Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
You missed the "not" in that sentence.J C wrote:A ‘Freudian Slip’ no doubt – but very interesting nonetheless!!!!:D
So that is code for "we have no clue"J C wrote:He simply said “Let there be …… and there was!!!!!:cool:J C wrote:………and Creation by an omnipotent and omniscient God is far a better ‘fit’ to the evidence
What "evidence"? Under Creationism there should be no evidence, because God just did it. Evidence implies a process to effects things around it, leaving evidence. If God just magically made everything appear then there would be no evidence that this happened.J C wrote:(of complex organisms exhibiting massive quantities of tightly specified information) than the alternative of muck ‘lifting itself up by its own bootstraps’ to become Man!!!!!:eek:
So you are claiming that God is too stupid to have been able to make life using a natural process (like He does everything else) and must have used magic?
I see your grasp on the English language is as shoddy your grasp on science :rolleyes:J C wrote:But it is falsifiable – I did say IF such an impossibility were to occur!!:cool:
No, actually they don't. All scientific theories must be falsisable, in that it must be possible that the theory can be shown to be wrong, even if it isn't.J C wrote:Scientists routinely pronounce various phenomena to be impossible.
Read up a bit on the scientific method their JC
The "Law" of biogenesis is a law the way Moores law is a a law. Ie not really, but it sounds nice.J C wrote:Equally, the biological Law of Biogenesis as well as all scientific observations to date rules out the spontaneous generation of life.
Except evolution isn't undirected, and it has been observed to increase the information dense of genomes.J C wrote:The probability of the undirected production of the information dense genomes that we observe in living organisms are so impossibly large as to rule out any mechanism other that Direct Creation as their ultimate source.
So wrong on both counts JC ... but keep trying, its fascinating to see what new nonsense you will come up with next
They have. Repeatably.J C wrote:The scientific theory of Direct Creation is falsifiable - if somebody can repeatably demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously.
For some strange reason the Creationists (and only creationists) don't accept the findings. Strange that, isn't it. It is almost as if their religion is telling them to think and behave in a particular way.
What was that about denial JC :rolleyes:0 -
-
Diogenes
JC has claimed that the canivorous animals, survived in the years after the flood on the remains of the animals killed during the flood.
It was asked specifically what the Big Cats ate, after the Flood and it was pointed out that Lions have particular dietary requirements for Taurine (which is an essential Amino Acid that Lions aren’t able to synthesise themselves).
1. I pointed out that Lions today are likely to be much more specialised than their Cat Kind ancestors who left the Ark due to speciation and genetic isolation. Therefore, the original Big Cat Kind probably didn’t suffer from the Lions' current inability to synthesise Taurine. The Big Cat Kind probably moved from an omnivorous diet at the time of the Flood, to the much more specialised diets of the various modern Big Cats including the LOSS by Lions of their ancestral ability to synthesise Taurine
2. I also pointed out that there was ‘easy meat’ available for the carnivores in the form of carrion from all of the dead animals killed by the Flood and piled up in ‘Elephant Graveyards’ all over the Earth. In case anybody doubted the short–term preservation of this meat I pointed out that thousand-year-old frozen Woolly Mammoth meat is quite edible today (for a Lion, at least) – and I also drew attention to the recent discovery of a fully articulated Dinosaur limb complete with intact ligaments and blood vessels. This proves that protein rich tissue could be preserved for thousands of years (but not millions of years, as Evolutionists claim). You may read all about this discovery at :-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
3 .The fact that Noah’s Ark came to rest close to the ‘Snow Line’ on Mount Ararat – and the fact that the Ice Age followed immediately after Noah’s Flood due to the ‘Nuclear Winter’ type conditions caused by volcanic dust and smoke released by the enormous tectonic movements during the Flood, means that there could also have been plenty of frozen Flood Kill on the slopes of Ararat and in surrounding areas for the Lions to eat. Equally, as the Post-Flood glaciers started melting, the retreating ice would have revealed further frozen carcasses!!!!
4. In addition the sheer volume of 'Flood Kill' would have preserved most of the meat in the ANAEROBIC environment within ‘putrid piles’ – and I cited an UNDERWATER experiment where ANAEROBIC conditions did indeed preserve individual pieces of meat for over two years to a standard similar to a modern freezer. You may read all about this discovery at :-
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9495/May08_95/storage.htm
5 I also pointed out that meat preservation would have been assisted by salt infusion, especially where localised pools of sea water evaporated. Equally, bog-like swamps on the recently inundated land could also have preserved protein-rich foods for CENTURIES.
6. I pointed out that the Lion is a lazy animal – and they therefore would only be bothered to chase Zebra when the carrion ran out – and by then the Zebra probably numbered many thousands.!!!
….and before you claim that Lions are ‘choosey’ about their feed – let me remind you that Lions today regularly ‘tuck into’ a main course of ‘Zebra intestine and faeces’ – without as much as a sniff or a belch!!!
7. Finally, the Cat Kind would also have plenty of fish and amphibians to prey upon – because these creatures would have survived the Flood in greater numbers that the Land Animals on Noah’s Ark……and while Lions today may not be noted for hunting fish, their cousin, the Jaguar (which is also probably descended from the Big Cat Kind) DOES have a substantial proportion of fish in it’s diet.
With all of the above sources of nutrition available to them, the two members of the original Cat Kind were probably in greater danger of dying from obesity, than from hunger in the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood!!!:cool:
Originally Posted by J C
Scientists routinely pronounce various phenomena to be impossible.
Wicknight
No, actually they don't. All scientific theories must be falsisable, in that it must be possible that the theory can be shown to be wrong, even if it isn't.
