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
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw said:
So Christians exist in China, therefore they are not suppressed there? Communists existed under McCarthy, so they were not suppressed then?Once again I am forced to point out that:
1. As you point out yourselves, Creationist scientists do exist, some in positions of eminence - so they are not suppressed
Same principle as above.2. As you point out yourselves, articles critical of evolution are written and published in the scientific media - so they are not suppressed
The establishment are mainly atheists, and those who are not are in bed with them.3. As we are forced to point out - most scientists are religious, not atheist, so an atheist conspiracy make little sense
Ignorance, indifference and fear of crossing the establishment are all at work.4. If this is a conspiracy, it is the most effective in all history, extending to millions of scientists in scores of countries
I'm not sure how the geology differs, so I can't comment.5. Oil companies and mining companies do not use 'Biblical' geology, and they are, believe me, sufficiently profit-motivated to do so if it worked. And yes, the difference would be huge.
The bigger motivation is not to be crucified as a heretic.6. The motivation of individual scientists is to overthrow the existing paradigm, because that's how you win recognition and awards. It's not always easy, because the previous winners are hanging on to their paradigm, but science progresses nevertheless
Just because one is paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you!Trumpeting the occasional example of bad behaviour by individuals will never prove that the impossible is real, and it is the usual sad reflection on the power of your claims that they require such a conspiracy in the first place.
No, delusion or ignorance would be lesser faults that apply to many scientists.Finally, by claiming that the truth is suppressed by a scientific conspiracy, you are directly calling those of us who are scientists liars and conspirators.
I'll put that done to delusion, not to a lack of veracity or malevolence.Personally, you have my word that no such conspiracy exists - and that indeed it is the opposite of the truth.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wicknight said:
OK, but that means you can never know anything. If that is your definition, I concur.No actually they cannot. You can never know that what you believe in is actually true.
You can certainly think it is true, you can certainly believe it is true, you can certainly hope it is true, but you cannot know it is true. If you think you can you are simply deluding yourself, which naturally people do all the time.
My definition belongs to the real world, the world where we live based on knowing we exist and that life is not a dream. We certainly must keep check on the reality we perceive - testing it to see if it is consistent. Our dreams may be very realistic, but they breakdown when we question the realities.
For example, I had one recently in which I couldn't find my car. It became clear to my sleeping mind that it was a dream when I asked myself where were the keys, when had I parked it, etc. My mind then told me 'this is not real' and I woke up. So with spiritual reality: does it makes sense, does it work in real life situations. The answer is a big YES.
The truth is confirmed our hearts by the assurance God gives, and backed up by seeing it work in life. A permanent skepticism would be irrational.With regard to my point the important bit is not if it was or if it wasn't, the important bit is the realisation that we cannot know for sure either way and as such we must recognise the possibility that we might be wrong.
That is what science teaches, and that is what religious people often refused to accept. Which is why a religious person using science in an effort to prove their religion is nonsensical, and simply shows an ignorance of what science actually is.
But if contrary evidence kept coming up, as it does with evolution/creation science, then an open mind is required. The advantage Creationists have is that they are not ignorant of the fact of how things originated and that truth is a vantage-point for their understanding of subsequent history. Just how it all works in history is always subject to review.
This is where you are losing the plot. Operational science - the sort that Christians and all other sorts of scientists use to invent things - does not tell us the universe is very old. All it tells us is about the rates of decay we observe today, the catastrophies that dramatically alter rates of deposition, etc. From that scientists extrapolate and deduce. Their conclusions are not the hard facts they have observed, just inferences from them.But they don't work with science, that is the point. They take from science what they like and reject the rest, ignoring the fact that it doesn't work like that. That is not following science.
The example I've used before is that the same principles and methods used to build TVs are also used to tell that the universe is very old. You cannot say "well we want the TVs, but the old universe bit must be wrong" .. that isn't how it works. It is a package. You either accept science and what science says or you don't.
Spirit to spirit.Yes you have said that. The question is in what way did he give you the certainty that this was the truth.
That is my argument.But the entire human raise is descended from him. You might have an argument that Adam had perfect genes but Noah didn't.
We are far from perfect, but to be a big pile of mess would probably take more than 6000 years. Certainly 30K to 50K would bring much more trouble.So why are we not a big pile of genetic mess?
It has worked fine to date. Those denying it seem to end up with the bitterest tears. That some are deluded does not mean everyone is.Everyone thinks that their God has confirmed in their heart that their religion is the truth. Its like saying that everyone thinks their country is going to do well in the World Cup. That is just how the human mind works, how belief works. Its not real Wolfsbane. If that is the only thing you have going it is going to end in tears.
I'm glad you concede you may be the deluded one.No, that is just what you assume I'm doing. At the end of the day I don't know if you are right and I'm suppressing God, and you don't know if "God" is just some strange chemical imbalance in your head and everyone is just normal sans-voices
That is what they claim - but they don't want anyone questioning them about it.Creationists have presented their case Wolfsbane. They have been presenting their case over and over and over for the last 2000 years.
And guess what? There case has been found lacking. It is rejected by modern science because about 150 years ago people started to realise that it it was nonsense.
Hundreds of highly qualified scientists are on record contradicting you.The evidence did not support Biblical Creation.
I'm notr familiar with their teachings on origins, but as they have screwed up on all the rest, I take your word for it.The evidence didn't support Hindu Creation. The evidence didn't support Scientologist Creation.
I'm happy to be so afflicted. Truth can be a burden because of the opposition it generates, but it leads to eternal life.I know you will not accept this, because you are convinced that your Bible must be correct. But as has been pointed out a few times, that is kinda your problem.
