The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

DerKaiser

Wow JC, you seem to live on boards!!

The crocodiles had little or no difference, I'll grant you, except the fact that they were much, much larger...............

You are steadfast in your beliefs, and I salute you for it, but honestly, Creationism is a cop out, it just says "Why? Because God said so..."

Son Goku

Spyral wrote:

it would depend what you classify as rock and then what results you get when you test it.

You're taking the piss, although I'll admit I was fooled.

Medin

Hey guys,

anyone (with a decent knowledge of genetics) cares to elaborate on this quote:

Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. In the last 30 years, a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of preexistent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000 (ten to the one hundred billionth power). Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that just the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000 (ten to the forty thousandth power). The odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. Think of it this way, the chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. The probability of spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It is impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design.

Son Goku

Medin, all passages such as the one above make the mistake that probability only comes in the form which you learn in school. This kind of probability is called Bernoullian probability and it is too simple for genetics. For a proper analysis of genetics you need probability as it was done by Gauss in the 19th Century, called functional probability.

Medin

Son Goku wrote:

Medin, all passages such as the one above make the mistake that probability only comes in the form which you learn in school. This kind of probability is called Bernoullian probability and it is too simple for genetics. For a proper analysis of genetics you need probability as it was done by Gauss in the 19th Century, called functional probability.

OK, thanks for this. So what is the outcome of Gauss' probability, if one applies it to the same quote?

Son Goku

Medin wrote:

OK, thanks for this. So what is the outcome of Gauss' probability, if one applies it to the same quote?

The result is unquotable, at least on a forum. It isn't something which I can simply state like "86%", because in situations like this odds don't really exist as a sensical concept. I could try to explain, however for now it is simpler to say that given the right conditions formation of self-replicating molecules is very likely or even required.

Medin

Son Goku wrote:

The result is unquotable, at least on a forum. It isn't something which I can simply state like "86%", because in situations like this odds don't really exist as a sensical concept. I could try to explain, however for now it is simpler to say that given the right conditions formation of self-replicating molecules is very likely or even required.

OK, fair enuff. Do you believe that our discoveries about genes and stuff related to it give us to wonder that the whole thing is mucho intelligent? Not the thing itself of course, but the way things are, its designer?

Spyral

how come if you mix the life chemicals then you dont get life in a test tube ?

Son Goku

Spyral wrote:

how come if you mix the life chemicals then you dont get life in a test tube ?

How would you "mix" them? Also that is the theory of abiogenesis and not the theory of evolution. Which theory are you criticising?

Medin

Spyral wrote:

how come if you mix the life chemicals then you dont get life in a test tube ?

Are you "asking", what's the difference between a "dead-form" and a living creature??

Splendour

JimiTime wrote:

Question to JC Hi JC, I am a christian with a genuine question. What would be the spiritual consequence of evolution being true, if God used it as his means of creation? I have no opinion on this as yet, its just that you seem so adament that it has to be 6 literal days, I'm just wondering of its importance. Again I ask this in the context that I believe god created us.

Hi all,

First time have looked at this post and certainly not gonna read it from the OP!! So forgive me if repeating...

The Spiritual consequnce of evolution being true means that you may as well chuck the whole bible out altogether.

If we evolved from 'slime' where exactly does the soul come from. It would mean we are on par with animals. And while we may have alot of the same DNA as animals, I think most of us agree we are far above them intellectually and emotionally. How many chimpanzees have you seen designing a sky scraper or how many dolphins do you know of who have cried over a broken relationship.

But more importantly than this is the fact that if one reads the bible from start to finish you cannot help but see how it all fits together. If the story of Adam and Eve isn't true and the Fall didn't happen then there would be absolutely no reason for Jesus dying on the cross. He came to rectify the mess man had made of creation. Hence Paul refers to him as the 'second Adam'.

Medin

Splendour wrote:

Hi all,

First time have looked at this post and certainly not gonna read it from the OP!! So forgive me if repeating...

The Spiritual consequnce of evolution being true means that you may as well chuck the whole bible out altogether.

If we evolved from 'slime' where exactly does the soul come from. It would mean we are on par with animals. And while we may have alot of the same DNA as animals, I think most of us agree we are far above them intellectually and emotionally. How many chimpanzees have you seen designing a sky scraper or how many dolphins do you know of who have cried over a broken relationship.

But more importantly than this is the fact that if one reads the bible from start to finish you cannot help but see how it all fits together. If the story of Adam and Eve isn't true and the Fall didn't happen then there would be absolutely no reason for Jesus dying on the cross. He came to rectify the mess man had made of creation. Hence Paul refers to him as the 'second Adam'.

If Jesus died on the cross for the reason ppl think, why we still have such a big a big mess around here? :rolleyes: Probably bigger than it ever was.

Zombrex

Spyral wrote:

how come if you mix the life chemicals then you dont get life in a test tube ?

You do.

Well you get the early building blocks of life, complex self replicating molecules. Self replicating as in they make copies of themselves (a precursor to asexual reproduction in things like bacteria). This has been done in places like MIT, both in computer simulations and in actual chemical labs.

Considering it took approx 1 billion years for these types of molecules to evolve into what we would recognise as life it is a bit much to ask the boys in the chemistry labs to do this in front of us.

The Mad Hatter

Splendour wrote:

Hi all,

First time have looked at this post and certainly not gonna read it from the OP!! So forgive me if repeating...

The Spiritual consequnce of evolution being true means that you may as well chuck the whole bible out altogether.

If we evolved from 'slime' where exactly does the soul come from. It would mean we are on par with animals. And while we may have alot of the same DNA as animals, I think most of us agree we are far above them intellectually and emotionally. How many chimpanzees have you seen designing a sky scraper or how many dolphins do you know of who have cried over a broken relationship.

But more importantly than this is the fact that if one reads the bible from start to finish you cannot help but see how it all fits together. If the story of Adam and Eve isn't true and the Fall didn't happen then there would be absolutely no reason for Jesus dying on the cross. He came to rectify the mess man had made of creation. Hence Paul refers to him as the 'second Adam'.

Well, all good stories fit together. Hm...I wonder if bad literature can be blamed for this recent rise in fundementalism?:cool:

As to your 'If we evolved from "slime"' paragraph, I'm sure that God, of all people, could tell which way each molecule of slime was pointed, and which ones would eventually become the creatures whose descendents would eventually become human, and could invest them with whatever spiritual blueprint he liked.

Of course I'll say nothing besides this on anthill skyscrapers (some over ten feet high) or dolphins lamenting their young. (Yes, I should dig up some citations...right, the former I saw in a David Attenborough documentary, probably Planet Earth, the latter I can't remember. Will look both up properly some time.)

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

Question to JC Hi JC, I am a christian with a genuine question. What would be the spiritual consequence of evolution being true, if God used it as his means of creation? I have no opinion on this as yet, its just that you seem so adament that it has to be 6 literal days, I'm just wondering of its importance. Again I ask this in the context that I believe god created us.

Various Christians argue that you can belief / accept evolution and still be a Christian.
Here's one:
Kenneth Miller, who wrote's Finding Darwin's God.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Finding-Darwins-God-Kenneth-Miller/dp/0060930497/ref=pd_bbs_1/203-9689463-4487929?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183676789&sr=8-1

Medin

Wicknight wrote:

You do.

Well you get the early building blocks of life, complex self replicating molecules. Self replicating as in they make copies of themselves (a precursor to asexual reproduction in things like bacteria). This has been done in places like MIT, both in computer simulations and in actual chemical labs.

Considering it took approx 1 billion years for these types of molecules to evolve into what we would recognise as life it is a bit much to ask the boys in the chemistry labs to do this in front of us.

So you're saying you cannot prove evolution, rite? :rolleyes:

bonkey

Medin wrote:

So you're saying you cannot prove evolution, rite? :rolleyes:

No, but the pro-science advocates here have repeated and explained ad nauseum that you do not prove scientific theories in the first place.

By demanding such proof, all you show is that you lack a certain fundamental understanding of science in the first place, which would be essential to have a meaningful informed opinion on the merits (or otherwise) of evolution.

You can still reject evolution without having an opinion, but its not akin to saying "I know nothing about physics, but I still think that my opinion that this Einstein bloke had his head up his ass."

Zombrex

Medin wrote:

So you're saying you cannot prove evolution, rite? :rolleyes:

Science doesn't "prove" anything. Proof is either a mathematical construct (a=b=a) or a laymans term ("prove to me Captain Kirk is better than Captain Picard"), depending on what you are talking about. In science neither of these are dealt with.

Science attempts to form models (theories) around natural phenomena that represent what the scientists understand to be taking place. The strength of these theories are based upon how closely the fit with observation and prediction.

It is a fact of science though that one can never know for certain if their model is completely accurate in how it is modeling a natural phenomenon. It might be modeling it perfectly, but there is no way to objectively determine that this is the case, therefore it is impossible to prove, in the mathematical sense, that a model is 100% accurate (even if it might be)

The theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution is a very strong and supported scientific theory (model), one of the strongest in science. It is as strong as the theory of gravity or something like general relativity. The model accurately fits observation and more importantly accurately predicts future observation.

Medin

Wicknight wrote:

Science doesn't "prove" anything. Proof is either a mathematical construct (a=b=a) or a laymans term ("prove to me Captain Kirk is better than Captain Picard"), depending on what you are talking about. In science neither of these are dealt with.

Science attempts to form models (theories) around natural phenomena that represent what the scientists understand to be taking place. The strength of these theories are based upon how closely the fit with observation and prediction.

It is a fact of science though that one can never know for certain if their model is completely accurate in how it is modeling a natural phenomenon. It might be modeling it perfectly, but there is no way to objectively determine that this is the case, therefore it is impossible to prove, in the mathematical sense, that a model is 100% accurate (even if it might be)

The theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution is a very strong and supported scientific theory (model), one of the strongest in science. It is as strong as the theory of gravity or something like general relativity. The model accurately fits observation and more importantly accurately predicts future observation.

OK. But then again - does this super-trupper-theory explains the difference between two organic masses, i.e. 1 being a mere plant or a chimp and another 1 being human?

And if your theory is true, how come only humans "evolved" into whatever they evolved? Like for instance, why I don't see humans with 3 legs, 4 arms, 1.5 heads, or humans walking on hands instead of their legs, 7 fingers on rights hand and 19 on left, etc.?
Why do all the humans have the same "set"?

bonkey

Medin wrote:

OK. But then again - does this super-trupper-theory explains the difference between two organic masses, i.e. 1 being a mere plant or a chimp and another 1 being human?

Your question suggests you don't know what the theory does and does not explain.

On what basis, therefore, can you be skeptical of it.

It sounds llike your position is "I don't know what it says, but I reject it anyway".

And if your theory is true, how come only humans "evolved" into whatever they evolved?

Again, this comment suggests that you don't understand what evolutionary theory says.

Sangre

How can people reject something (not just science) when it is clear they have no idea what it entails? Even more bizarre is when they are condescending about it.

I also see JC is making the claim that creation scientists are 'legally' entitled to call themselvesa scientist despite showing him this was a nonsense claim only weeks ago. Obviously the copy and paste is out in force or he has the memory retention of a gold fish.

Medin

bonkey wrote:

Your question suggests you don't know what the theory does and does not explain.

On what basis, therefore, can you be skeptical of it.

It sounds llike your position is "I don't know what it says, but I reject it anyway".


Again, this comment suggests that you don't understand what evolutionary theory says.

OK, what does it say then? For me, it's absolutely weird that humans are the only species completely different than any other. How come? Does the new-evolution explain this or not? Or how does it deal with that question?

Sangre

Well firstly we're not completely different, in fact, we're very similar in looks and internal and genetic composition to apes. The only real difference is the size of brain and its functional power. I'm sure you've heard the 99% genetically similar to apes quote. I'd hardly call that completely different. Biologically speaking we are pretty much the exact same as them.

Regarding you're question on 5 headed, 3 fingered humans. Have you never seen someone with a deformity? Siamese twins, missing fingers/hands/face. It happens constantly. The reason more people aren't like that is because it is not advantageous, it gives no benefit over the rest of the population. In fact, since there are so few of these people actually serves as proof of evolution. Its natural selection at work. Anyway, humans will hardly change at all since we've perfectly adapted to the environment, we've no need to evolve.

By the way, evolution doesn't deal with the differences between apes/humans etc., Thats species classifcation and nothing to do with it.
Evolutions deals with how an ape may have become a human over a LONG period of time.

bonkey

Medin wrote:

OK, what does it say then? For me, it's absolutely weird that humans are the only species completely different than any other. How come?

Stop and think what you mean by "completely different"? From an evolutionary perspective, we have a few, relatively minor differences from our nearest relatives.

These differences have resulted in significant differences in how we behave, but from an evolutionary perspective, no, we're not really that different.

Its also worth bearing in mind that if you look at nature, you'll find other species who have no almost-identical relatives as well, (by whatever standard you set "no almost identical relatives" to be in order to seperate us from our nearest evolutionary 'cousins')

Does the new-evolution explain this or not?

What do you mean by "new-evolution"? What was "old-evolution"?

Or how does it deal with that question?

Its not really a question to begin with.

You're making an unfounded assumption (there is no species similar to us) and then basing a question on it. Until you can show that the assumption you make is borne out by observational evidence, the question has no merit.

From an evolutionary perspective, there is no real doubt about just who our various evolutionary first-cousins are, nor when (generally speaking) our evolutionary paths diverged. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, there most certainly are species that we are not "completely different" to, and we can explain to a surprising degree of detail how and when we diverged. We also have a general framework with which they "why" can be explained.

Zombrex

Medin wrote:

OK. But then again - does this super-trupper-theory explains the difference between two organic masses, i.e. 1 being a mere plant or a chimp and another 1 being human?

Not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean does the theory of evolution explain why all life on Earth doesn't just look exactly the same (ie why there is so much diversity in life on Earth), then yes it does.

Medin wrote:

And if your theory is true, how come only humans "evolved" into whatever they evolved?

If you mean why are humans the only form of very advanced and intelligent animals on Earth, for a long time we weren't.

Up until 24,000 years ago Homo neanderthalensis (commonly known as Neanderthals) were roaming Europe. They used complex tools and most likely had language.

People often think that Neanderthals were just early humans, but they were actually a different species. We are Homo sepiens (humans), and while we both probably evolved from an original ancestor (Homo erectus) we were two different species living at the same time.

The most commonly accepted belief is that Neanderthals became extinct because they weren't as good as we were at utilizing the limited resources available.

There is also contested evidence that another species in the Homo genus was alive in Asia until 12,000 years ago, when human civilization started to appear.

Medin wrote:

Like for instance, why I don't see humans with 3 legs, 4 arms, 1.5 heads, or humans walking on hands instead of their legs, 7 fingers on rights hand and 19 on left, etc.?

You do.

My friend Paul has 6 toes on one of his feet (Polydectyly). This is an example of a genetic mutation (actually it is series of mutations).

Medin wrote:

Why do all the humans have the same "set"?

Because we basically all have the same DNA, hence we are all the same species and share the characteristics of that species.

Medin wrote:

For me, it's absolutely weird that humans are the only species completely different than any other.

As I said above, for a long time we weren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29

Where this leave Christians and the idea that humans (homo sapiens) are special from the other animals I'm not sure.

Medin

I tell you what - what you just said is like saying "weeeelll, I'll write 2 version of a simple program, one will work fine and the other one will crash the system, the only difference will be 1 line of code among 1,000,000 lines of code (ok, not THAT simple since 1million lines of non-comment code is still a hard one to produce!!!).

So what you said about us being different than other species doesn't hold much water not even a few drops.

Zombrex

Medin wrote:

I tell you what - what you just said is like saying "weeeelll, I'll write 2 version of a simple program, one will work fine and the other one will crash the system, the only difference will be 1 line of code among 1,000,000 lines of code (ok, not THAT simple since 1million lines of non-comment code is still a hard one to produce!!!).

So what you said about us being different than other species doesn't hold much water not even a few drops.

Well biological systems aren't computers. A computer will crash if 1 line of code is out of place because the computer is tasked with doing a specific thing. Biology doesn't work like that. You can have hundreds of lines out of place (mutations) and still produce a fully functioning life form because it is always going to produce something. That "something" might kill you but more likely than not it will do very little (having 6 toes won't kill you) and it might even produce something that is of advantage to you

You contain on average 60 mutations from the genetic code of your parents, mutations that most likely do very little. You are still alive aren't you?

Sangre

Medin wrote:

I tell you what - what you just said is like saying "weeeelll, I'll write 2 version of a simple program, one will work fine and the other one will crash the system, the only difference will be 1 line of code among 1,000,000 lines of code (ok, not THAT simple since 1million lines of non-comment code is still a hard one to produce!!!).

So what you said about us being different than other species doesn't hold much water not even a few drops.

Thats like saying that someone born with webbed feet will die because their genetic 'code' has an error/mutation.

DapperGent

Medin wrote:

I tell you what - what you just said is like saying "weeeelll, I'll write 2 version of a simple program, one will work fine and the other one will crash the system, the only difference will be 1 line of code among 1,000,000 lines of code (ok, not THAT simple since 1million lines of non-comment code is still a hard one to produce!!!).

So what you said about us being different than other species doesn't hold much water not even a few drops.

This makes no sense.

Sangre

In fairness its hard to make sense when you're arguiing against something you don't understand.