Read up a bit on the scientific method their JC
So what is a Doctor doing when s/he pronounces somebody to be brain dead???
Are they giving an informed SCIENCE-BASED opinion - or are they merely making a wild guess???
They ARE of course, giving a scientific opinion that the person is dead and that restoration of life to that person's body is IMPOSSIBLE!!:eek:
Scofflaw
Actually, the position of the Catholic Church is that whatever works, works. If people prefer to believe in Creationism, that's up to them, but there are no objections to evolution.........
..........The Catholic Church gets to say this because they do not believe that the Bible must be read literally, so the interpretation of Genesis is very open, except insofar as it definitely identifies God as the Creator of Heaven and Earth.
So, you believe that the Roman Catholic position on the ‘origins question’ is to have no position!!
………..except a position that Genesis definitely identifies God as Creator of Heaven and Earth!!!!
That sounds like a 'liberal' CREATIONIST position to me!!!!:D
bonkey
We must, therefore, accept that at least some Roman Catholics believe in stuff contrary to the teachings of their church!!!
And how do we know which those are? Why....by seeing what their church's official position is, rather than making it up to suit ourselves.
Scofflaw
Actually, the position of the Catholic Church is that whatever works, works. If people prefer to believe in Creationism, that's up to them, but there are no objections to evolution,
Scofflaw talk to bonkey – bonkey talk to Scofflaw!!!
IF the position of the Roman Catholic Church on the ‘origins question’ is “whatever work, works” – then they obviously DON’T have any teaching position on the Creation v Evolution issue.
…………..and that is why the 30% of American Roman Catholics who are conservative Creationists AREN’T heretics.......... and indeed their beliefs are fully in line with the declarations of both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds - that God is Maker and Creator of Heaven and Earth - and all life therein!!!:D
Wicknight
You missed the "not" in that sentence.
No I didn’t – here is the original sentence AGAIN :–
“What ever you claim about evolution, ID does work.”!!!!:eek:
bonkey
Can I in turn remind you that macro evolution is not a scientific concept nor theory,
You don’t need to remind me – I know only too well, that macro-Evolution is an invalid scientific theory, with neither evidence nor logic supporting the unfounded belief that pond scum ‘evolved’ into Mankind!!!
BTW does your statement that "macro evolution is not a scientific concept nor theory" mean that you now are conceding the debate????
0 -
It means macro-evolution is a nonsense term coined by those incapable of criticising evolution on an decent level.J C wrote:BTW does your statement that "macro evolution is not a scientific concept nor theory" mean that you now are conceding the debate????0 -
J C wrote:Scientists routinely pronounce various phenomena to be impossible.[/I]
Wicknight
No, actually they don't. All scientific theories must be falsisable, in that it must be possible that the theory can be shown to be wrong, even if it isn't.
Read up a bit on the scientific method their JC
So what is a Doctor doing when s/he pronounces somebody to be brain dead???
Are they giving an informed SCIENCE-BASED opinion - or are they merely making a wild guess???
They ARE of course, giving a scientific opinion that the person is dead and that restoration of life to that person's body is IMPOSSIBLE!!:eek:
Hmm. How about "read up a bit on what science is, JC"? The doctor (who is a medical practicioner, not a scientist) in this case is making a judgement, based on available law as to what 'death' is considered to be. He/she is certainly not theorising on the spot.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Actually, the position of the Catholic Church is that whatever works, works. If people prefer to believe in Creationism, that's up to them, but there are no objections to evolution.........
..........The Catholic Church gets to say this because they do not believe that the Bible must be read literally, so the interpretation of Genesis is very open, except insofar as it definitely identifies God as the Creator of Heaven and Earth.
So, you believe that the Roman Catholic position on the ‘origins question’ is to have no position!!
………..except a position that Genesis definitely identifies God as Creator of Heaven and Earth!!!!
That sounds like a 'liberal' CREATIONIST position to me!!!!:D
Sure. But then, everything does, to you.J C wrote:bonkey
We must, therefore, accept that at least some Roman Catholics believe in stuff contrary to the teachings of their church!!!
And how do we know which those are? Why....by seeing what their church's official position is, rather than making it up to suit ourselves.
Scofflaw
Actually, the position of the Catholic Church is that whatever works, works. If people prefer to believe in Creationism, that's up to them, but there are no objections to evolution,
Scofflaw talk bonkey – bonkey talk to Scofflaw!!!
IF the position of the Roman Catholic Church on the ‘origins question’ is “whatever work, works” – then they obviously DON’T have any teaching position on the Creation v Evolution issue.
…………..and that is why the 30% of American Roman Catholics who are conservative Creationists AREN’T heretics.......... and indeed their beliefs are fully in line with the declarations of both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds - that God is Maker and Creator of Heaven and Earth - and all life therein!!!:D
Hmm. I see that 30% have moved from being Creationists to being 'conservative Creationists'. You are otherwise correct - they are not holding beliefs in conflict with their Church.
However, your original claim is sheer bunkum, as you now implicitly admit: Catholics are not 'Creationists by virtue of the Nicene Creed' - at least not in any meaningful sense.
However, we've seen that the form of words always means more to you than the reality - I look forward to the resurgence of this claim at a later date.J C wrote:Wicknight
You missed the "not" in that sentence.
No I didn’t – here is the original sentence AGAIN :–
“What ever you claim about evolution, ID does work.”!!!!:eek:
Well done. A typo, eh? Well, given the sorts of people you have trotted out as Cretinists, it's par for the course that you'd claim Wicknight on the basis of one.
Oh, wait, I have a typo there. Or do I?J C wrote:bonkey
Can I in turn remind you that macro evolution is not a scientific concept nor theory,
You don’t need to remind me – I know only too well, that macro-Evolution is an invalid scientific theory, with neither evidence nor logic supporting the unfounded belief that pond scum ‘evolved’ into Mankind!!!
BTW does your statement that "macro evolution is not a scientific concept nor theory" mean that you now are conceding the debate????
Oh dear. Dear oh dear. Even for someone with generally such a firm grasp of the wrong end of the stick, this is a new low.
I know others have said this already, but let me just add to the consensus. There is no scientific "Theory of Macro-evolution" - there is only the "Theory of Evolution". "Macro-evolution", like "evolutionist", is a term coined, and used, by Creationists - it's not a scientific term.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:
1. I pointed out that Lions today are likely to be much more specialised that their Cat Kind ancestors who left the Ark due to speciation and genetic isolation. Therefore, the original Big Cat Kind probably didn’t suffer from the Lions' current inability to synthesise Taurine. The Big Cat Kind probably moved from an omnivorous diet at the time of the Flood, to the much more specialised diets of the various modern Big Cats including the LOSS by Lions of their ancestral ability to synthesise Taurine
Theres an awful lot of "probably's" in there. And a vaste degree of speculation, any evidence to support your claims?2. I also pointed out that there was ‘easy meat’ available for the carnivores in the form of carrion from all of the dead animals killed by the Flood and piled up in ‘Elephant Graveyards’ all over the Earth. In case anybody doubted the short–term preservation of this meat I pointed out that thousand-year-old frozen Woolly Mammoth meat is quite edible today (for a Lion, at least) – and I also drew attention to the recent discovery of a fully articulated Dinosaur limb complete with intact ligaments and blood vessels. This proves that protein rich tissue could be preserved for thousands of years (but not millions of years, as Evolutionists claim). You may read all about this discovery at :-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
Okay JC, and this may sound incredibly patronising to you, but you do understand the difference between water and ice right? How the molecule H20 differs when it is a solid or a liquid? That the properties differ? I mean essentially you understand the principle of how a fridge differs from your sink. I mean quick example JC why don't you keep a steak in your fridge for a month, and another in a bowl of water for a month and see which one is edible.
Seriously JC did you pass first year (and I mean first year secondary school) science?3 .The fact that Noah’s Ark came to rest close to the ‘Snow Line’ on Mount Ararat – and the fact that the Ice Age followed immediately after Noah’s Flood due to the ‘Nuclear Winter’ type conditions caused by volcanic dust and smoke released by the enormous tectonic movement s during the Flood, means that there could also have been plenty of frozen Flood Kill on the slopes of Ararat and in surrounding areas for the Lions to eat. Equally, as the Post-Flood glaciers started melting, the retreating ice would have revealed further frozen carcasses!!!!
I'm sure you can provide plenty of evidence to support those two facts? Such as examples of an global ice age in other cultures at the same time you claim it occurs (I'd love to see Aztec or Chinese evidence of a nuclear winter, 4,000 years ago.)4. In addition the sheer volume of 'Flood Kill' would have preserved most of the meat in the ANAEROBIC environment within ‘putrid piles’ – and I cited an UNDERWATER experiment where ANAEROBIC conditions did indeed preserve individual pieces of meat for over two years to a standard similar to a modern freezer. You may read all about this discovery at :-
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9495/May08_95/storage.htm
Again the words that are critical here from your link are "shallow" and "pond" Two words that could not be used to describe the conditions of a flooded planet. These like everything else don't prove a thing JC.5 I also pointed out that meat preservation would have been assisted by salt infusion, especially where localised pools of sea water evaporated.
Whut? Seriously what? Leaving aside that the level of salt in the ocean isn't enough to preserve meat (because if it was nothing could live in it, the point of perservation) what on earth does "localised pools of sea water evaporation" mean? How does that work?Equally, bog-like swamps on the recently inundated land could also have preserved protein-rich foods for CENTURIES.
Yeah so the meat fell to the bottom of salt rich ocean, were absorbed by a natural peat bog, and then reappeared after the flood. Don't suppose you've a shred of evidence to support this?6. I pointed out that the Lion is a lazy animal – and they therefore would only be bothered to chase Zebra when the carrion ran out – and by then the Zebra probably numbered many thousands.!!!….and before you claim that Lions are ‘choosey’ about their feed – let me remind you that Lions today regularly ‘tuck into’ a main course of ‘Zebra intestine and faeces’ – without as much as a sniff or a belch!!!
Are Lions scavengers like Hyneas? No. They hunt prey. Suggesting that lions are in fact scavengers without a shred of evidens is just nonsense.
7. Finally, the Cat Kind would also have plenty of fish and amphibians to prey upon – because these creatures would have survived the Flood in greater numbers that the Land Animals on Noah’s Ark……and while Lions today may not be noted for hunting fish, their cousin, the Jaguar (which is also probably descended from the Big Cat Kind) DOES have a substantial proportion of fish in it’s diet.
With all of the above sources of nutrition available to them, the two members of the original Cat Kind were probably in greater danger of dying from obesity, than from hunger in the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood!!!:cool:
Wow thats nice just focusing on the big cats? What about other predators? Packs like wolfs, repitiles like snakes? Animals who prey on specific species.
JC I'm sorry and I mean no offense I am really begining to pity you the absurdity of what you present the ignorance of your posts the delusionals you present as facts, you do not seem well...0 -
-
-
-
Scofflaw
The doctor (who is a medical practitioner, not a scientist)…………
I’m sure that many Medical Doctors would beg to differ with you on the fact that they have indeed studied Medical Science – and not some ‘art form’ as your posting implies.
The reason that the practice of Medicine has progressed beyond the ‘Appliance of Leaches’ is because of the 'Appliance of Science' by the Medical profession.:)
The pronouncement of death by a Doctor is therefore based upon the repeatably verifiable, (i.e. scientific) fact that Brain Death is always observed to be irreversible – and so Doctors DO indeed give a SCIENTIFIC opinion that the person is dead and that restoration of life is IMPOSSIBLE!!:D
Diogenes
Are Lions scavengers like Hyneas? No. They hunt prey
Lions will hunt prey when they HAVE to – otherwise they are quite good opportunists – and they will happily scavenge if they discover a carcass.
Could I also gently point out that every Lion in every Zoo happily ‘scavenges’ the dead meat that is put into it’s compound!!!!:cool:
Scofflaw
Er, whats the Biblical evidence for your 'nuclear winter'? Genesis 9:21 has "Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. " In an Ice Age?
The Bible is silent about the ‘nuclear winter’ – but the conditions for such an event would certainly have existed in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic worldwide event, like the Genesis Flood.
The evidence for the Ice Age comes from science – and it appears to have predominantly affected the higher latitudes – so if Noah came south out of the Mountains of Ararat and into the Middle East he would have avoided the worst effects of the Ice Age further north – and would indeed be able to plant a Vineyard!!!!:cool:
Wicknight
Please show me the scientific papers that support the Creationist theory (ie "made up idea") of the formation of entirely new species due to rapid (very rapid) genetic mutation, and papers detailing a theory as to why this system just suddenly stopped everywhere across the world in the, in the last 500 years.
Good evidence for RAPID speciation within Kinds would include practically ALL of the evidence produced by Darwin in his book on the ‘Origins of Species.’:eek:
For example Darwin’s Finches have RAPIDLY produced different beak variants that would lead to RAPID speciation if these variants became genetically isolated.
Equally Darwin’s examples of Artificial Selection RAPIDLY producing very different breeds of dog, Pigeon and Domestic Cattle are examples of rapid variation within Kinds over the past 500 years!!!! :eek:
Indeed, the fact that apparently different species are cross fertile within Kinds also supports the idea of recent, rapid and widespread speciation.
Many hybrid animals can be produced, although they are usually infertile themselves, because their parents have already speciated.
Examples include Wholfins (from a cross between a Whale and a Dolphin), Mules (from a cross between a Horse and a Donkey), Zedonks (from a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey), Ligers (from a cross between a Lion and a Tiger) or Cataloe (from a cross between a Cow and a Buffaloe),
On the other hand, even though the Indian Elephant and the African Elephant look like members of the one species, they HAVE fully speciated and so crosses between these animals don’t produce viable offspring.
Equally, even though many dramatically different varieties of Dog exist they haven’t speciated and so they are all cross fertile among themselves and with Wolves.
Similarly, crosses between Pheasants and Domestic Chickens are fully viable, even though both birds seem to be otherwise different species.
A good example of INSTANTANEOUS speciation ‘right here right now’ is the ‘Triangle of U’.
This describes the interbreeding of different Brassica species to produce allotetraploid NEW species that are self-fertile but which cannot interbreed with either of the ‘parent species’.
Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) can be crossed with Turnip (Brassica rapa) to produce Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea). However, B. juncea cannot interbreed with either B. nigra or B.rapa – and so it is a separate species – and it is instantaneously speciated at the time of it’s production by cross breeding the B nigra with the B rapa.
Similarly, Ethiopian Mustard (B Carinata) and Swedes (B napus) are examples of instantaneous speciation from crossing B. nigra with B oleracea and B rapa with B oleracea respectively.
Wicknight
(How did) 6,000 species some how managed to turn into a few hundred thousands, including massive differences in chromosome size between some of these "kinds"
The same way that the Dog Kind produced hundreds of very different breeds in the last few hundred years!!!!!.
Many animal hybrid pairings within Kinds DO have different chromosome numbers, but just like the ‘Triangle of U’ they are otherwise so close genetically that they can produce offspring.
An undirected process, like materialistic Evolution couldn’t perform this feat – it would be like running an Apple application on an IBM!!!!!:eek:
However, because God Intelligently Designed these creatures to ‘go forth and multiply’ (in the number of both and individuals and species) they actually speciate with the ease of a Windows 95 application running on a Windows XP Operating System!!!!!:eek: :cool:
Wicknight
Thanks JC, appreciated...
My pleasure, Wicknight – I just knew that the truth would (eventually) set you free!!!:D 0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
The doctor (who is a medical practitioner, not a scientist)…………
I’m sure that many Medical Doctors would beg to differ with you on the fact that they have indeed studied Medical Science – and not some ‘art form’ as your posting implies.
The reason that the practice of Medicine has progressed beyond the ‘Appliance of Leaches’ is because of the 'Appliance of Science' by the Medical profession.:)
I am sure they would. However, they, like you, would usually be wrong. Doctors do receive scientific training, and are trained in a scientific discipline, but are not, in practice, scientists any more than engineers are.J C wrote:The pronouncement of death by a Doctor is therefore based upon the repeatably verifiable, (i.e. scientific) fact that Brain Death is always observed to be irreversible – and so Doctors DO indeed give a SCIENTIFIC opinion that the person is dead and that restoration of life is IMPOSSIBLE!!:D
The question of what determines when death has occurred is a legal one. Scientific opinion is sought, in order to best determine the law, but the opinion given by the doctor is a legal or technical opinion formed according to standard practice, not a scientific one - which would have to be formed de novo each time. With appropriate instruments available, anyone can diagnose death - scientific training is not required.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Er, whats the Biblical evidence for your 'nuclear winter'? Genesis 9:21 has "Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. " In an Ice Age?
The Bible is silent about the ‘nuclear winter’ – but the conditions for such an event would certainly have existed in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic worldwide event, like the Genesis Flood.
The evidence for the Ice Age comes from science – and it appears to have predominantly affected the higher latitudes – so if Noah came south out of the Mountains of Ararat and into the Middle East he would have avoided the worst effects of the Ice Age further north – and would indeed be able to plant a Vineyard!!!!:cool:
You utter idiot. If the Middle East is warm enough to plant a vineyard, then there can be no piles of deep-frozen carrion. If Ararat is cold enough for there to be piles of deep-frozen carrion, Noah cannot plant a vineyard.
One of these is Biblically backed, and it's not your version.J C wrote:Indeed, the fact that apparently different species are cross fertile within Kinds also supports the idea of recent, rapid and widespread speciation.
Many hybrid animals can be produced, although they are usually infertile themselves, because their parents have already speciated.
Speciation? Did you just shift the definition of macro-evolution?J C wrote:A good example of INSTANTANEOUS speciation ‘right here right now’ is the ‘Triangle of U’.
This describes the interbreeding of different Brassica species to produce allotetraploid NEW species that are self-fertile but which cannot interbreed with either of the ‘parent species’.
Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) can be crossed with Turnip (Brassica rapa) to produce Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea). However, B. juncea cannot interbreed with either B. nigra or B.rapa – and so it is a separate species – and it is instantaneously speciated at the time of it’s production by cross breeding the B nigra with the B rapa.
Similarly, Ethiopian Mustard (B Carinata) and Swedes (B napus) are examples of instantaneous speciation from crossing B. nigra with B oleracea and B rapa with B oleracea respectively.
Oh. OK, you're just cutting and pasting without reading. You've already denied that this one is evidence of speciation.J C wrote:Wicknight
(How did) 6,000 species some how managed to turn into a few hundred thousands, including massive differences in chromosome size between some of these "kinds"
The same way that the Dog Kind produced hundreds of very different breeds in the last few hundred years!!!!!.
Many animal hybrid pairings within Kinds DO have different chromosome numbers, but just like the ‘Triangle of U’ they are otherwise so close genetically that they can produce offspring.
Out of all the millions upon millions of possible crosses between living organisms, the vast majority are not even physically acheivable, let alone genetically possible.J C wrote:An undirected process, like materialistic Evolution couldn’t perform this feat – it would be like running an Apple application on an IBM!!!!!:eek:
However, because God Intelligently Designed these creatures to ‘go forth and multiply’ (in both numbers and species) they actually speciate with the ease of a Windows 95 application running on a Windows XP Operating System!!!!!:eek: :cool:
Certainly God and Bill Gates appear to have a lot in common, design-wise.J C wrote:Wicknight
Thanks JC, appreciated...
My pleasure, Wicknight – I just knew that the truth would (eventually)set you free!!!:D
Actually, he asked you something.
deriding you and your claims to understand anything whatsoever,
Scofflaw0 -
You see, this is something in particular I can't stand.J C wrote:An undirected process, like materialistic Evolution couldn’t perform this feat – it would be like running an Apple application on an IBM!!!!!:eek:
However, because God Intelligently Designed these creatures to ‘go forth and multiply’ (in both numbers and species) they actually speciate with the ease of a Windows 95 application running on a Windows XP Operating System!!!!!:eek: :cool:
Step 1: Actual Statement made by evolution => Silly Analogy => Sillier Analogy => .....(repeat)........ => Stupid Analogy.
Step 2: Criticise Stupid Analogy.
Step 3: Evolution is flawed.
Evolution isn't like an Apple application on an IBM, it is "like" a complicated theory based around several different processes which can't be condensed to bit sized chunks.
Also the word "Materialistic" does not belong in front of evolution. You don't get to use weasel words in science.0 -
J C wrote:Good evidence for RAPID speciation within Kinds would include practically ALL of the evidence produced by Darwin in his book on the ‘Origins of Species.’:eek:
No, it wouldn't. Where is the evidence of the previous higher "types," the single species of big cat that lived 4,000 years ago, or the various stages of the modern day big cats that now exist. How many species did the original big cat change into, and does the original big cat not exist any more? I assume all the original big cat animals produced offspring of a different species at exactly the same time, I'm just having a bit of a hard time understanding what natural event could cause this to happen. Did they all mate with a different original kind at the same time, thus all producing hybrid children at exactly the same time. Or did they all mate with the same species, but the exact same mutation occurred in all the offspring at exactly the same time.
I'm sure as a trained scientists you can point me to biological research that answers this question.J C wrote:For example Darwin’s Finches have RAPIDLY produced different beak variants that would lead to RAPID speciation if these variants became genetically isolated.
How? Where is the evidence to support that claim JC? Where are the remains of the original "bird type" that produced the modern day Finches in a space of a few years? I imagine that research on these questions must exist, otherwise you being a trained scientists would not be making such assumptions. I would very much like to see this research, specifically fossil finds that show this rapid change in species.
You also keep quoting Darwin. Darwin was over 100 years ago. Where is the modern genetic studies that support this claim. Where is the study of the genetic mutations that create such rapid specialisation (new species appearing on average every 50 years). Where is the scientific explanation for what happened to the previous generation? Or is it claimed that some how all members of the species suddenly had off spring that was a different species at the same time, and if so where are the modern day scientific studies that support this claim?J C wrote:Indeed, the fact that apparently different species are cross fertile within Kinds also supports the idea of recent, rapid and widespread speciation.
Only if they have close chromosome matches.
Others within the same Biblical "kind" can have wildly different chromosome numbers.
So my question is how is this explained, and I would like to read the genetic studies that explain how such a rapid loss of chromosomes, within the space of only a few decades (one or two generations) could happen without the mutation being completely devastating for at least some of the species. I'm sure you can apprecate that I would be a bit confused by the seemingly contradictary statements by Creationists that mutation of such a large change such as the removal of one or two entire chromosomes happened rapidly after the Flood, but also that such a change, if it were to occur under Darwinian evolution would be devestating for the organism, most likely resulting in death.
Also, would you mind pointing me to the scientific studies that explain how such a mutational event would happen in all members of the same species around the same time.
After all it would be impossible for this to develop as claimed if the mutations were occurring in only a handful of the members of the species since there is not nearly enough time for each newly created species to reproduce fast enough to completely replace the old species. Otherwise you would still have members of the original species that came off the ark walking around today.
So the entire species must have shifted in one go. Now I must say I'm having trouble understanding how an entire species can just disappear (or in this case evolve into two or more species) in a single generation, but I'm sure that Creationists have a lot of scientific research and papers that explain how such an unlikely event would happen, and how the exact same mutation could occur at exactly the same time in a large proportion of a species.J C wrote:The same way that the Dog Kind produced hundreds of very different breeds in the last few hundred years!!!!!.
But breeds are not the same thing as species JC. As a trained scientists you no doubt are aware of that fact.
It is quite easy to produce new breeds of a species over a few hundred years, by selective breeding. But it is an entirely different kettle of fish to produce hundreds of new species. As you yourself point out you run up against the brick wall with the fact that if the chromosomes become too different the new animal itself cannot breed.
But I'm sure that Creationism has a wealth of scientific papers that detail examples of this rapid evolution of new species where the chromosome count becomes quite large yet the animal can still produce offspring.J C wrote:Many animal hybrid pairings within Kinds DO have different chromosome numbers, but just like the ‘Triangle of U’ they are otherwise so close genetically that they can produce offspring.
I'm not sure how that explains what we see though. You are talking about very closely related animals mating with each other to produce new species, that are also very closely related. All you end up with is even more closely related species.
That, as I'm sure you are aware already, is a convergence. What the Bible Flood story needs is a divergence. Two species of very different chromosome counts mating together to produce even greater differences. So you have a "dog kind" mating with a "horse kind" to produce a horse with much less chromosomes than the original horse kind, thus explaining something like a Zebra.
So modern day animal hybrids are rather irrelevant, since they are work in the opposite way to how you would require for the great increase in genetic diversity that happened after the Flood.
So I assume there is a ton of scientific research to explain how these species, due to cross species mating, grew significantly apart from each other over time (a very short time as it were, only a few generations) to produce wildly varying aspects such as chromosome count.
As Scofflaw points out I have asked a few questions that have yet to be answered, and an answers, backed up by peer-reviewed scientific papers naturally, would be appreciated. Thanking you (again) in advance.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Scofflaw
Doctors do receive scientific training, and are trained in a scientific discipline, but are not, in practice, scientists
OK, so let’s take your ‘logic’ one step at a time………..
………so according to you Doctors receive a SCIENTIFIC training…….
………and they also are trained in SCIENTIFIC discipline………….
………but you claim, that after all that, they are not scientists, and apparently their practice and diagnoses aren’t scientifically based????
Scofflaw, the practice and diagnoses of Medical Doctors ARE scientifically based – and so the Medical Profession is part of the Scientific Community – or do you think that only (Evolutionary) Biologists are scientists???!!:eek:
Equally, the pronouncement of death by a Doctor is based upon the repeatably verifiable fact that Brain Death is always observed to be irreversible – and so Doctors ARE giving a SCIENTIFIC opinion that such a person is dead and that restoration of life is IMPOSSIBLE!!
BTW Evolutionary Biologists ALSO accept as impossibilities ideas such the restoration of life to brain dead bodies. Such pronouncements therefore aren’t “outside of science” – they are in fact based upon detailed scientific observations – and they are also falsifiable, if somebody can repeatably demonstrate the restoration of life to a brain dead corpse. So far this hasn’t been demonstrated and therefore it is scientifically valid to pronounce it as an impossibility.
Equally the Law of Biogenesis as well as all scientific observations to date rules out the spontaneous generation of life. The probabilities of the undirected production of the information dense genomes that we observe in living organisms are so impossibly large as to rule out any mechanism other that Direct Creation as their ultimate source. The scientific theory of Direct Creation is falsifiable, if somebody can repeatably demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously. So far, this hasn’t happened and it is therefore scientifically valid to pronounce the disproof of Creation also as a scientific IMPOSSIBILITY.
Scofflaw
Scientific opinion is sought, in order to best determine the law, but the opinion given by the doctor is a legal or technical opinion formed according to standard practice, not a scientific one - which would have to be formed de novo each time. With appropriate instruments available, anyone can diagnose death - scientific training is not required.
Yes indeed anyone could diagnose death – but the theory that it is impossible for a dead person to come back to life is falsifiable and subject to objective repeatable verification – and so it is a valid SCIENTIFIC Theory!!!!
Similarly, all scientific observations to date rule out the spontaneous generation of life and so, such an idea can be scientifically held to be an impossibility.
Scofflaw
You utter idiot. If the Middle East is warm enough to plant a vineyard, then there can be no piles of deep-frozen carrion. If Ararat is cold enough for there to be piles of deep-frozen carrion, Noah cannot plant a vineyard.
You ‘Great All-Knowing One’!!!:D
Could I gently remind you that Mount Kilimanjaro, for example, is on the EQUATOR and yet it remains permanently snow-capped. It also has vineyards and even a tropical jungle on it’s lower slopes!!!!!
Hint:- the secret is in the interaction between altitude and latitude!!!!
Scofflaw
deriding you and your claims to understand anything whatsoever,
……..and I love you too, Scofflaw!!!
Son Goku
Also the word "Materialistic" does not belong in front of evolution. You don't get to use weasel words in science.
When it come to weasel words it would be difficult to beat the word ‘Evolution’ which is about as ‘elastic’ in meaning as a ‘bungee rope’.
Yes indeed, science should clarify it’s usage of the word ‘Evolution’ with adjectives such as “Materialistic”, “Theistic”, “ID”, “micro-”, “macro-” and (the most common of all) “Miraculous Evolution”!!!!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
The evidence for the Ice Age comes from science
bonkey
It does indeed. The same science that says it ended about 14000 years ago, or about 8000 years before your Flood.
You say 14,000 years ago, Wikipedia says 10,000 years ago at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
- and I say 4,500 +/- 250 years!!!:D
At least, you have now stopped talking about MILLIONS of years and are down to a more sensible Biblical timeframe of THOUSANDS of years!!:D
Well done, bonkey!!!!!
Robin
I think I have it now. It all makes sense………………. the extra water would simply have flowed off the edges of the flat world into space and given the tortoise underneath a good washing
A ‘Eureka’ moment, no doubt!!!:eek:
Well done, Robin!!!
…..although I hate to ‘burst you bubble’ by pointing out that the Earth was never flat and the Tortoise story was just a Myth!!!:D
.............but then again, if Pond Scum ‘was lifted up by it own bootstraps’ to become Man – then almost anything is possible, including your 'wet Tortoise' story!!!!!!:D :eek:0 -
Advertisement
-
May I gently remind you that TURNING a criticism:D around to contain the word evolution is not a valid criticism.:cool: :eek:J C wrote:Yes indeed, science should stop using the weasel word ‘Evolution’ – which is about as ‘elastic’ in meaning as a ‘bungee rope’!!!!:D
In other words, you are using weasel words, say evolution not materialistic evolution, that isn't a scientific label.0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
Doctors do receive scientific training, and are trained in a scientific discipline, but are not, in practice, scientists
OK, so let’s take your ‘logic’ one step at a time………..
………so according to you Doctors receive a SCIENTIFIC training…….
………and they also are trained in SCIENTIFIC discipline………….
………but you claim, that after all that, they are not scientists, and apparently their practice and diagnoses aren’t scientifically based????
Scofflaw, the practice and diagnoses of Medical Doctors ARE scientifically based – and so the Medical Profession is part of the Scientific Community – or do you think that only (Evolutionary) Biologists are scientists???!!:eek:
In ordinary day to day practice, the doctor operates exactly as a technician or engineer operates - he applies learned principles and practices. Some of these practices are scientifically determined, but that no more make the doctor a scientist than it makes the farmer a scientist when he applies scientifically established principles of breeding, or the blogger an IT specialist.J C wrote:Equally, the pronouncement of death by a Doctor is based upon the repeatably verifiable fact that Brain Death is always observed to be irreversible – and so Doctors ARE giving a SCIENTIFIC opinion that such a person is dead and that restoration of life is IMPOSSIBLE!!
Oh rubbish. Here, go and read the Wikipedia page. It's a legal definition, which is clinically defined. There is no real theory behind it, because the only real definition of death is that it is a permanent and irreversible state of being dead - and that's just a definition - and a tautological one at that.
People can survive having a flat EEG - that is, no electrical activity in their brain (I can think of at least one example from my own experience). It is only when this is permanent that death is judged to have occurred.J C wrote:BTW Evolutionary Biologists ALSO accept as impossibilities ideas such the restoration of life to brain dead bodies. Such pronouncements therefore aren’t “outside of science” – they are in fact based upon detailed scientific observations – and they are also falsifiable, if somebody can repeatably demonstrate the restoration of life to a brain dead corpse. So far this hasn’t been demonstrated and therefore it is scientifically valid to pronounce it as an impossibility.
No. It isn't. It's only scientifically valid to pronounce it 'highly improbable and never observed'. Can we rule out ever being able to restore brain function after what currently qualifies as death? Of course we cannot. If that were the case, we would never have introduced brain death (1971 in Finland) as the legal criterion for death - we would have stuck with cessation of heartbeat, because we would have believed the same thing about that. This is the really pernicious aspect of Creationism - it looks back at a perfect past, and does not change. No progress.
The hilarious thing, of course, is that you have to accept that it happened at least once.J C wrote:Equally the Law of Biogenesis as well as all scientific observations to date rules out the spontaneous generation of life. The probabilities of the undirected production of the information dense genomes that we observe in living organisms are so impossibly large as to rule out any mechanism other that Direct Creation as their ultimate source. The scientific theory of Direct Creation is falsifiable, if somebody can repeatably demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously. So far, this hasn’t happened and it is therefore scientifically valid to pronounce the disproof of Creation also as a scientific IMPOSSIBILITY.
Again, no. All we can say is that we haven't demonstrated it, and it's early days yet. What will you do if there's life on Mars, or Titan? Plead Martian Special Creation?J C wrote:Scofflaw
Scientific opinion is sought, in order to best determine the law, but the opinion given by the doctor is a legal or technical opinion formed according to standard practice, not a scientific one - which would have to be formed de novo each time. With appropriate instruments available, anyone can diagnose death - scientific training is not required.
Yes indeed anyone could diagnose death – but the theory that it is impossible for a dead person to come back to life is falsifiable and subject to objective repeatable verification – and so it is a valid SCIENTIFIC Theory!!!!
Similarly, all scientific observations to date rule out the spontaneous generation of life and so, such an idea can be scientifically held to be an impossibility.
And I'll repeat - no. No such theory, no such ruling of things as impossible. Also, you wouldn't know a scientific theory if it hit you with a handbag.J C wrote:Scofflaw
You utter idiot. If the Middle East is warm enough to plant a vineyard, then there can be no piles of deep-frozen carrion. If Ararat is cold enough for there to be piles of deep-frozen carrion, Noah cannot plant a vineyard.
You ‘Great All-Knowing One’!!!:D
Could I gently remind you that Mount Kilimanjaro, for example, is on the EQUATOR and yet it remains permanently snow-capped. It also has vineyards and even a tropical jungle on it’s lower slopes!!!!!
Hint:- the secret is in the interaction between altitude and latitude!!!!
Oh, I beg your pardon - you were actually claiming latitude, not altitude (hence 'Ararat avoided the Ice Age to the North'). Now what are you saying - that the frozen piles of carrion were on top of Ararat, and Noah planted his vineyard at the bottom?
So, these big cats, right? They used to climb Ararat to get to the frozen piles of salty carrion left over from the flood. Then they, er, came down again, for whatever reason, and migrated wherever they needed to go (South America, for example) via whatever routes they used (none dying en route), presumably running up whatever mountain had more corpses along the way.
You really are a nitwit.J C wrote:Son Goku
Also the word "Materialistic" does not belong in front of evolution. You don't get to use weasel words in science.
Yes indeed, science should stop using the weasel word ‘Evolution’ – which is about as ‘elastic’ in meaning as a ‘bungee rope’!!!!:D
You're thinking of your own defintion, I think. Certainly I note your definition of 'macro-evolution' now appears to include speciation!J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
The evidence for the Ice Age comes from science
bonkey
It does indeed. The same science that says it ended about 14000 years ago, or about 8000 years before your Flood.
At least, you have now stopped talking about MILLIONS of years and are down to a more sensible Biblical timeframe of THOUSANDS of years!!:D
I also note that you have self-corrected one of the (erroneous) dates of the Ice Age!!!!!:D
Well done, bonkey!!!!!
Sigh. Geology != geomorphology. That something happened 3 GY ago does not preclude something else happening yesterday. Like people being born, such as Creationists - one born every minute.
tata for now,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
The evidence for the Ice Age comes from science
bonkey
It does indeed. The same science that says it ended about 14000 years ago, or about 8000 years before your Flood.
You say 14,000 years ago, Wikipedia says 10,000 years ago at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
- and I say 4,500 +/- 250 years!!!:D
Exactly. You say 4500 years ago. But you also say that science and not religious interpretation explains this ice age, and science does not say 4500 years.
We can disagree over whether it should be 10,000 or 14,000 years, if you like. I'm quite happy to provide scientific references that put the date at about 14,000 years. I'm also happy to accept that there isn't widespread acceptance of either date, as the ice didn't just disappear overnight (like your flood seems to have done), but rather over a period of time. So do we take the beginning of the retreat as the end of the ice-age, or the point when the ice had receeded to more-or-less current day levels, or something in between? Such uncertainties are what give rise to the differing scientific figures.
As you should know from yoru alleged scientific background, however, this level of discrepancy doesn't give us any reason to suggest that further, widely divergent dates are also credible. There is broad concensus within the scientific community as to when the ice-sheets were where. The margin of error is not huge - certainly not the 55% that you would require to turn 10,000 into 4,500.
You can have it either way you like, but not both. YOu can have your date (with as many smilies as makes you happy) or you can appeal to science for an explanation of the ice-age. To appeal to science requires you discard your dating, because science says its wrong. To hold to your dating requires that you discard science.
Incidentally, when I say it is required, what I mean is that honesty and integrity require it. If your aim is to be dishonest, misleading or simply obfuscating, then of course its a perfectly acceptable tactic to claim both an acceptance of the scientific explanation and your 4,500 year date.
Is that what your aim is, or can you reconcile the two in a manner that I have not forseen?
No, I haven't.At least, you have now stopped talking about MILLIONS of years
Firstly, I was never talking about MILLIONS of years, but rather BILLIONS.
Secondly, I'm talking here about the date of the last ice age. I have never suggested that this occurred millions or billions of years ago. I have suggested the earth is billions of years old, continue to suggest both this and that there is no scientific reason to believe the earth is significantly younger than the current estimations.
As always, we can choose to believe what we like. One should be clear, however, that it is a belief one holds rather than a scientific position when one is diverging from scientific principles, methodologies or conclusions.
Why gosh. You're right. There are indeed events in human history that both of us agree happened inside the last number of thousand years.and are down to a more sensible Biblical timeframe of THOUSANDS of years!!:D
There are also events where I will place them within an order of magnitude of your posited earth age.
Its surprising that you see this as some sort of relevation. Did you think that when I and others were talking about an earth that was billions of years old that we thought everything in history happened billions of years ago?
I would have thought a logical and intelligent interpretation of the earth's age would require that events have occurred since the posited beginning until the known present.
Given that your made-up timeline eventually has to meet and agree with the scientific one, its inevitable that there be correlation at the "near end" of the match, followed by a divergence which begins small and grows the further back in time we go.
So yes, you aren't putting the end of the last ice age too far away from the actual posited timelines that we place it We differ greatly in terms of the timing of the previous ice age, though. As we go further back in time and pick other significant events - the emergence of upright man, the extinction of the dinosaurs. the creation of the moon, and so forth, I'm willing to bet there's a greater and greater degree of disagreement.
Why, thank you. Thats very kind of you to say.Well done, bonkey!!!!!
I wish I could return the compliment, but I prefer to stick to honesty and integrity as my benchmarks in terms of what I post. I would rather not saacrifice them for the sake of pleasantry.
jc0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement