with scientific evidence if you simply reject or ignore it if it does not fit your religious view point?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The nature of the scientific community is a point of disagreement for us. You do not see the pressure ideology has on evolutionists, but you have no bother seeing it among creationists.

I have no doubt that many many scientists are deeply ideological, as Creationists are.

The point you miss is that that the scientific method itself weeds this out. This is precisely why Creationists cannot get their ideas into science, because the actual method itself keeps stopping this. So much so that some Creationist groups such as the Discovery Institute have tried to refine science to "overcome" these problems.

So I in no way think that an individual scientist is any better or more trust worthy than an individual Creationist. Both have to demonstrate their finds to a scientific standard.

The world is littered with rejected scientific theories, and scientists who have thought they were on to something amazing that turned out to be nothing at all once the theory was examined properly.

Some of these scientists don't accept that their theories don't pass scientific standards (just like Creationists) and get bitter and continue to work away on them getting more and more angry at the other scientists for not accepting what they say.

You have never shown you actually understand what it is about the scientific method that produces this. You seem to think it is all down to personal interpretation and trusting the individual scientists. It isn't, though this has been explained before and you have again ignored it.

Again what is the point of engaging in these debates if you have no interest in learning what these things are? You seem to have already made up your mind that the scientific method doesn't work, that it is all about trusting scientists and thus the only scientists you trust are the ones that share your religious view point and the other ones have clouded judgement.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You further do not accept the Biblical assessment of the deceptive nature of man's heart - how he will resist anything that would give credence to the God of the Bible. Both of these skew your assessment.

It only skews my assessment if it is actually true Wolfsbane.

Secondly my assessment isn't relevant. This is the point that you keep spectacularly keep missing. It matters what can be demonstrated, objectively. Again this is why Creationist "science" is rejected, it cannot be demonstrated. You assume it can because you trust the Creationists making all the noise, but I seriously doubt you have actually bothered to see if this is actually true. You simply believe them and reject what we say because you and them hold the same religious view point.

So again what is the point? If you are simply going to ignore what we say to you why are you even engaging in discussion with us?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You evolutionist guys must decide on the value of debating with creationists. Creationists are happy to debate with you - at least for an extended time - because we know God uses His truth to convert sinners.

If that is so why do you ignore so many of the points presented to you (again radiometeric dating being a good example)?

How does that help win souls for Jesus? You just come across as someone who does not understand this topic but who holds to their personal religious beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. Or in other words, a fanatic.

doctoremma

Zombrex wrote: »

You reject, I assume, historical evidence for these evolutions (such as genetic markers, fossil record etc?) You want to actually see it in real time?

And if this never happens?

According to creation "science", it should be very easy to observe evolutionary changes on a super-rapid timescale.

Number of days since the flood: approx 1,642,500.

Let's start with what might be called a "kind"...
Number of species in the "beetle" ORDER Coleoptera: 400,000
New beetle species every 4 days.

Next taxonomical division down...
Number of species in the "weevil" FAMILY Circulionidae: 40,000
New weevil species every 41 days.

Next taxonomical division down...
Number of species in the "metallic beetle" GENUS Cicindela: 850 (conservative)
New metallic beetle species every 1930 days (5 years or so).

So, if creationism is correct, it should be quite straightforward for me to go and catch a mating pair of beetles and watch them evolve before my very eyes. I'll get back to you next week with an answer. Don't hold your breath though.

Our inability to observe rapid evolution in a mere matter of days is perfectly in line with Darwinian theory and completely at odds with creationism.

It strikes me that creationism in terms of "kinds" and other nonsense is between a rock and a hard place. If you subdivide the living world into too many "kinds", you cannot fit them all onto that boat. If you subdivide them into too few "kinds", you cannot account for the diversity we see in terms of "microevolution".

And to predict an obvious objection: rapid evolution after the flood to create the range of species we see, followed by natural selection to create distinct geographical populations of species is simply not supported by patterns of species radiation.

PS: any input to refining this argument greatly appreciated!

Cossax

doctoremma wrote: »

According to creation "science", it should be very easy to observe evolutionary changes on a super-rapid timescale.

Number of days since the flood: approx 1,642,500.

Let's start with what might be called a "kind"...
Number of species in the "beetle" ORDER Coleoptera: 400,000
New beetle species every 4 days.

Next taxonomical division down...
Number of species in the "weevil" FAMILY Circulionidae: 40,000
New weevil species every 41 days.

Next taxonomical division down...
Number of species in the "metallic beetle" GENUS Cicindela: 850 (conservative)
New metallic beetle species every 1930 days (5 years or so).

So, if creationism is correct, it should be quite straightforward for me to go and catch a mating pair of beetles and watch them evolve before my very eyes. I'll get back to you next week with an answer. Don't hold your breath though.

Our inability to observe rapid evolution in a mere matter of days is perfectly in line with Darwinian theory and completely at odds with creationism.

It strikes me that creationism in terms of "kinds" and other nonsense is between a rock and a hard place. If you subdivide the living world into too many "kinds", you cannot fit them all onto that boat. If you subdivide them into too few "kinds", you cannot account for the diversity we see in terms of "microevolution".

And to predict an obvious objection: rapid evolution after the flood to create the range of species we see, followed by natural selection to create distinct geographical populations of species is simply not supported by patterns of species radiation.

PS: any input to refining this argument greatly appreciated!

I once read a similar argument about YEC and how the hell they could explain known distances to other galaxies etc. given creation is only 6000 years old. I copied and pasted it but didn't get the book the forum poster was referencing but I assume it was "Telling Lies for God: Reason vs. Creationism" by Plimer.

Plimer says that the speed of light, according to creationists, was 200 billion times faster than now to allow everything to have happened in 6000 years. That would have made everything somewhat more energetic. "...if Adam lovingly lit a fire for Eve, than the energy released would have been equivalent to a 50-megaton atomic blast. Adam and Eve produced two children and the energy released during each of the two necessary acts of procreation would be equivalent to an explosion of 500 tons of TNT. This is clearly the origin of the expression 'Did the Earth move for you also, darling?', or perhaps it could be interpreted as the creationist big bang theory." pp. 33-34

Zombrex

doctoremma wrote: »

According to creation "science", it should be very easy to observe evolutionary changes on a super-rapid timescale.

Number of days since the flood: approx 1,642,500.

Let's start with what might be called a "kind"...
Number of species in the "beetle" ORDER Coleoptera: 400,000
New beetle species every 4 days.

Next taxonomical division down...
Number of species in the "weevil" FAMILY Circulionidae: 40,000
New weevil species every 41 days.

Next taxonomical division down...
Number of species in the "metallic beetle" GENUS Cicindela: 850 (conservative)
New metallic beetle species every 1930 days (5 years or so).

So, if creationism is correct, it should be quite straightforward for me to go and catch a mating pair of beetles and watch them evolve before my very eyes. I'll get back to you next week with an answer. Don't hold your breath though.

Our inability to observe rapid evolution in a mere matter of days is perfectly in line with Darwinian theory and completely at odds with creationism.

It strikes me that creationism in terms of "kinds" and other nonsense is between a rock and a hard place. If you subdivide the living world into too many "kinds", you cannot fit them all onto that boat. If you subdivide them into too few "kinds", you cannot account for the diversity we see in terms of "microevolution".

And to predict an obvious objection: rapid evolution after the flood to create the range of species we see, followed by natural selection to create distinct geographical populations of species is simply not supported by patterns of species radiation.

PS: any input to refining this argument greatly appreciated!

Apparently all that stopped, just before we started looking, for some unknown reason. Go figure :P

gkell3

Zombrex wrote: »

Again what is the point of engaging in these debates if you have no interest in learning what these things are? You seem to have already made up your mind that the scientific method doesn't work, that it is all about trusting scientists and thus the only scientists you trust are the ones that share your religious view point and the other ones have clouded judgement.

The setup is that minor Christian nuisances have a creationist view of life on the planet and the other nuisances promoting the 'scientific method' have a creationist view of Church history which actually led to the proliferation of the 'scientific method' and the enormous damage it is doing in astronomical and terrestrial sciences where interpretation rather than speculation/prediction is required.

I am staring at an intellectual apocalypse that nobody feels responsible for,cannot work out themselves even though it undermines matters of faith and the study of natural and celestial phenomena and for all the world it looks like the agency of the devil for no script could have conjured up something as terrible as this as it plays out over centuries.

The Pope in Galileo's time not only had legitimate objections as to the predictive elements of heliocentric ideology for nothing matches the destructive 'scientific agenda' that arose a century and a half later when they started to model the solar system using a specific process designed around right ascension.The interpretative elements which comprise the bulk of the work of Copernicus could be treated separately without the slightest objection yet a confluence of factors conspired to leave the door open for the current mess where those interpretative approaches were jettisoned by the modeling crowd in the late 17th century.

I do not expect anyone to actually comprehend the technical details nor is it a support for the Church's position but this creationist form of history where the Church appears desperate to keep the Earth at the center of the Universe,and apparently mainstream Christians accept this history received through empiricist views, doesn't rise above the level of the dumbest keyfigure in the whole affair,in this case Caccini -

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/keyfigures.html

There is not the slightest hint of responsibility from the contemporary Church that it knows what it is driven by ,not even the barest comprehension what the technical issues which separate the predictive convenience beloved by the 'scientific method' crowd from the interpretative astronomy it has almost destroyed.The empiricists themselves freely acknowledge that they couldn't trace the method by which Newton achieved his results yet I read him like a newspaper and can see clearly what he was up to and at the core of the 'scientific method' was the elevation of Newton's work -

"Newton singlehandedly contributed more to the development of science than any other individual in history. He surpassed all the gains brought about by the great scientific minds of antiquity, producing a scheme of the universe which was more consistent, elegant, and intuitive than any proposed before. Newton stated explicit principles of scientific methods which applied universally to all branches of science."

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html

Considering the unrelenting assault on the faith of individuals by the followers of a toxic strain of Royal Society empiricism,Christians have a good reason to revisit the Galileo affair and the issues surrounding it because it was here so much damage was done by all parties involved.

doctoremma

gkell3 wrote: »

the proliferation of the 'scientific method' and the enormous damage it is doing in astronomical and terrestrial sciences where interpretation rather than speculation/prediction is required.

You appear to have some kind of axe to grind with modern astronomy. Or ancient astronomy. Or the Christian church. Or maybe you love Chrsitianity. I can't tell, your posts are rather verbose. However, it's clear (I think) that you claim the scientific method is somehow doing enormous damage to our study in terrestrial and extra-terrestrial sciences. Do you have an alternative approach? How have YOU approached your studies?

gkell3

doctoremma wrote: »

You appear to have some kind of axe to grind with modern astronomy. Or ancient astronomy. Or the Christian church. Or maybe you love Chrsitianity. I can't tell, your posts are rather verbose. However, it's clear (I think) that you claim the scientific method is somehow doing enormous damage to our study in terrestrial and extra-terrestrial sciences. Do you have an alternative approach? How have YOU approached your studies?

I am not running a popularity contest, judging anyone specifically nor give a damn about being judged myself as this is dealing with the wreckage of Western astronomy and the dilution of historical and technical perspectives to a level not seen before on this planet.

There is no such thing as modern astronomy unless you call it a dumping ground for theorists 'astronomy' and it doesn't bother anyone in the slightest that the same theorists couldn't tell you why a 24 hour day keeps on step with one rotation of the Earth and if people can't recognize that as severe damage then I do not know what would.

The standard of discussion is meant to be raised for Christians who truly wish to discover what the actual objections were to planetary dynamics and why these objections were well founded and not that shallow creationist view of history imposed on the issue of planetary dynamics by the 'scientific method' crowd who never get beyond the idea that the Church opposed anything that disturbs the Earth as the center of the Universe.They have been given a free run by the Church itself who has shown no inclination whatsoever to deal honestly with the topics.

If the issue was dealt with properly none of this would have happened,that it did still requires an in-depth treatment which returns not only a stable narrative to astronomy but returns the astronomical discipline as a vibrant facet within Christianity.You have these browbeaten Christians playing victim to empiricism,and they are not creationists who are free to believe what they want,but Christians who are trying to sound like they actually understand the junk expounded by empiricism under the name of astronomy.The fact is that even empiricists themselves once fought to clean up their own act but failed as the attraction of easy answers ,shortcuts and the unrestricted choices they give themselves turn science into a comedy that it is.

"This empiricism, the melancholy heritage transmitted to us from
former times, invariably contends for the truth of its axioms with the
arrogance of a narrowminded spirit. Physical philosophy, on the other
hand, when based upon science, doubts because it seeks to investigate,
distinguishes between that which is certain and that which is merely
probable, and strives incessantly to perfect theory by extending the
circle of observation.
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos

doctoremma

gkell1/2/3, please, for the love of anything scientific and succinct, quit with the stream-of-consciousness offload. You dn't publish papers with that language, desist here.

If it helps, you can use bullet points.

Now, what were you saying?

gkell3

doctoremma wrote: »

gkell1/2/3, please, for the love of anything scientific and succinct, quit with the stream-of-consciousness offload. You dn't publish papers with that language, desist here.

If it helps, you can use bullet points.

Now, what were you saying?

Never getting the point is an empirical defense, a form of protective stupidity of a mind snapped shut to anything other than what it chooses to let in.The creationist view of history by empiricists parallels the creationist dummies in their approach to terrestrial sciences yet the creationist could probably manage to reach a level where they could say that one 24 hour day keeps in step with one rotation of the Earth,something empiricists simply cannot do.Who has objected to the 'scientific method' ?,I see no other Christians with a sense that there is more than one way to approach creation just as there is to Christianity itself.

What I see here in this forum says more about the standard of Christianity and how Christians approach their history and their heritage than it does about the truly dismal 'scientific method' bunch who seeking the 'mind of God' end up getting the dreary 'mind of the devil' instead.This intellectual apocalypse is not just failing to see God in creation but also failing to see the devil in man.

tommy2bad

gkell3 can you give us an explanation of what this 24 hour day thing means in a simple way we can understand, better yet a link to something explaining the dilemma you see?
Myself I haven't the foggiest what your on about!

gkell3

tommy2bad wrote: »

gkell3 can you give us an explanation of what this 24 hour day thing means in a simple way we can understand, better yet a link to something explaining the dilemma you see?
Myself I haven't the foggiest what your on about!

Sorry son,I have already done that multiple times without the slightest sign that Christians or non Christians have a problem with a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance which is central to Newton's agenda and the 'scientific method'.

I could probably tell you that all the things you experienced within the 24 hours of today is due to a rotating Earth but I doubt very much you would get the point why it remains that way day after day and no divergence occurs never mind getting into the ins and outs of Church history surrounding planetary dynamics and the Galileo affair.

tommy2bad

gkell3 wrote: »

Sorry son,I have already done that multiple times without the slightest sign that Christians or non Christians have a problem with a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance which is central to Newton's agenda and the 'scientific method'.

I could probably tell you that all the things you experienced within the 24 hours of today is due to a rotating Earth but I doubt very much you would get the point why it remains that way day after day and no divergence occurs never mind getting into the ins and outs of Church history surrounding planetary dynamics and the Galileo affair.

OK I've googled 1465rotation 1461 imbalance and all results are about education reform, Christians and calendar reform. Strange thing is all the posters on this subject use the same strange phrasing and odd intonation as you. Ether you all come from the same school of nonsense or... your the only one and you get around.
Sample post from here; http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.religion.christian/2010-10/msg00192.html

Here is how it actually works and it is there for people to enjoy,it
is more involved however the more detailed account can be dealt with
separately keeping in mind that this is not just a Christian heritage
but something exquisite we inherit from antiquity.

Sound familiar?

All get good sound explanations that they keep ignoring and repeating the same accusation without an explanation, all keep saying that it so obvious their disappointed no one else sees the contradiction.

doctoremma

gkell3 wrote: »

Never getting the point is an empirical defense, a form of protective stupidity of a mind snapped shut to anything other than what it chooses to be.

Do you ever think, just for one second of one minute, that the reason the people trying to listen to you don't understand what you're saying is because you're not explaining yourself adequately? Perhaps it's more likely than the premise that the entire scientific community is somehow thicker than you?

Just a thought. Public engagement and all that.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

You're clearly ignorant of these salient words:

"Doubtful it stood;
As two spent swimmers, that do cling together
And choke their art. The merciless Macdonwald--
Worthy to be a rebel, for to that
The multiplying villanies of nature
Do swarm upon him--from the western isles
Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied;
And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
Show'd like a rebel's whore: but all's too weak:
For brave Macbeth--well he deserves that name--
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion carved out his passage
Till he faced the slave;
Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements." -- Sergeant

pml, that's an odd poetic outburst Morbert. Love it!

Ah Macbeth, galliant, but driven mad to the bone by his arrogance, kingship and paranoia - the human condition, that Shakespeare expresses so perfectly. Humans huh? aren't we all...:D

Wh1stler

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you ever think, just for one second of one minute, that the reason the people trying to listen to you don't understand what you're saying is because you're not explaining yourself adequately? Perhaps it's more likely than the premise that the entire scientific community is somehow thicker than you?

Just a thought. Public engagement and all that.

I think that gkell considers the orbital path of the earth as being a 'straight' line from the perspective of the earth as it is in free-fall toward the sun and I have some sympathy with this view.

The curved path of the earth around the sun gives rise to the fact that earth must experience at least one stellar day per year unless it has retrograde rotation where one rotation per year would mean zero stellar days per year.

And that's the confusion; how can the earth turn and make the stars appear fixed due to there being no circumploar motion?

Whereas, if one considers the sun to always be on the 'left-hand side' of the earth then one rotation of the earth does indeed occur once a day.

Then the extra stellar day can be considered an artifact caused entirely by the motion of a non-rotating earth in orbit aroun the sun.

This seems reasonable to me but we are still left with 1465 stellar days per 1461 solar days; or 1461 rotations of the earth plus four orbits of the sun per four years.

Consider this; a photon travels through space in the viscinity of a black-hole causing the path of the photon to be 'bent'. A photon travelling along a curved path will experience 'circumpolar' motion; can we say that the photon has acquired 'spin'? Couldn't a photon possibly be 'tidally locked' to a black hole?

It's the same force being applied to the earth therefore doesn't it stand to reason that the same effect would be produced?

Perhaps Morbet would like to shed some non-spinning photons on this.

gkell3

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you ever think, just for one second of one minute, that the reason the people trying to listen to you don't understand what you're saying is because you're not explaining yourself adequately? Perhaps it's more likely than the premise that the entire scientific community is somehow thicker than you?

Just a thought. Public engagement and all that.

Today is Saturday,it is both one 24 hour day and one rotation of the Earth which will be followed by Sunday which is another 24 hour day and another rotation of the Earth and on it goes.It is as natural as breathing to a reasonable person as they have no reason to believe that all the experiences they have today such as daylight turns to darkness is due to anything other than one rotation of our planet.

When the 'scientific method' crowd comes along and determine that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days,it is supposed to register as something really wrong,the rotations of the Earth we give names such as Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and so on no longer mesh with days of the week and if that sounds absurd then it is,but that is what empiricism insists.

At least the Pharisees could interpret the concept of weather between one day and the next day hence the questioning of Jesus in Matthew 16 whereas in this dismal era not even that relationship between daily temperature rises and falls and rotation survives as a fact for how can it with the refusal to accept that there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days.

Christians indeed !.

gkell3

lmaopml wrote: »

Humans huh? aren't we all...:D

You have to be human to understand this -

"The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven.
He said to them in reply, "(In the evening you say, 'Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red';and, in the morning, 'Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times.)" Matthew 16

At least the Pharisees could interpret the sky yet couldn't interpret God in creation and in the words of Jesus,in this dismaying era with its mindless speculations,you don't even rise to the level of the Pharisees -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year."

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970714.html

The Earth turns once in a day and a thousand times in a thousand days so when humanity turns away from this primary experience of God's creation for no other reason than it chooses to,it defies the gift of intelligence we are all blessed with.Let you join the empiricist in their intellectual apocalypse because that is what it is.

doctoremma

gkell3 wrote: »

Today is Saturday,it is both one 24 hour day and one rotation of the Earth which will be followed by Sunday which is another 24 hour day and another rotation of the Earth and on it goes.

This subject is entirely novel to me so the following could be complete rubbish...

A solar day averages out to 24 hours. Is anyone arguing is? Given that the definition of hour was defined by the solar day, it would be 24 hours per solar day, regardless of an absolute value.

From some quick reading of the most basic of resources, the solar day is longer than the day as measured by stars much further away, because the earth doesn't move very much relative to them (while it clearly moves relative to the sun). Because of the earth's rotation and shifting position around the sun, it takes a slightly shorter time for the distant stars to get back to the same place in the sky?

So the earth's 'absolute' rotation time is 23:56 but because we are moving around a closer star by which we set our clocks, we have a slightly longer 'apparent rotation' in terms of time, which corresponds to a slightly longer than a 360 degree rotation?

When you count the number of perceived rotations that a star close to a polar star makes in each solar year, how many is it?

gkell3 wrote: »

When the 'scientific method' crowd comes along and determine that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days

But the '1465 rotations' part is in reference to a different object to the reference point used to determine the '1461 days'. Aren't you conflating two separate measurements?

gkell3

doctoremma wrote: »

But the '1465 rotations' part is in reference to a different object to the reference point used to determine the '1461 days'. Aren't you conflating two separate measurements?

I am not the first to spot this intellectual apocalypse but I am the first to tackle it head on through the technical details.The poets had an instinctive repulsion for the clockwork solar system and the minds that bred it -

"I turn my eyes to the Schools & Universities of Europe
And there behold the Loom of Locke whose Woof rages dire
Washd by the Water-wheels of Newton. black the cloth
In heavy wreathes folds over every Nation; cruel Works
Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
Moving by compulsion each other: not as those in Eden: which
Wheel within Wheel in freedom revolve in harmony & peace."
Jerusalem ,William Blake

The Christian is supposed to remain steadfast at the point that one 24 hour day keeps in step with one rotation of the planet and all the great gifts of God they experience within that day whether it is a Monday or a Wednesday,each day and each rotation following each other with the Earth turning once a day and ten thousand times in ten thousand days.It is nothing short of betrayal should they follow what is effectively a late 17th century parasitic Ra/Dec conception attached to the main Lat/Long system and the AM/PM cycles that keep the 24 hour days fixed to the 1461 daily rotations enclosed in 4 years/4 orbital circuits of the Earth.

Christians who entertain the empiricist community and its 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance which is as unsightly as it is unacceptable are complicit in this intellectual holocaust for it is not possible to even begin to enjoy creation and the work of the great astronomers without that fundamental point of departure.

PDN

I must say that the Creationism thread is like the Godfather movies - number 2 is turning out to be much more entertaining than the original.

doctoremma

gkell3 wrote: »

I am not the first to spot this intellectual apocalypse but I am the first to tackle it head on through the technical details.

You aren't tackling anything. Your posts are devoid of scientific content and full of quotes from poets. I am clearly not going to learn anything from you - I can't even discern if you have anything to teach.

I asked a specific question which you didn't answer but which might help me. When you track the movement of a circumpolar star, how many rotations do you see in one whole solar year? I don't know that answer, I don't know if it's relevant, but I'm guessing it consists of a single number, not a Shakespearean sonnet. What is that number?

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

I must say that the Creationism thread is like the Godfather movies - number 2 is turning out to be much more entertaining than the original.

:eek: Sacrilige!

Wh1stler

doctoremma wrote: »

When you count the number of perceived rotations that a star close to a polar star makes in each solar year, how many is it?

366.25 (ish)

doctoremma wrote: »

But the '1465 rotations' part is in reference to a different object to the reference point used to determine the '1461 days'. Aren't you conflating two separate measurements?

Yes. There is an extra stellar day every year (4 x 366.25 = 1465) due to the earth's rotation.


If the earth was tidally locked to the sun then the same side of the earth would constantly face the sun in the same way as one side of the moon always faces the earth. In such a situation the earth would experience one stellar day but zero solar days per year.


gkell and I contend that a tidally locked object has zero rotation and only appears to rotate because it travels along a curved path.

To say the the moon rotates is to say that photons in the viscinity of a strong gravitational field acquire spin.


As far as I know, physics objects to this, asserting, as it does, that photons always travel in a straight line. I am happy with this but they can't change the rules just because it is a planet or moon that is travelling in a straight line through curved space.

doctoremma

Wh1stler wrote: »

366.25 (ish). There is an extra stellar day every year (4 x 366.25 = 1465) due to the earth's rotation.

So the apparent mismatch of numbers is perfectly valid - the number of rotations can be different depending on your reference point (and how you are moving compared to it)? That seems intuitive to me.

Wh1stler wrote: »

If the earth was tidally locked to the sun then the same side of the earth would constantly face the sun in the same way as one side of the moon always faces the earth.

Ok, following this...

Wh1stler wrote: »

In such a situation the earth would experience one stellar day but zero solar days per year.

Yep, still with you...

Wh1stler wrote: »

gkell and I contend that a tidally locked object has zero rotation and only appears to rotate because it travels along a curved path.

So this is where it starts to sound wrong to me (which, of course, has no bearing on whether it actually IS wrong!). To us on earth, the moon doesn't appear to rotate. To an observer outside the earth-moon system, the moon rotates in absolute space, no? If the moon didn't rotate in absolute space, it would move around the earth in only a translational fashion and therefore, we would see different surfaces of the moon?

Wh1stler wrote: »

To say the the moon rotates is to say that photons in the viscinity of a strong gravitational field acquire spin. As far as I know, physics objects to this, asserting, as it does, that photons always travel in a straight line. I am happy with this but they can't change the rules just because it is a planet or moon that is travelling in a straight line through curved space.

Well, I'm completely unable to address this as I don't know a huge amount about light/photons/spins/etc, except to say that don't lots of things start to get weird when you deal with light and quantum particles as compared to bodies with large mass?

gkell3

doctoremma wrote: »

You aren't tackling anything. Your posts are devoid of scientific content and full of quotes from poets. I am clearly not going to learn anything from you - I can't even discern if you have anything to teach.

I asked a specific question which you didn't answer but which might help me. When you track the movement of a circumpolar star, how many rotations do you see in one whole solar year? I don't know that answer, I don't know if it's relevant, but I'm guessing it consists of a single number, not a Shakespearean sonnet. What is that number?

For whatever reason it is not sinking in and in common sense language you are missing the mark and not getting the point,the older Christian idea of what 'sin' is.

Many Christians share with you the inability to comprehend that today Saturday 14th of April is both a 24 hour day and a rotation of our planet and that correspondence between one day and one rotation never,ever diverges as one 24 hour day as one rotation progresses to the next

The struggle is not science vs Christianity or reason vs faith,it is a struggle against irrelevance that is the central issue.

tommy2bad

Wh1stler wrote: »

366.25 (ish)





Yes. There is an extra stellar day every year (4 x 366.25 = 1465) due to the earth's rotation.

OK,
If the earth was tidally locked to the sun then the same side of the earth would constantly face the sun in the same way as one side of the moon always faces the earth. In such a situation the earth would experience one stellar day but zero solar days per year.
OK

gkell and I contend that a tidally locked object has zero rotation and only appears to rotate because it travels along a curved path.

To say the the moon rotates is to say that photons in the viscinity of a strong gravitational field acquire spin.
But it dose rotate, one lunar day is 27.3 days, equivalent to our month approx? It's rotation is held in check by gravitational friction in sync with the earth.

As far as I know, physics objects to this, asserting, as it does, that photons always travel in a straight line. I am happy with this but they can't change the rules just because it is a planet or moon that is travelling in a straight line through curved space.

I still don't get what apocalypse ye are on about.

gkell3

Wh1stler wrote: »

gkell and I contend that a tidally locked object has zero rotation and only appears to rotate because it travels along a curved path.

Let the moderator deal with that nonsense otherwise there is no point to a forum.

---

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

I still don't get what apocalypse ye are on about.

I think it's the one where Christians get on with their lives and concentrate on stuff like loving one another and living out their faith rather than getting worked up about how many times the earth spins in a year.

gkell3

PDN wrote: »

I think it's the one where Christians get on with their lives and concentrate on stuff like loving one another and living out their faith rather than getting worked up about how many times the earth spins in a year.

Irrelevance is a condition that is central to the apocalypse -

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.Because you say, 'I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing;' and don't know that you are the wretched one, miserable, poor, blind, and naked; I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich; and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see" Revelation

You are hardly aware of Church history and calendar reform due to the over-compensation of 11 minutes each year hence the addition of not only the extra day of Feb 29th as the 1461 st rotation of the Earth enclosing 4 orbital periods but also the additional correction they need so you and everyone else here celebrates Christmas 4 days after the winter Solstice.When a society can't even manage to match one 24 hour day with one rotation it no longer deserves the designation of a civilization however great Western civilization once was.

The warning of Revelation is directed at those who forget or do not know that the life Christ offers his followers is not just about ticking boxes but actually getting out there and doing whatever possible from the smallest kindness to the great artistic and scientific endeavors to maintain the spirit of Christ.

PDN

gkell3 wrote: »

Irrelevance is a condition that is central to the apocalypse -

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.Because you say, 'I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing;' and don't know that you are the wretched one, miserable, poor, blind, and naked; I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich; and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see" Revelation

You are hardly aware of Church history and calendar reform due to the over-compensation of 11 minutes each year hence the addition of not only the extra day of Feb 29th as the 1461 st rotation of the Earth enclosing 4 orbital periods but also the additional correction they need so you and everyone else here celebrates Christmas 4 days after the winter Solstice.When a society can't even manage to match one 24 hour day with one rotation it no longer deserves the designation of a civilization however great Western civilization once was.

The warning of Revelation is directed at those who forget or do not know that the life Christ offers his followers is not just about ticking boxes but actually getting out there and doing whatever possible from the smallest kindness to the great artistic and scientific endeavors to maintain the spirit of Christ.

Given that Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December anyway, I doubt if it matters much when we celebrate Christmas. I'd be happy to celebrate it anytime - but I'd actually prefer to have it in the Summer so we could barbeque the left over turkey in the back garden.

Wh1stler

doctoremma wrote: »

So this is where it starts to sound wrong to me (which, of course, has no bearing on whether it actually IS wrong!). To us on earth, the moon doesn't appear to rotate. To an observer outside the earth-moon system, the moon rotates in absolute space, no? If the moon didn't rotate in absolute space, it would move around the earth in only a translational fashion and therefore, we would see different surfaces of the moon?

The reasoning is subtle; I see a difference between the moon rotating about its own axis and the moon 'appearing' to rotate because it has been 'grabbed' at one point by the earth's gravity and is being swung around the earth much like a brick on the end of a length of string.

The brick (or moon) appears to rotate but if it were, it would 'wind' up the string as if it was a bobbin. And the brick would get closer to the axis of rotation (the earth).

But the moon is receding from the earth. This is happening because a 'breaking' force is being applied to the left hand side of the moon, by earth's gravity, causing the left (near-side) of the moon to move slightly slower than the right (far-side) of the moon. The moon is 'pulling' to the left in the same way that a car 'pulls' to the left when the right-hand brake gets spongy.

But the moon, like the car is not rotating; it is simply following a modified path. It would be the same if the car were travelling along a road with a steep camber; keeping the steering wheel straight causes the car to 'veer', not 'spin' to the side.

The moon is 'veering' to the left in my view and not spinning.

The gravity gradient is equivalent to camber; the moon is travelling in a straight line but earth's gravity interferes with the direction of that line.

The moon does not spin on its axis, it is twisted by earth's gravity. The moon contributes nothing to the energy that causes it to appear to rotate.

I think I make a reasoned argument here and one worthy of consideration; the physics that applies to photons should apply to the moon.

In my view.

Wh1stler

gkell3 wrote: »

For whatever reason it is not sinking in and in common sense language you are missing the mark and not getting the point,the older Christian idea of what 'sin' is.

Many Christians share with you the inability to comprehend that today Saturday 14th of April is both a 24 hour day and a rotation of our planet and that correspondence between one day and one rotation never,ever diverges as one 24 hour day as one rotation progresses to the next

The struggle is not science vs Christianity or reason vs faith,it is a struggle against irrelevance that is the central issue.

You do realise that the days will get longer in the future, don't you?

wolfsbane

Wh1stler wrote: »

You must have a great deal of sympathy for the Afghan Taliban then.

They oppress women, rather than treating them with honour: 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Those who treat women as totally like men (except physically), are also oppressing them. They are putting them in roles they were not called to bear and demanding they function like men. Women deserve gentler emotional handling than men, for example. Consideration above that deserved by a man. He should get over it and get on with it.

*********************************************************************
Genesis 2:20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

Those who treat women as totally like men (except physically), are also oppressing them. They are putting them in roles they were not called to bear and demanding they function like men. Women deserve gentler emotional handling than men, for example. Consideration above that deserved by a man. He should get over it and get on with it.

Wow, thats either the most gentlemanly thing posted here or the most chauvinistic, I'm not sure which.

wolfsbane

Cossax wrote: »

I once read a similar argument about YEC and how the hell they could explain known distances to other galaxies etc. given creation is only 6000 years old. I copied and pasted it but didn't get the book the forum poster was referencing but I assume it was "Telling Lies for God: Reason vs. Creationism" by Plimer.

Here is a fairly recent creationist item on the subject, indicating several views:
Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove


*********************************************************************
Genesis 1:16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

gkell3

PDN wrote: »

Given that Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December anyway, I doubt if it matters much when we celebrate Christmas. I'd be happy to celebrate it anytime - but I'd actually prefer to have it in the Summer so we could barbeque the left over turkey in the back garden.

The great Christians always understood that the greatest enemy of Christ and Christianity was irrelevance and not the unbeliever and their creed,diminish creation as the present generation is intent on doing and nothing remains.It is the language of common sense and responsibility that is needed now,where God does not act then the devil does and no script could budget for the collapse of Western sciences in areas where interpretation is required and especially astronomy.

I have understood what went wrong in the late 17th century arising from the terrible events which preceded it through the actions of individuals and the Church at that time and it has nothing to do with a desperate need to have the Earth at the center of the Universe.The great Copernicus did not fear Church censure,he feared the very thing that happened to his work in falling into the hands of those who couldn't handle the arguments as a mirror for Johannine Christianity which left the Book Of Revelation to protect the words of Jesus -

"..they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken." Copernicus in a letter to Pope Paul III

How many opinionated drones there are today unfortunately.

Even if I have a deep affection for the Christian community as I go to Church tomorrow,it is an aging population which just cannot handle the aggressive scam of empirical science as it goes about its business,presently it is not the Church that is failing but the artificial novelties of empiricism that are succeeding in capturing the attention of those who know no better and have no experience of genuine astronomy.It was not always like this,the Church valued its astronomical heritage even now as it has completely abandoned it to the point where its followers suffer the lost of the cause of sunrise and sunset in the 1461 times these events happen in 1461 days.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

Those who treat women as totally like men (except physically), are also oppressing them. They are putting them in roles they were not called to bear and demanding they function like men. Women deserve gentler emotional handling than men, for example. Consideration above that deserved by a man. He should get over it and get on with it.

Gentlemanly, chauvinistic - the moderate supporting the extremist...

This is mostly codswallop. Physically, on average, of course there's a difference between men and women. I've seen very little evidence of fundamental differences in other aspects that can't be explained by social conditioning.

Do you think woman are more emotionally in touch than men because of estrogen or because they've learned that role?

wolfsbane

oldrnwisr said:

That's great. So we can settle this now then.

We have observed interfamilial hybrids.



The bird on the left in the photo above is a hybrid of the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus, family Phasianinae) and a guineafowl (Numida meleagris, family Numididae).

I stand corrected then on Family being the boundary of 'kind'. I assumed that was where interbreeding did not extent to. Interbreeding is the Biblical mark of 'kind'.

However, even such a hybrid isn't necessary to show that creationism is full of crap.

Firstly, membership of a kind depends on the ability to interbreed.

Agreed.

That presents a problem whenever lists of kinds are produced by creationists. Take the Felidae kind or baramin for example. There are 42 members of the Felidae baramin. Considering the possibility of different outcomes with male-female crosses of different species, the total number of possible pairings is 1722. There have only ever been 67 confirmed pairings within this group however, or 3% so the creationist postulate looks a little shaky.

Does inability to breed prove they are not the same kind? That's different from the ability to breed being proof of their kindship.

Secondly, the intention of the creationists who first began to study kinds was to create a new picture of evolution, replacing the tree of life with the creationist orchard below.

Indeed.

This approach is equally baseless because the only thing necessary to undermine this idea is to show where any two kinds share a common ancestor, which has been found repeatedly, particularly humans and other apes, feliformes and caniformes and even whales and hippos.

Proof that humans have a common ancestor with 'other' apes? It's just another story.

Thirdly, the creationists who have made it their business to specialise in this kind of snake-oil selling have already by their own publications shown themselves to be dishonest and unscientific.

From the definitive work "Understanding the Pattern of Life":

"We creationists rest instead on the philosophical and biblical foundation...Since we believe that something like a diverse unit of biological creation must exist, detecting baramins becomes a matter of adjusting our context until the baraminic limits emerge"

"Clearly when the Bible claims discontinuity, any other evidence is unnecessary. As a result, the quality of the Australopithecine or whale series is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity between humans and apes and whales and land creatures."

You are confusing our theological beliefs with our scientific claims. They are not the same. We do not advance our beliefs as scientific proof. The scientific argument is quite separate - no dishonesty is involved. You just need to pay closer attention.

Finally, given that this is the Christian forum I have to say wolfsbane that you and all the other creationists are doing a great disservice to your religion. I think that to suggest that the word kind as originally used in the hebrew bible has any kind of specific meaning in relation to modern biology is to utterly denigrate the message of the original story.

The word 'kind' was used to describe the original created organisms. Today's scientific classifications are examined in its light, not the other way around. The specific meaning - where exactly on the classification list 'kind' falls - is for science to discover.

If I were a Christian I would be terribly offended that someone who also proclaims to be a Christian would twist the Bible in such a way in order to peddle some pseudoscientific bullcrap.

The offence is denying Genesis teaches a mature creation. It takes a lot of twisting to make it say anything else. You might not believe the assertions Genesis makes, but you ought not to deny it makes them.


*******************************************************************
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.