I don't. I value our discussions.Don't take it personally.
Aww, you beat me to it!Science doesn't support Tom Cruise, or the Hindus any more or less that it supports you. 0 -
-
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:Wicknight said:
OK, but that means you can never know anything. If that is your definition, I concur.
Yes, that is exactly what it means, at least to the highest degree of certainty.
That is a fundamental principle of science, and one of the reasons that science rejects Creationism as unscientific, because Creationists assert that they know for certain that the Bible is correct. Since they cannot possibly know that they are being unscientific. As such any results they produce are also unscientific, and most likely biased.
You either follow science or you don't.wolfsbane wrote:My definition belongs to the real world, the world where we live based on knowing we exist and that life is not a dream.
Well that is fine for day to day life, but if you used that as a principle of scientific discovery you open yourself up to the possibility of huge mistakes.wolfsbane wrote:My mind then told me 'this is not real' and I woke up. So with spiritual reality: does it makes sense, does it work in real life situations. The answer is a big YES.
That is a reason to believe something. But it is not a reason to say you know something, or to assert that it is true, that it is an axiom on which to build further assertions.
Put it this way, if this "revelation" you had from God could feel to you exactly the same as a stroke, would you be able to tell the difference, would you be able to assert that this was either a stroke or that it was a revelation from God?
You can certainly believe that what you experienced was a revelation from God. There is no problem in that, more power to you.
It is only when you assert that you know it was, and then use this assertion as a axiom on which to build further assertions.
Say for example, you have repeatable stated that God is just and God is moral. The reasoning behind this you claim is that God himself has told you (or at least revealed to you) that He is moral and that He is just.
So the question is - What if He is wrong/lying.
The only response I ever get to this is that He isn't lying because He says He isn't lying, or He has made you know that this is true some how.
This is false logic. Some would say that it is dangerous logic.
You can certainly choose to believe Him, but that is not the same thing at all. You cannot use the axiom "God does not lie" on which to build further assertions such as "God says He is moral", because the initial axiom is not sustainable.
You can claim that you believe God doesn't lie and that anything God does is moral, but you need to realise that that is a person choice based on your personal beliefs and assessments. You don't know it is true, you only think it is.wolfsbane wrote:But if contrary evidence kept coming up, as it does with evolution/creation science, then an open mind is required.
You don't think there is any contrary evidence for the existence of God? Fair enough, but I would also point out that most Creationists will go to ridiculous extremes to show that something isn't contrary to God. You are already claiming massive atheist conspiracies and disception on the part of the "atheist" scientific community.
It is all very well to state that you would look at evidence against your beliefs, but you actually have to be willing to do that Wolfsbane. You clearly aren't because I would imagine that you like most religious people have a lot personally invested in your religion being right. You believe you will have eternal life and happiness in heaven, that isn't something some would just go "oh, looks like I was wrong, oh well" I don't blame you for not wanting to consider arguments or evidence that would in any way raise the possibility that that might not actually happen.
As I mentioned above one of the biggest problems with Creationism is that it has already made its mind up, and each one of you have already invested personally in your beliefs being right. This is why Creationism exists in the first place, it is an attempt to bring just a bit more assurance that yes what we believe is true, yes we are all saved, yes we are all going to have eternal life, yes God does love us all. Creationism ironically enough is born out of uncertainty of faith, it is a movement that seeks to try and find evidence to back up a religious belief system.
Put it this way, I know of no Creationists who thinks they are going to hell in the after life.
So Creationists cannot come to the table of science in this frame of mind because they are already biased to see what they want to see, and ignore what you don't want to see.
A principle of science is that every theory must be falsafiable, in that it must be possible to show that it is wrong. That is true of gravity, it is true of evolution.
Evolution might be wrong. Most scientists don't think it is wrong, it works quite well and fits the evidence quite well, but it might be completely wrong. If it is science will eventually figure out that it is. This ultimately isn't that important. If evolution was shown to be wrong tomorrow it might trouble a lot of biologists but then they would have a new theory to work on anyway so I doubt they would be too upset. They don't have anything personally invested in evolution being right, particularly the atheists. Oh look evolution is wrong, that means I might not get to cease to exist when I die! Oh no!! What will we do!
What is far more important that the question of if a theory is correct or not is that you follow science when dealing with it. Theories come and go, theories are shown incorrect all the time. It is the principles on which you do this, the principles that Creationists don't follow, that are important.wolfsbane wrote:The advantage Creationists have is that they are not ignorant of the fact of how things originated and that truth is a vantage-point for their understanding of subsequent history.
If Genesis is literal truth. If it isn't then we have a problem...
You don't know Genesis is literal truth. You certainly believe it is, which is your right to do so. But you don't know it is. You don't know that that revelation you had was actually God and not some trick of the mind. You don't know that if it was God He wasn't actually lying to you. You believe all these things, which is perfectly in your right to do, but you don't know them.
As such it is incorrect from a scientific point of view to work off the axiom of Genesis as the basis for future scientific exploration. That isn't science. That isn't how it works.
If you do decide to do that there is very little point in calling it science, or expected the scientific community to take you seriously.
"Operational science" as you call it is the application of theory to practical design.wolfsbane wrote:Operational science - the sort that Christians and all other sorts of scientists use to invent things - does not tell us the universe is very old.
If the theory behind these designs didn't work then you could not make the design itself work.wolfsbane wrote:From that scientists extrapolate and deduce. Their conclusions are not the hard facts they have observed, just inferences from them.
Exactly.
But that doesn't trouble you when you go to buy a TV. You don't say "Hold on a minute, the theory that was applied to makes this TV work can also be applied to tell me the universe is billions of light years across! Take this TV back it is an affront to God"
Your TV works in a predictable fashion because there is a theory behind the design that allows those to predict what will happen and design around this. That is the same with all areas of science, from astronomy to geology. The more a theory appears to predict correctly the more strength that theory gains in the scientific community.
But Creationists reject these theories, even the very strong ones, if they predict something that appears to go against their religious teaching. As I keep saying, it doesn't work like that.
You can't go "well I don't mind saying that the theory of light is strong and predictable when applied to getting my TV to work, but I totally reject it when applied to the distance between galaxies". The only reason you are doing that is because of religious grounds.wolfsbane wrote:We are far from perfect, but to be a big pile of mess would probably take more than 6000 years.
What are you basing that on?
It doesn't work fine. Every 4 years the vast majority of countries feel angry and annoyed that they didn't win the world cup when this year they thought they really were going to do it. Sure just look at England.wolfsbane wrote:It has worked fine to date.
The other point is that it is meaningless. You cannot say "I know we are going to win the world cup, lets bet the house on it" because you don't know you are going to win the world cup.
The same applies to religion.wolfsbane wrote:I'm glad you concede you may be the deluded one.
I happily concede that. The point is I won't know either way, and neither will you. If you aren't open to the possibility that you could be wrong then you have no place doing science. Which is why Creationism is not welcome as part of science.wolfsbane wrote:That is what they claim - but they don't want anyone questioning them about it.
I don't know what you mean by this. Evolution has been questioned for the last 150 years. At the start no one accepted it.
Evolution had to earn its place among modern scientific theories, which it eventually did.
And millions don't. So you know, the question is why do you believe the hundreds instead of the millions?wolfsbane wrote:Hundreds of highly qualified scientists are on record contradicting you.
Actually I know why, you do this because you want/need some form of confirmation from science that your religious beliefs are valid. But at the end of the day that is your problem. It is not sciences responsibility to make you feel better about your religion. That is not a valid reason to turn away from the principles of science.wolfsbane wrote:I'm notr familiar with their teachings on origins, but as they have screwed up on all the rest, I take your word for it.
Well there you go. I'm sure a Scientologist thinks what you believe is complete bonkers
I'm sure you are, and if you are happy like this I am happy for you.wolfsbane wrote:I'm happy to be so afflicted.
But you cannot expect that people will just assume that you actually know what you are talking about, that people will just assume that what you claim is true actually is true. But you don't know it is, and you might be wrong.wolfsbane wrote:Truth can be a burden because of the opposition it generates, but it leads to eternal life.
Well there you go. As I said you want very strongly for what you believe to be true because you want what is part of that, namely eternal life and happiness in heaven (I assume you want this).
As I said I never met a Creationists who thinks he is going to hell.
What I would hope that you take from this discussion is that while it is perfectly find to want this, that it is perfectly fine to believe you will get this, you should realise that you don't know this. That is why beliefs like that cannot be used in science as the basis for conclusions. It is what you want to be true, it is what you believe to be true. Nothing less but certainly nothing more.
One of the advantages of atheism is that we aren't promised anything, by anyone, and as such have no need to believe something or disbelieve something else in order to get something.0 -
Advertisement
-
wolfsbane wrote:Wicknight said:
Guess.
Here's a clue:
G_D.
So God says that He isn't guilty ... well He would wouldn't He .. it reminds me of the Shawshank Redemption, where if you ask anyone in the prision they will tell you that they are "innocent" 0 -
-
wolfsbane wrote:So Christians exist in China, therefore they are not suppressed there? Communists existed under McCarthy, so they were not suppressed then?
The repressions you mention are/were overt and committed by the State (although not involving the full apparatus of the state in the latter case), whereas you are talking about a covert conspiracy. In addition, you will find that there are no declared Christians in positions of eminence in China, nor were there declared Communists in high office under McCarthy.wolfsbane wrote:The establishment are mainly atheists, and those who are not are in bed with them.
I doubt you can prove that claim, although I suspect that doesn't trouble you? Also, this requires 'the establishment' to be the same, and atheist, in every country - are you saying that the 'establishment' in Iran is atheist? Israel? Ireland? The US? The Vatican?
Are you in fact generalising widely from your personal experience of specific parts of the Anglo-Saxon world?wolfsbane wrote:Ignorance, indifference and fear of crossing the establishment are all at work.
That doesn't negate the point. Your conspiracy requires an establishment that is supra-national.wolfsbane wrote:I'm not sure how the geology differs, so I can't comment.
It is not necessary for you to know anything about geology. If, as Creationists claim, geology 'supports' the Creationist position, then there must be a difference between 'Creationist geology' and 'evolutionist geology'. If there were no difference, then the geological record could not support either position.
Since this is the case, the findings of those companies most intimately affected by geology, mining and oil companies, would be different if they followed Creationist geology.
If Creationist geology were correct, and evolutionist geology incorrect, the oil or mining company that followed Creationist geology would have a huge advantage over others. None does - do you acclaim them part of the conspiracy?wolfsbane wrote:The bigger motivation is not to be crucified as a heretic.
To be crucified* as a heretic** in science, what you need to do is bad science.
* where 'crucified' means 'give the cold shoulder at conferences'
** where 'heretic' means 'someone you'd cold-shoulder at conferences'wolfsbane wrote:Just because one is paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
Occasionally. However, it usually means that you should take your medication, because they're not actually out to get you.
Again, you are applying the principle of "everyone says they're wrong, so they must be right", or "the minority opinion is the best" - possibly even "I'm mad, so I must be speaking the truth".wolfsbane wrote:No, delusion or ignorance would be lesser faults that apply to many scientists.
I'll put that done to delusion, not to a lack of veracity or malevolence.
To be honest, that would be equally offensive. The offense is mitigated, of course, by my conviction that you, in turn, are many sandwiches short of a picnic!
cordially,
as ever,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Son Goku
why the shadow effect wasn't observed would be a decent question against the Big Bang model of Cosmology
It isn’t just a ‘decent question’ – the 'shadow effect' COMPLETELY INVALIDATES the Big Bang Model!!!!:D
Originall posted by J C
OK, so this image of everything starting as a ‘singularity’ and exploding outwards in a Big Bang is an 'invalidity' .....
Son Goku
It's an image that has seeped into the popular mind. The Big Bang is a theory of Cosmic evolution picking up after electroweak Baryogenesis and evolving on a Friedmann-Walker metric(or related solutions).
….and HOW, may I ask did this all-encompassing image ‘seep into’ the popular mind?
…..and do Evolutionary Cosmologists have any plans to ‘set the record straight’ – and tell people that the Big Bang NEVER was regarded as the ‘spark’ that gave rise to the Universe – and it has now been INVALIDATED by the latest evidence!!!!
Son Goku
However may I take ask a different question? Let's ignore science that conflicts with the Bible. How are Creationist Scientists doing at tackling big questions in science outside showing evolution is wrong and creation is right.
For instance what's the Creationist progress on Quantum Gravity?
Making progress, but no solution in sight yet – as the Creationists work on the problem alongside their Evolutionist colleagues.
Most Creation Scientists work in conventional science jobs, alongside scientists of all religious faiths and none.
Son Goku
iron nodules always give weird ages, and radiocarbon dating gives entirely erroneous dates outside its 50,000 year maximum
What you mean is that when radiocarbon ‘dates’ are measured which don’t 'fit in' with the Evolutionary story – they are regarded as 'erroneous'.
For example, wood aged as a few thousand years old is often discovered within and below rocks that are supposed to be millions of years old – and this is ‘explained’ by Evolutionists as radiocarbon giving “ entirely erroneous dates outside its 50,000 year maximum” – when the obvious explanation is that BOTH the rocks and the wood are very recent indeed!!!!:D
Scofflaw
radiometric dating is not particularly reliable for younger rocks...
……and WHY may I ask, should we believe radiometric dating to be accurate for supposedly ‘older’ rocks when it produces figures of millions of years for 'young' rocks known to have been formed in the 1950’s????
Scofflaw
'Bulk rock ages' can be very variable
……..i.e useless!!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
In a study by Dr Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research, Basalt rocks from the Uinkaret Plateau of The Grand Canyon (which most Evolutionist Geologists accept as only thousands of years old) had the following DIFFERENT ages ‘established’ by radiometric dating :-
Six Potassium-Argon ages from 10,000 to 117 Million years.
Five Rubidium-Strontium ages from 1.270 Million to 1,390 Million years.
One Rubidium Strontium isochron 1,340 Million years.
One Lead-Lead isochron 2,600 Million years.
Scofflaw
They are scatter points from various graphs, whose originals were rapidly withdrawn from publication, and re-released with only the outlying data points showing.
...and WHY were the originals “rapidly withdrawn from publication, and re-released with only the outlying data points showing” ???!!!!
With radiometric ages ranging from 10,000 to 2.6 Billion years for the SAME rocks – they are an obvious contradiction of the accuracy of radiometric dating – and point to a very young Grand Canyon indeed!!!
Scofflaw
In addition, that geologists reckon the Grand Canyon (the big hole) as a few thousand years old is true,.
OK so you accept that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old, so we’re making some progress after all!!!:)
Scofflaw
but that is not a comment on the age of the rocks through which the Grand Canyone feature has been cut
……but then you go and spoil it all by going into denial, and arguing that the “rocks through which the Grand Canyon feature has been cut” may be vastly older than the canyon itself!!!
Firstly, a radiometric age of 10,000 years HAS been established for the oldest rocks in the Grand Canyon .
Secondly, IF the Canyon is only a few thousand years old it could only be cut by massive volumes of water acting over a short period of time on the sediment layers while they were still 'soft' i.e. before they ‘set’ by petrification – and therefore the rocks are roughly the same age as the Canyon i.e. only a few thousand years old !!!!:D
Scofflaw
You're aware that continental movement has been directly measured repeatedly over the last couple of decades? No, probably not.
Small movements in land masses along fault lines have been recorded since history began – so measuring some ‘movement’ between the continental landmasses isn’t any surprise.
However, arguing that these SMALL movements shunted the landmasses of the Earth half way around the Globe is based upon an unfounded belief in ‘billions of years’.
Scofflaw
Upright trees can be found buried in layered sediment, which was all laid down during the course of a catastrophic event. However, these "catastrophic events" are things like river floods
………or a worldwide Flood Catastrophe perhaps?????:eek:
Scofflaw
and no-one but Creationists claim that geologists date the top and bottom of these sediments as millions of years apart.
It is actually the Evolutionists counting their ‘varves’ who claim that the rocks on the top are millions of years older that the rocks on the bottom – the Creationists obviously claim that they were all laid down in the same catastrophic event – and now the Evolutionists seem to be agreeing with them.
Wonders will never cease.:D
Scofflaw
It's almost impossible to date sedimentary rocks, because they're made up of lots of badly altered material from all kinds of places. The likelihood of finding a mineral well-preserved enough to date is minimal - and even if you find it, it doesn't tell you the date the sediment was laid down. Like dating a bric-a-brac stall by dating the old things it sells.
OK, so why do Evolutionists then jump to the conclusion that the (sedimentary) rock in which Dinosaur bones are found are 200 million years old – if “it's almost impossible to date sedimentary rocks” and there is soft tissue, including DNA frasgments still preserved in the Dinosaur carcass?!!!!
The recent discovery of a fully articulated Dinosaur limb, proves that this artefact could have been 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
Scofflaw
By the way, to hold all the organisms we have fossils for, if try to fit them into the years before the Flood, requires us to stack them about half a mile deep, all standing or growing on each other...
Fossils are only found in a tiny percentage of sedimentary rocks – and so there was plenty of place on Earth for all of them, when they were alive - and so your ‘mile high’ notions are invalid!!!!
Scofflaw
I can't quite remember whether this (half mile deep) feature is mentioned in Genesis.
God did command all creatures to be fruitful and multiply – and they did so, both before and after the Flood – but they never reproduced to the point where they were stacked a half mile deep!!!:D
Wicknight
And you can't do that because you have already stated a number of times that such methods are based on "wild assumptions" that have no basis and which probably aren't true because they conflict with Genesis, such as the universe being billions of years old and billions of light years across.
The assumptions AND the Big Bang Theory are now being invalidated in the light of the latest observations.
The Universe may be infinite – but it isn’t billions of years old!!!
Wicknight
If this article is correct the universe is very big and very old, and Genesis is wrong. If this article is incorrect the universe is very big and very old, and Genesis is wrong.
If the article is true, the Universe isn’t very old and it is even BIGGER than previously thought – and Genesis is correct!!!!! 0 -
Wicknight
Bad traits and useless traits will eventually be lost in the species because they either have 0 fitness advantage, or a negative fitness advantage. Only those mutations that increase fitness make any kind of significant impact on the species.
……but ‘bad traits’ aren’t observed to be lost, they actually build up over time and they also survive in a heterozygous state.:D
You see, NS can only select on the basis of each ‘package’ of good and bad that each individual is. A predominantly bad mistake mechanism is likely to result in an increasing ‘load’ of bad problems sprinkled across a population and as two individuals with a different non-lethal ‘bad’ trait mate the offspring are likely to have BOTH bad traits thereby building up ‘bad’ traits in the population, rather than eliminating them.
It would be a ‘World of the Damned’ with the ‘bar’ for survival being lowered in each succeeding generation. The reason that such a ‘runaway’ situation doesn’t develop currently, is because sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms eliminate mistakes – but such systems show foreknowledge of what the ‘correct’ trait is – akin to computer auto recovery and rebooting systems – and this strongly indicates the intelligent design of living systems/
Because mutations are PREDOMINANTLY bad, such a mechanism is logically going to produce a ‘race to the bottom’ towards simpler systems (with less to go wrong) rather than an ‘upwards’ evolution of increasing complexity and levels of organisation – which ‘muck to man’ or ‘big picture’ evolution postulates.
In a world of predominantly bad mistakes, the organism that makes no/fewest mistakes and/or with the simplest systems will be the ultimate survivor.
Any ‘mistake mechanism’ would therefore selected AGAINST by Natural Selection and, in any event it shows no potential to account for the development of the Complex Specified Information observed in life.
Wicknight
The bad or useless ones don't spread to the rest of the species JC. The useless ones are contained in the descents and if the descents don't have any great advantage over the others in the species then they won't overtake anyone. Those descents with bad traits die off very quickly, and as such they don't even exist for that much of a time.
……but the point is that the predominantly deleterious mutations observed would begin to afflict more and more individuals until all were affected.
All individuals would end up with DIFFERENT ‘bad’ traits under the operation of a predominantly ‘bad’ mistakes mechanism – and so any survival selection would then be based on ELIMINATING the creatures with the worst combination of ‘bad’ traits – and sexual selection could frustrate even this modest achievement.
You might end up with the ‘best of a bad lot’ with a number of surviving monstrosities that weren’t just quite as ‘bad’ as the ones that died – but such a mechanism cannot account for the extremely high levels of perfection and specified complexity observed in living organisms.:D
Wicknight
This is an analogy of how natural selection can select traits caused by mutation based on the environment. If some members of a species develop slightly thicker out fur due to mutation, they are selected over the others without this mutation by natural selection using the environment as direction on who to select and who not to select.
But ‘thicker fur’ is part of the pre-existing genetic diversity of the organism's genome – and it is not a result of a damaging mutation!!!!!:D
Wicknight
The selection process of me dying because my skull is not strong enough to survive a tree falling on my head is directed by the environment too, but that is a terrible example because falling trees aren't exactly a environment hazard that most humans face a lot and my friend would not have survived a tree falling on his head either. So as an example of natural selection it is largely pointless.
…..but I never cited it as an example of NS – merely an example of the many ways that people can die from environmental hazards that NS cannot address – because they are haphazard events and NS as a PASSIVE selection mechanism, it is POWERLESS to address them.
………and this is another reason why NS cannot generate a Man from muck!!!!!
Wicknight
Look at dogs. Dogs today don't look anything like dogs 4000 years ago. Their species has undergone massive change observed by human history, and yet they are still alive.
Firstly, they are still Dogs – and not some other species across the ‘Kind Barrier’.
Secondly, the dramatic changes in Dogs are primarily the result of ARTIFICIAL selection – i.e. the appliance of intelligently DIRECTED selection by Humans.
On the other hand, the Wolf remains roughly the same as it was 1,000 years ago under UNDIRECTED Natural Selection!!!:D
There is an obvious message there about the importance of intelligence to the effective direction of any seletion process !!!
Wicknight
If it is Gods design or evolution they still change in the same way and don't die. So your idea that even a minor change to the genetic blueprint of a species will result in death of the offspring is nonsense
It DOES very much matter whether the design was by an omniscient intelligent God or random natural processes.
Intelligently designed systems are capable of allowing dramatic changes to occur in a planned sequential manner - like a detailed complex computer programme - or a Butterfly moving from a Crawling Caterpillar to a Chrysalis to a Flying Adult!!!
Trying to make such changes using random undirected processes would result in disaster!!!
A ‘random minor change’ in the genetic blueprint of a species would result in the death of the offspring – just like a ‘random minor change’ in the code of a computer programme would also make it functionally useless!!!:D
Wicknight
"Fitness" referrs to the fitness of a organism to its environment with regard to if it is or is not selected by natural selection.
It has nothing to do with "physical fitness"
"Fitness" as you describe it is a very handy ‘weasel phrase’ that is ultimately useless – as it tells us NOTHING about what ‘fitness’ actually is.....
...........except that it has nothing to do with “physical fitness” – so presumably, then the Evolutionist believes that “physical un-fitness” is what is selected by NS!!!
Son Goku
Actually, this is a fairly easy test of if JC has been actually recieved training in physics.
What is a singularity in physics JC? I suspect you won't give the correct answer,
A singularity is a point at which a function takes an infinite value.
The hypothesised point of infinite density at the centre of a Black Hole, for example, is a singularity.
The term is also used when Physicists haven’t a clue about how something arose – such as for example, the Universe just before the (now invalidated) Big Bang!!!!
Schuhart
…..unfortunately after all that I’m still not clear on how the concept of God as ‘maker’ is inconsistent with evolution,
God is described as MAKER and CREATOR in both Creeds – and these words support a one week literal Genesis Creation – but they are inconsistent with a ‘millions of years’ Evolutionist interpretation!!!
Schuhart
you and me were made by God through a process that he does not control – our parents copulating of their own free will and not a fiat act of divine will. So, in principle, could God not have used similarly indirect methods such as evolution to create everything else that is seeing as how we have clearly established that ‘maker’ in this context does not imply a direct act of creation. Or am I missing something
The word ‘Maker’ in the Nicene Creed clearly refers to the original Creation by God during Creation Week.
There is no hint in either Creed that the Articles of Faith so expressed, include a belief in the Gradual Evolution of life from primordial chemicals.
Originally Posted by J C
God has devolved the power of Human sexual reproduction to Humans – and we do have full autonomy to decide to use this power - to produce the bodies and souls of children.
Schuhart
I think this is the key point of significance. What you are saying is that God is not the maker of all things in an individual sense.
Yes, but God does work all things for His own purposes and He takes an active interest in each Human – indeed the Bible confirms that He knows the number of hairs on our heads.
Schuhart
…….. it does away with any direct divine involvement in our creation. So you, and I, are here by cosmic accident. That's fine by me, its a core value in my outlook. But many theists seem unsatisified with this outlook, preferring the idea that they are individuals put here by a God who has a personal relationship with them.
Our conception is via a superficially random process of sexual reproduction – but overseen by God’s omnipotent sovereignty.
Equally God desires to have a personal relationship with individual Humans and He does so in one of the most intimate ways possible – by indwelling each Christian via the Holy Spirit.
Schuhart
I just wonder if you are breaking new theological ground here for the creationist perspective
Maybe.
It wouldn’t be the first time that some new theological ground was broken on this thread - and I suspect that it won’t be the last!!!!:D
Wicknight
But that doesn't trouble you when you go to buy a TV. You don't say "Hold on a minute, the theory that was applied to makes this TV work can also be applied to tell me the universe is billions of light years across! Take this TV back it is an affront to God"
Atheists equally don’t usually have a ‘Pauline Conversion’ when they see the predictable ordered Laws of Physics in action in their TV set – despite the obvious follow-on conclusion that an omniscient ordered intelligence must have produced these Laws!!!!:D
Rather than being an ‘affront to God’ – I have found that my TV set exhibits many dimensions that prove God’s existence!!!!!!:D
Equally, TV broadcasts provide tangible proof that information in TV images can exist in invisible media all around us - and TV therefore supports the idea that other invisible dimensions and powers could exist - like the spiritual realm!!!!:D
Wicknight
Your TV works in a predictable fashion because there is a theory behind the design that allows those to predict what will happen and design around this. That is the same with all areas of science, from astronomy to geology. The more a theory appears to predict correctly the more strength that theory gains in the scientific community.
My TV set works in a predictable fashion because predictable Laws exist in Physics – and my TV is made from quality components by intelligent Electronic Engineers.
Actually, my TV set is PROOF of the intelligent design – of both the TV itself, and it’s designers!!!!:eek:0 -
Oh great, JC is back with more nonsense ....J C wrote:……but ‘bad traits’ aren’t observed to be lost, they actually build up over time and they also survive in a heterozygous state.:D
Such as?J C wrote:You see, NS can only select on the basis of each ‘package’ of good and bad that each individual is. A predominantly bad mistake mechanism is likely to result in an increasing ‘load’ of bad problems sprinkled across a population
How? Please explain in detail how you think this would happen, because a 10 year olds biology book will explain to you in very simple English how exactly this doesn't happen with natural selection. I am at my wits end trying to make this any more simple for you JC. I am dying to figure out what you actually think happens in natural selection.
If a mutation happens only in one of the organisms, and due to lack of fitness him or any offspring he actually manages to produce have short not very successful lives, how does this "bad" mutation spread across the population?
But this will only last a few generations at the most. The organisms fight for mates, they fight for the chance to reproduce. A organism with a lower fitness will be much less successful at find mates and reproducing, if they actually manage to last that long in the first place.J C wrote:and as two individuals with a different non-lethal ‘bad’ trait mate the offspring are likely to have BOTH bad traits thereby building up ‘bad’ traits in the population, rather than eliminating them.J C wrote:Because mutations are PREDOMINANTLY bad
The the last time that is a lie. Please stop lying. The vast vast majority of mutations do very little good or bad.
How JC? How would a mutation in organism that significantly lowers that organisms fitness to survived or mate, spread to the rest of the population of the species?J C wrote:……but the point is that the predominantly deleterious mutations observed would begin to afflict more and more individuals until all were affected.
I'm willing to bet you have no idea because you are talking out your arse. You don't understand what natural selection is or what it says, at this point you are just trolling.
If I said the sky was blue you would say it was green :rolleyes:J C wrote:But ‘thicker fur’ is part of the pre-existing genetic diversity of the organism's genome – and it is not a result of a damaging mutation
There is no such thing as "pre-existing genetic diversity" .. you just made that up.
It is like saying all the books that will ever be written already exist in some pre-existing english diversity, they just have to be written down. Nonsense, utter nonsense.
Mutations alter the blue prints of the organism, the design of how they are put together. That alteration can be good, it can be bad.
I did.J C wrote:…..but I never cited it as an example of NS
What??? NS doesn't address anything. What in Gods name are you talking about.J C wrote:– merely an example of the many ways that people can die from environmental hazards that NS cannot address
What do you think Natural Selection is??? This is so bizzare, you seem to have absolutely no idea what natural selection is.J C wrote:Firstly, they are still Dogs – and not some other species across the ‘Kind Barrier’.
So?J C wrote:Secondly, the dramatic changes in Dogs are primarily the result of ARTIFICIAL selection – i.e. the appliance of intelligently DIRECTED selection by Humans.
So?
Both those points do not change the fact that it shows you were wrong when you said that any alteration with genetic code will result in death. It won't, you were wrong. In fact this has been explained to you before, and based on your reply you clearly knew that you were lying. I would please asking to stop lying.J C wrote:It DOES very much matter whether the design was by an omniscient intelligent God or random natural processes.
So you admit that your original point that any change will result in death was nonsense. Also dogs have been breed by mankind. Are we ominscient intelligence JC?
Nonsense, utter nonsense.J C wrote:A ‘random minor change’ in the genetic blueprint of a species would result in the death of the offspring
Except that that is a lie, because dogs have had minor changes in their genetic blueprints for hundreds of years and they haven't died.
STOP LYING.J C wrote:"Fitness" as you describe it is a very handy ‘weasel phrase’ that is ultimately useless – as it tells us NOTHING about what ‘fitness’ actually is.....
Fitness with relation to science and biology is defined perfectly well JC, don't be an idiot on purpose
Fitness
n.
1 - The state or condition of being fit; suitability or appropriateness.
2 - Good health or physical condition, especially as the result of exercise and proper nutrition.
3 - Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.
Notice the 1st and the 3rd one (that is the one with "biology" written beside it) ....
Did you honestly think we were talking about "good health". What did you think all these species go to the gym on a Friday and make sure they have 5 portions of fruit and veg???
Exactly what area of science are you trained in JC :rolleyes:J C wrote:...........except that it has nothing to do with “physical fitness” – so presumably, then the Evolutionist believes that “physical un-fitness” is what is selected by NS!!!
Read the definition.
If you still don't understand it I will see if I can dig up my Oxford Dictionary for 10 Year Olds and give you that definition :rolleyes:0 -
J C wrote:Son Goku
However may I take ask a different question? Let's ignore science that conflicts with the Bible. How are Creationist Scientists doing at tackling big questions in science outside showing evolution is wrong and creation is right.
For instance what's the Creationist progress on Quantum Gravity?
Making progress, but no solution in sight yet – as the Creationists work on the problem alongside their Evolutionist colleagues.
Most Creation Scientists work in conventional science jobs, alongside scientists of all religious faiths and none.
Which is to say that they are not doing "Creation Science", but rather mainstream science.J C wrote:Son Goku
iron nodules always give weird ages, and radiocarbon dating gives entirely erroneous dates outside its 50,000 year maximum
What you mean is that when radiocarbon ‘dates’ are measured which don’t 'fit in' with the Evolutionary story – they are regarded as 'erroneous'.
For example, wood aged as a few thousand years old is often discovered within and below rocks that are supposed to be millions of years old – and this is ‘explained’ by Evolutionists as radiocarbon giving “ entirely erroneous dates outside its 50,000 year maximum” – when the obvious explanation is that BOTH the rocks and the wood are very recent indeed!!!!:D
Actually, in this case the proven explanation is fraud.J C wrote:Scofflaw
radiometric dating is not particularly reliable for younger rocks...
……and WHY may I ask, should we believe radiometric dating to be accurate for supposedly ‘older’ rocks when it produces figures of millions of years for 'young' rocks known to have been formed in the 1950’s????
Because we know how that happens, and it's not applicable.J C wrote:Scofflaw
'Bulk rock ages' can be very variable
……..i.e useless!!!!!
Yup. That's why they're not used for dating, unless the system is known to have been closed throughout its history.J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
In a study by Dr Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research, Basalt rocks from the Uinkaret Plateau of The Grand Canyon (which most Evolutionist Geologists accept as only thousands of years old) had the following DIFFERENT ages ‘established’ by radiometric dating :-
Six Potassium-Argon ages from 10,000 to 117 Million years.
Five Rubidium-Strontium ages from 1.270 Million to 1,390 Million years.
One Rubidium Strontium isochron 1,340 Million years.
One Lead-Lead isochron 2,600 Million years.
Scofflaw
They are scatter points from various graphs, whose originals were rapidly withdrawn from publication, and re-released with only the outlying data points showing.
...and WHY were the originals “rapidly withdrawn from publication, and re-released with only the outlying data points showing” ???!!!!
With radiometric ages ranging from 10,000 to 2.6 Billion years for the SAME rocks – they are an obvious contradiction of the accuracy of radiometric dating – and point to a very young Grand Canyon indeed!!!
They were Austin's graphs. The scatter points are discarded in dating, but they were the only points Austin kept, because they appeared to support his contention that the same rocks gave multiple ages. They don't - they give a mean age, which is what is used in dating.J C wrote:Scofflaw
In addition, that geologists reckon the Grand Canyon (the big hole) as a few thousand years old is true,.
OK so you accept that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old, so we’re making some progress after all!!!:)
It's a geomorphological feature. The drumlins in Cavan and Monaghan are only 10,000 years old. Did you, perchance, think that geologists thought of all landscape features as millions of years old?J C wrote:Scofflaw
but that is not a comment on the age of the rocks through which the Grand Canyone feature has been cut
……but then you go and spoil it all by going into denial, and arguing that the “rocks through which the Grand Canyon feature has been cut” may be older than the canyon itself!!!
That is a very funny comment. It opens up previously unglimpsed vistas of stupidity. Are you sure you weren't at UCD in the late 80's?J C wrote:Firstly, a radiometric age of 10,000 years HAS been established for the oldest rocks in the Grand Canyon .
Secondly, IF the Canyon is only a few thousand years old it could only be cut through the rock layers before they ‘set’ in such a short time – and therefore the rocks are roughly the same age as the Canyon i.e. a few thousand years old also!!!!
...because rivers cannot cut through solid rock, eh?J C wrote:Scofflaw
You're aware that continental movement has been directly measured repeatedly over the last couple of decades? No, probably not.
Small movements in land masses along fault lines have been recorded since history began – so measuring some ‘movement’ between the continental landmasses isn’t any surprise.
However, arguing that these SMALL movements shunted the landmasses of the Earth half way around the Globe is based upon an unfounded belief in ‘billions of years’.
Er, no. The continents themselves have had their motion measured, by laser and satellite. Come on out of the 19th century.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Upright trees can be found buried in layered sediment, which was all laid down during the course of a catastrophic event. However, these "catastrophic events" are things like river floods
………or a worldwide Flood Catastrophe perhaps?????:eek:
Well, no, on account of there being no evidence for such a silly idea.J C wrote:Scofflaw
and no-one but Creationists claim that geologists date the top and bottom of these sediments as millions of years apart.
It is actually the Evolutionists counting their ‘varves’ who claim that the rocks on the top are millions of years older that the rocks on the bottom – the Creationists obviously claim that they were all laid down in the same catastrophic event – and now the Evolutionists seem to be agreeing with them.
Ah - true. I meant not by radiometric dating. Varves are a dating mechanism in themselves, in that they can be established as seasonal. Depending on the sediment in question, there may be one or more varves per year.
Er, no, I'm not agreeing with you, because I actually know what I'm talking about.J C wrote:Scofflaw
It's almost impossible to date sedimentary rocks, because they're made up of lots of badly altered material from all kinds of places. The likelihood of finding a mineral well-preserved enough to date is minimal - and even if you find it, it doesn't tell you the date the sediment was laid down. Like dating a bric-a-brac stall by dating the old things it sells.
OK, so why do Evolutionists then jump to the conclusion that the (sedimentary) rock in which Dinosaur bones are found are 200 million years old – if “it's almost impossible to date sedimentary rocks” and there is soft tissue, including DNA frasgments still preserved in the Dinosaur carcass?!!!!
If we are unlucky enough to find a new fossil species in an area with unknwon geology, no known fossils, uniformly sedimentary with no nearby igneous rocks, it is very difficult. Otherwise, it can be established through a reasonably simply set of techniques. Have a look at this kid's page on the subject, which may assist you. If you have questions, feel free to ask.J C wrote:The recent discovery of a fully articulated Dinosaur limb, proves that this artefact could have been 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
Or, if you were interested in reading something which isn't full of lies and distortions, you could read the Smithsonian article instead. The choice is always open.J C wrote:Scofflaw
By the way, to hold all the organisms we have fossils for, if try to fit them into the years before the Flood, requires us to stack them about half a mile deep, all standing or growing on each other...
Fossils are only found in a tiny percentage of sedimentary rocks – and so there was plenty of place on Earth for all of them, when they were alive - and so your ‘mile high’ notions are invalid!!!!
You are, I'm afraid, only thinking of dinosaur fossils, and maybe another couple of large animals. These are rare, but smaller animals are not. There are marine beds made entirely out of shells, many metres thick. Heck, there are coprolites - rocks made almost entirely out of feces.
We've been over all these before, JC. All of these claims of yours are lies. In many cases they are quite straightforward frauds, in other cases they are distortions of the truth. You have yet to demonstrate anything other than the deepest ignorance in both geology and biology, despite your repeated claims to be a scientist and to have studied widely.
Your belief that rivers must be cut before the rocks have 'set' shows an almost complete incomprehension of the entire field of geology. It's impressive, but it hardly encourages me to rely on your 'opinion as a scientist'.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement