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
-
Scofflaw said:
You need to have a word with the evolutionists on this board then, for you all seem pretty certain that molecules-to-man evolution is a fact. Example from komodosp, Now there are still exact things we don't know about evolution but it did happen.Sigh. Where does one start? First, our "certainties" are not certain at all - that's the nature of science.
Their motivation in presenting their scientific arguments is certainly religious - but their arguments are purely scientific. As to the merit of their arguments, they seem to be afflicted (in your mind) with the same delusions other dissenting scientists are alleged to suffer from. A lack of orthodoxy seems to be the real problem, not a lack of scientific rigour.Second, Creationist scientists do not offer "similar dissenting arguments" - they offer dissenting arguments based on religious conviction, the vast majority of which are without scientific merit, and many of which are fundamentally dishonest.
Exactly the response the dissenting scientists complain of in New Scientist.They are not gagged, they are simply unable to come up with arguments that qualify for entry to debate.
Compared to the massive funding available from the governments and institutions for 'consensus' science research, Creation science has a pittance. They do research, e.g. the RATE project, but a lot of their labour is indeed involved in pointing out both the contradictions of evolutionary theory and the propaganda that keeps it afloat. They have succeeded in opening the eyes of many people, scientists included, to the fact that evolution is an ideology more than a science.For example, you have chosen to draw a parallel between Creationism's "suppression" and the lamentations of physicists who are interested in non-standard models of physics. While their complaint is forcefully expressed, the real problem is that no-one is interested in funding non-standard models because the general consensus is that you'll spend a lot of money for nothing. This simply does not apply to Creation "science", since entirely different funding streams are available.
Creationists appear reluctant to spend money on "Creations science" research, preferring to spend it on PR and campaigns complaining about the scientific community's suppression of their truth. If Creation science were, as JC claims (and you accept) the correct model of the world, a fraction of Creationist PR and legal spending should suffice to demonstrate it beyond contradiction. Somehow, this never happens.0 -
to the fact that evolution is an ideology more than a science.
Then how come biosciences in relation to genetics (read the latest Newsweek) have been making so many leaps forward in the recent past? Luck? Since evolution is so clearly wrong...
On the one hand you have a theory, however incomplete, that is producing real results. Because of this work human life expectancy could be up to 200 years before the end of the century. On the other you have a faith-based system, of which there is no proof, which contibutes nothing to scientific progress that is useful and yet we simply must accept that we are the centre of the universe and that christianity is the one true religion, no questioning just accept it. Fin.
Very good.0 -
You need to have a word with the evolutionists on this board then, for you all seem pretty certain that molecules-to-man evolution is a fact.
Evolution is a model of how we believe life on Earth develops. It very closely matches observation and prediction. That strongly suggests that the model is very accurate.
What are their arguments? That is what Son has been asking you.Their motivation in presenting their scientific arguments is certainly religious - but their arguments are purely scientific.
Who the scientist is is largely irrelevant. What matters is the science.
For example Humphrey's theories (if they can be called that) have a large number of flaws in them (a large large number). He doesn't seem to care that much, since his motivation is simply to allow for the possibility of Biblical creation, but you can't expect other scientists to take a very flawed set of theories that seriously.Exactly the response the dissenting scientists complain of in New Scientist.
Of course they complain. They don't have the science to support them but they believe, because of religion, that they are correct. Therefore they want to skip the 150 years of scientific standards. What else are they going to do but complain.Compared to the massive funding available from the governments and institutions for 'consensus' science research, Creation science has a pittance.
That is nonsense. There are tons and tons of money for Creationism, but it goes into lawyers and PR and publishing, not the actual science.
Have you ever wondered why that is? :rolleyes:0 -
Son Goku said:
See next:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Well, these dissenting scientists are not Creationists but evolutionists like yourself.
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They can't be accused of being driven by a religious agenda.
Obviously.
Hmm. Let me see: A band of well-qualified experts challenge the current consensus view, but you think that doesn't somehow imply that view might be wrong?Quote:
It suggests to me your certainties are not so certain after all.
Why? You're saying because they're non-religous critics I can't be so certain after all. Non-religous critics are far more common and just because they exist doesn't somehow imply the Big Bang is faulty.
Oh, wait, I see what you mean - the dissenting experts MUST be wrong, for they disagree with the current consensus!
Yes, I see how you can be so certain after all. But you really need to speak with Scofflaw, who has something to say about scientists and certainties.
Hey, I'm just pointing out what these (non-Creationist) scientists said in New Scientist. I'm not defending their science. You allege they make bad predictions, they allege you do. Takes the shine of supposed scientific honesty and impartiality.Whenever their theories make numerical predictions they turn out wrong. No conspiracy, no supression, they just can't match the evidence. Is it so hard to believe that they are simply incorrect and that is why nobody uses their theories? Science has no problem using theories that work, but might disagree with current thought, for instance Brans-Dicke theory in the 1960s. Why do you feel the need to invent a fairyland inhabited by shady scientists bent on surpressing knowledge.
Please point it out for me.I can't see how Humphrey's could be called somebody who understands GR since he commonly makes a mistake that undergrads are taught to look out for.
I take it Wiki needs updating? In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. [underling mine]Hartnett I don't understand. He insists that Dark Matter doesn't exist, which is a bit unusual considering Dark Matter has been found and studied. We even know its temperature.Quote:
I'm not sure of where to find a detailed technical article- maybe Humphreys' book includes one - but from Hartnett I gather the Anistrophies are also expected in his creationist model. In fact, the WMAP that displays them also displays contra-indications to the Big Bang: the octopole and quadrupole components, which produce a perfect pattern of cosmic north and south poles and a cosmic equator. Just what one would expect if the Earth is at or near the centre of the universe!
This is so muddled it would take an eternity to correct. General Relativistic quadrapole moments being used to say the Earth is at the centre of the universe. General Relativity being a theory which requires no unique frame. It's like taking a reading of the dipole moment of a magnet to conclude electromagnetism doesn't exist. It actually makes my head hurt.
Are you saying the observed quadrapole components can only exist if General Relativity excludes a unique frame? Or; No GR, No Quadrapole moments?0 -
daithifleming wrote: »Then how come biosciences in relation to genetics (read the latest Newsweek) have been making so many leaps forward in the recent past? Luck? Since evolution is so clearly wrong...
On the one hand you have a theory, however incomplete, that is producing real results. Because of this work human life expectancy could be up to 200 years before the end of the century. On the other you have a faith-based system, of which there is no proof, which contibutes nothing to scientific progress that is useful and yet we simply must accept that we are the centre of the universe and that christianity is the one true religion, no questioning just accept it. Fin.
Very good.
Biosciences have not been producing birds from dinosaurs, or flesh from rock, as far as I can see. They have been altering existing organisms, but not changing them into something completely different. Humbler folk have been doing it long before this past 200 years, breeding dogs, cattle, etc. to suit their needs. If that is evolution, I'm an evolutionist! No, the evolution Creationists refute is that which is supposed to lead from molecules to man. Conveniently, lack of time is the defense for it not being observed, even in bacteria.
So the Theory of Evolution has produced nothing, apart from a more arrogant atheism and the extermination camps and killing fields of the 20th Century.
Christianity's claim to be the true religion is not a scientific matter, nor do Creationists claim it to be . It is a spiritual matter. Creationism's claim that design rather than evolution is the best model for explaining nature - that is scientific, not spiritual. As a scientific theory, it of course is open to challenge.0 -
Advertisement
-
Biosciences have not been producing birds from dinosaurs, or flesh from rock, as far as I can see. They have been altering existing organisms, but not changing them into something completely different. Humbler folk have been doing it long before this past 200 years, breeding dogs, cattle, etc. to suit their needs. If that is evolution, I'm an evolutionist! No, the evolution Creationists refute is that which is supposed to lead from molecules to man. Conveniently, lack of time is the defense for it not being observed, even in bacteria.
So the Theory of Evolution has produced nothing, apart from a more arrogant atheism and the extermination camps and killing fields of the 20th Century.
Christianity's claim to be the true religion is not a scientific matter, nor do Creationists claim it to be . It is a spiritual matter. Creationism's claim that design rather than evolution is the best model for explaining nature - that is scientific, not spiritual. As a scientific theory, it of course is open to challenge.
So evolution hasnt been observed then...
Except here of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance0 -
Biosciences have not been producing birds from dinosaurs, or flesh from rock, as far as I can see.
:rolleyes:
You just sound like JC when you come out with nonsense like this Wolfsbane.They have been altering existing organisms, but not changing them into something completely different.
Actually they have. Many many examples have been given of just that. Of the top of my head I remember the example I've used a few times of the single cell organism mutating into a multicellular organism through the formation of a outer "skin"
It is evolution. It couldn't happen if evolution was not the process through which life on Earth develops. The systems that allow for example breeding of dogs, wouldn't exist in the first place :rolleyes:If that is evolution, I'm an evolutionist!No, the evolution Creationists refute is that which is supposed to lead from molecules to man. Conveniently, lack of time is the defense for it not being observed, even in bacteria.
The natural formation of self-replicating molecules that then begin to evolve has been observed as well as modeled.
Again you sound like JC with this nonsense. This entire thread, all 300+ pages is a thesis demonstrating the exact opposite of your statement :rolleyes:So the Theory of Evolution has produced nothing, apart from a more arrogant atheism and the extermination camps and killing fields of the 20th Century.As a scientific theory, it of course is open to challenge.
Its not open to challenge because its not a scientific theory. "God did it" is not a scientific theory :rolleyes:0 -
Yes it does. It isn't a textbook.I take it Wiki needs updating?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060822-dark-matter.html
Only because you want it to. Face it, you'd love if science was biased, that's why you search around for this stuff.Takes the shine of supposed scientific honesty and impartiality.
It would imply it was wrong, if they had anything to support their argument.Hmm. Let me see: A band of well-qualified experts challenge the current consensus view, but you think that doesn't somehow imply that view might be wrong?
Ah sure, it doesn't matter anyway. Everybody is out to get Creationists wolfsbane and I'm just an agent of the establishment.
No, because they've nothing to back them up. Maybe they've nothing to back them up because the establishment, possibly working with the lesbians, stole their material!!:eek: I hope not!Oh, wait, I see what you mean - the dissenting experts MUST be wrong, for they disagree with the current consensus!
This conspiracy stuff is seriously stupid. The ratio of those who support the Big Bang to those who don't is over in scientific circles is over 10,000:1. The same as people who disagree with the MMR vaccine. Do you think the MMR vaccine is in doubt?
A fundamental postulate of Gr is that there is no fundamental frame.if General Relativity excludes a unique frame?0 -
Wicknight said:
I'm glad we agree on that. Some folk think observed adaption is evolution.;)Evolution is a model of how we believe life on Earth develops.
Perhaps you can point out where we have observed one organism evolve into another? Flies into? Mice into?It very closely matches observation and prediction. That strongly suggests that the model is very accurate.
For instance, that organisms are so complex that they could not have arisen in gradual steps: they are irreducibly complex. Key functions all had to arrive together.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Their motivation in presenting their scientific arguments is certainly religious - but their arguments are purely scientific.
What are their arguments? That is what Son has been asking you.
A full range of their arguments can be accessed in their publications, e.g. The Creation Research Society's CRS Quarterly: http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/Abstracts43-2.htm. Subscription is often required for the journals. And there are many books. But a lot of scientific articles can be read on the various Creationist sites (as you should know by now).
I agree.Who the scientist is is largely irrelevant. What matters is the science.
But he disputes such a range of errors. And the other non-creationist dissenting scientists face the same from the 'consensus' camp. One really cannot rely on scientists telling it dispassionately and honestly - they are just as prone to spinning as the politicians.For example Humphrey's theories (if they can be called that) have a large number of flaws in them (a large large number). He doesn't seem to care that much, since his motivation is simply to allow for the possibility of Biblical creation, but you can't expect other scientists to take a very flawed set of theories that seriously.
I've pointed out before how bitchy many are in defence of their pet theories. Evolution provides one big consensus and an occasion for maximum bitching against its opponents.:(
These dissenters are not Creationists, and are defending evolutionary models of the universe - just not ones held by the current consensus.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Exactly the response the dissenting scientists complain of in New Scientist.
Of course they complain. They don't have the science to support them but they believe, because of religion, that they are correct. Therefore they want to skip the 150 years of scientific standards. What else are they going to do but complain.
Perhaps you can enlighten me with the figures: Funding given to non-Creationist bodies vs funding given to Creationist bodies?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Compared to the massive funding available from the governments and institutions for 'consensus' science research, Creation science has a pittance.
That is nonsense. There are tons and tons of money for Creationism, but it goes into lawyers and PR and publishing, not the actual science.
Have you ever wondered why that is?0 -
I've read the article. Can't find where the bacteria evolved into another lifeform. Have I missed something?daithifleming wrote: »So evolution hasnt been observed then...
Except here of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance0 -
Advertisement
-
I've read the article. Can't find where the bacteria evolved into another lifeform. Have I missed something?
Ahhh, Macro-evolution, thats what you are seeking to observe. Birds into Dinosaurs? Dinosaurs into birds? Something big to prove it once and for all? Why isnt bacteria evolving to resist penicllin in the past hundred years good enough for you? You creationists all want the big jump, as if it just works like that. In a sense, macro evolution doesnt even exist, its all incremental changes, no dinos to birds, just ever changing genes.0 -
I've read the article. Can't find where the bacteria evolved into another lifeform. Have I missed something?
Then you didn't read the article. The bacteria that came out where a different lifeform to the bacteria that went in. If they weren't they wouldn't be resistant to the antibiotic, would they?
TBH Wolfsbane the biggest hurdle here is your lack of understand of the subject you are objecting to.0 -
Wicknight said:
I'd appreciate the details.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They have been altering existing organisms, but not changing them into something completely different.
Actually they have. Many many examples have been given of just that. Of the top of my head I remember the example I've used a few times of the single cell organism mutating into a multicellular organism through the formation of a outer "skin"
Your logic slip is showing: macro-evolution cannot be the proof of micro-evolution if the latter is being used as proof of the former. All the observed facts tell us is that dogs, cattle, etc. are genetically altered but remain dogs, cattle etc.It is evolution. It couldn't happen if evolution was not the process through which life on Earth develops. The systems that allow for example breeding of dogs, wouldn't exist in the first place
Again, I'd like the references. What became of these self-replicating molecules? If you were thinking of: http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html, that is hardly a natural formation of self-replicating molecules that then begin to evolveQuote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, the evolution Creationists refute is that which is supposed to lead from molecules to man. Conveniently, lack of time is the defense for it not being observed, even in bacteria.
The natural formation of self-replicating molecules that then begin to evolve has been observed as well as modeled.
Funny, some of us see it as doing the exact opposite. Of course, we are the dissenters and you lot are the consensus.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So the Theory of Evolution has produced nothing, apart from a more arrogant atheism and the extermination camps and killing fields of the 20th Century.
Again you sound like JC with this nonsense. This entire thread, all 300+ pages is a thesis demonstrating the exact opposite of your statement
Design is a scientific theory. The identity of the designer is a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As a scientific theory, it of course is open to challenge.
Its not open to challenge because its not a scientific theory. "God did it" is not a scientific theory0 -
"Observed adaption" is evolution.I'm glad we agree on that. Some folk think observed adaption is evolution.;)
We have already done that a thousand times already, but sure why not once more :rolleyes:Perhaps you can point out where we have observed one organism evolve into another? Flies into? Mice into?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
There are no organisms on Earth that are irreducibly complex. When a Creationists tells you he has found one what he is actually saying is that he can't think of a way they could have evolved. That isn't the same thing, especially when you consider that most Creationists are quite ignorant of evolution.For instance, that organisms are so complex that they could not have arisen in gradual steps: they are irreducibly complex.A full range of their arguments can be accessed in their publications
How about you pick the ones that model how the universe works with the theories explaining the phenomena Son is asking about for, and present them to us.
Then why do you keep listing off scientists instead of their theories? Son is still waiting ....I agree.But he disputes such a range of errors.
I'm not talking about what he disputes. Again Wolfsbane you seem to think that arguing against a theory like the Big Bang is the same as coming with an alternative scientific theory.
The simple fact of the matter is that Humphrey's alternative theories are nonsense. That isn't particularly relevant to his arguments against the Big Bang (which are flawed for different reasons), but it is relevant to his claim that science supports a Biblical concept of Creation.And the other non-creationist dissenting scientists face the same from the 'consensus' camp.
All scientists face scientific standards. Its the nature of science.One really cannot rely on scientists telling it dispassionately and honestly - they are just as prone to spinning as the politicians.
"Telling" what dispassionately and honestly?I've pointed out before how bitchy many are in defence of their pet theories. Evolution provides one big consensus and an occasion for maximum bitching against its opponents.:(
Again "bitching" is irrelevant. The point you really seem to fail to grasp is the only thing that matter is the science.These dissenters are not Creationists, and are defending evolutionary models of the universe - just not ones held by the current consensus.
Apologies I miss read. But the point still stands. The only thing that matters is the science.Perhaps you can enlighten me with the figures: Funding given to non-Creationist bodies vs funding given to Creationist bodies?
Well name me a Creationist body and I'll tell you how much money they have, if I can. I do know that Creationists bodies have opened theme parks and mega churches, so they aren't exactly strapped for cash.0 -
I'd appreciate the details.
I've already given the details, twice, on this forum. You didn't seem to pay a whole lot of attention then, so I question if you are going to pay much attention now.
"macro-evolution" is "micro-evolution". It is the same underlying process, that being evolution by natural selection.Your logic slip is showing: macro-evolution cannot be the proof of micro-evolution if the latter is being used as proof of the former.
Nothing extra happens in macro-evolution.All the observed facts tell us is that dogs, cattle, etc. are genetically altered but remain dogs, cattle etc.
And ... ?Again, I'd like the references. What became of these self-replicating molecules?
I imagine they are still replication, assuming the lab is still set up.that is hardly a natural formation of self-replicating molecules that then begin to evolve
Actually that is exactly what that is.Funny, some of us see it as doing the exact opposite. Of course, we are the dissenters and you lot are the consensus.
Well that is because you see what you want to see based on your already decided religious opinions Wolfsbane.Design is a scientific theory. The identity of the designer is a different matter.
Do you understand what a scientific theory is Wolfsbane? It is a model of how something happens.
Please explain to me the model of "design"0 -
No, we do not need to see a sudden change, just a sufficient one. Bacteria 'evolving' into a modified bacteria is no more than a wolfish common ancestor 'evolving' into a poodle. Man from Adam and Eve has 'evolved' into the several people types of today: Negro, Caucasian, etc. Not evolution at all.daithifleming wrote: »Ahhh, Macro-evolution, thats what you are seeking to observe. Birds into Dinosaurs? Dinosaurs into birds? Something big to prove it once and for all? Why isnt bacteria evolving to resist penicllin in the past hundred years good enough for you? You creationists all want the big jump, as if it just works like that. In a sense, macro evolution doesnt even exist, its all incremental changes, no dinos to birds, just ever changing genes.0 -
-
I suggest you are failing to think things through before you speak. If resistance to an antibiotic constitutes the origin of a different life-form, then I'm no longer a human. I would have thought the changes in the dog world would have been even more genetically significant than antibiotic resistance - yet you hold Labradors and Jack Russells both to be dogs - don't you?Then you didn't read the article. The bacteria that came out where a different lifeform to the bacteria that went in. If they weren't they wouldn't be resistant to the antibiotic, would they?
TBH Wolfsbane the biggest hurdle here is your lack of understand of the subject you are objecting to.0 -
I suggest you are failing to think things through before you speak. If resistance to an antibiotic constitutes the origin of a different life-form, then I'm no longer a human. I would have thought the changes in the dog world would have been even more genetically significant than antibiotic resistance - yet you hold Labradors and Jack Russells both to be dogs - don't you?
This change occurred in less than a century, can you not imagine the results that 4.5 billions years of incremental change would bring? Or the diversity? I mean this was just one environmental factor that brought about change, there are countless such factors. You seem to be trapped in this belief that evolution means that one day you have bacteria, and the next day you have a dog. It doesn't work like that at all.0 -
If resistance to an antibiotic constitutes the origin of a different life-form, then I'm no longer a human.
Do you actually understand what constitutes a "life form" and what constitutes a "species"
As I said already the greatest hurdle here seems to be your ignorance on this subject.I would have thought the changes in the dog world would have been even more genetically significant than antibiotic resistance - yet you hold Labradors and Jack Russells both to be dogs - don't you?
Yes, but then again do you understand what the classification "species" means. Labradors and Jack Russells are different life forms. Significantly different (as you can tell by their phenotypes). They are the same species, but that is largely irrelevant. They have very much evolved differently.
As daith said this has happened over a few thousand years. Now imagine it over a few million years.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, I understand the Evolutionist concept is very gradualist. What I am saying is that the change we observe is only of the dog-dog type. No dog-nondog type.daithifleming wrote: »This change occurred in less than a century, can you not imagine the results that 4.5 billions years of incremental change would bring? Or the diversity? I mean this was just one environmental factor that brought about change, there are countless such factors. You seem to be trapped in this belief that evolution means that one day you have bacteria, and the next day you have a dog. It doesn't work like that at all.
You wish to extrapolate change within dogs to suggest it leads back to pre-biotic soup and beyond. I'm saying there is no evidence this can happen, even from short lifespan organisms we can track today. It is an assumption without ground, a mere speculation.
The Creationist says dogs were always and only dogs. The common ancestor of every dog today was a perfect specimen and the variety we have today are just the outworking of genetic change due to natural selection and isolation of gene pools. The same factors apply to man.0 -
Wicknight said:
I am aware that the evolutionist term 'species' does not equate to the biblical term 'kinds', and did not realize I had used 'species', for that very reason. If I have, I apologise for the confusion - perhaps you can point me to the offending post?Yes, but then again do you understand what the classification "species" means. Labradors and Jack Russells are different life forms. Significantly different (as you can tell by their phenotypes). They are the same species, but that is largely irrelevant. They have very much evolved differently.
I have used 'life-form' to mean the difference between, say, a dog and a cat. I was not aware that evolutionists used it to mean the difference between a Labrador and a Jack Russell. I can see then how you could rightly insist that evoultion has produced new lifeforms. What I was challenging was it producing the dog-to-cat, molecules-to-man sort of change, over however many billions of years.
BTW, what do evolutionists term the dog-cat difference?0 -
-
Ehh what?
0 -
Wicknight said:
Yes, I should have been clearer. The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Design are both scientific theories.Do you understand what a scientific theory is Wolfsbane? It is a model of how something happens.
Please explain to me the model of "design"
I'll give my understanding of the design theory from a Creationist concept (Designers can be Theistic Evolutionists also).
Both theories assume a starting point: the first self-replicating molecule/the singularity, depending on how far back one wants to take Evolution; and the moment of Creation.
The Creation model has every living thing up and running from the word Go. Indeed, it has them perfect genetic specimens, holding all the information that would later be selected to give the varities we see in each 'kind' of creature today: e.g. the Causasian, Negro, etc. in the case of man.
The scientific design model (as distinct from the Biblical revelation) can offer no suggestion as to how or why the perfect creation came to be - just as Evolution can not deal with anything before its initial assumption. Further, the design model does not offer a reason why the initial perfection declined, other than the universally acknowleged Law of Entropy. The Bible reveals the cause - Man's fall into sin and God's punishment that followed.
So the Design model postulates a low entropy origin for all things, increasing as we go. It sees the biosphere not heading to ever more complex organisms, but to ever more restricted/specialised and degenerated organisms. The Creation Design model goes further and interprets the geological evidence to indicate a global catastrophe (the Flood) some 4000 years ago, a major factor in the present form of world. The scientific argument could not deal with the ultimate cause of this catastrophe, only with likely immediate causes.
That's about it, as far as my understanding of the issue goes. Feel free to ask for details and I'll try to respond.0 -
Ehh what?
Are you smoking the same thing?
Brilliant guy - the one in the white coat.
Fag - cigarette.
Chart - the 3-segment white board he is holding.
My suggestion is that, due to inhalation of noxious substances, said brilliant guy put 'CREATIONISTS' on the bottom instead of the top.0 -
Are you smoking the same thing?
Brilliant guy - the one in the white coat.
Fag - cigarette.
Chart - the 3-segment white board he is holding.
My suggestion is that, due to inhalation of noxious substances, said brilliant guy put 'CREATIONISTS' on the bottom instead of the top.
Sounds like you're smoking something, but its not a cigarette.0 -
Wicknight said:
I am aware that the evolutionist term 'species' does not equate to the biblical term 'kinds'
"Kinds" has never been defined in a biological sense by JC or any other Creationists on this forum or in any of the articles they have linked to, so TBH I've no idea what equates to it since I have no idea what it is (I suspect it is a made up concept TBH)
If you could define what a "Kind" is that would be very helpful, but considered I have a strong doubt that Creationists have every bothered to define this in a biological sense I imagine there is no definition to be presented.and did not realize I had used 'species', for that very reason.
No, you used the term "life form", and suggested that there is no difference between say non-resistant bacteria and resistant bacteria. I find that rather puzzling, since the very fact that the bacteria is resistant demonstrates that they are not the same form of life.I have used 'life-form' to mean the difference between, say, a dog and a cat.
Well that is not what the word means.
What you are talking about is species, since two dogs can be two different life forms, where as they are the same species.
Not in one go. It has produced a change in species but this takes hundreds of thousands of years, and in these intervening years what is happening is a build up of tiny changes.What I was challenging was it producing the dog-to-cat
That is why I said macro-evolution is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution (the emergence of a new species) is made up of a long long period of micro-evolution, where millions of changes build up over hundreds of thousands of years produce a life form so different than the one you started off with that they are considered different species.
What you don't have is a dog giving birth to a cat due to some massive mutation.BTW, what do evolutionists term the dog-cat difference?
SpeciesYes, I should have been clearer. The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Design are both scientific theories.
I have yet to see any evidence that there is a Theory of Design. All I see is a lot of people saying "Something designed something", which as I said is an argument, not a theory. A theory is a model. There is no model of design, as in what happened.The Creation model has every living thing up and running from the word Go.
Again that is an argument, not a theory. How does one model every living thing up and running in word Go. Where were they, how many of them were there, what were they doing etc.Indeed, it has them perfect genetic specimens
Again, an argument not a theory. Saying "they were perfect" is not a model. For a start what does that mean? What is a perfect genetic specimen in the sense of how would that be modelled?, holding all the information that would later be selected to give the varities we see in each 'kind' of creature today: e.g. the Causasian, Negro, etc. in the case of man.
So far you have not presented a model.
Think of it this way. What you have presented is the same as saying
"Last Wednesday it rained."
Now I work in meteorology industry and that is a statement, not a model. Scientifically it is useless.
A model would be made up of lists of rain fall data over the country, along with wind and temp information for the country, along with pressure and wind information from outside Ireland being feed into this model. It would also be made up of the mathematical models of how wind and pressure work with each other, which builds upon physics and chemistry models.
So with this model I can feed all this information into the simulation and tell you what happened where and when, and more importantly I can use this model to predict what happened on Thursday.
Do you see the difference? One is a statement, the other is a model based on theory.
I've yet to see any theory or model of design.
Imagine if I had to write a computer program where I can watch on my computer monitor a simulation of Creation. I can't do that because there is no theory under pinning this. There is just a whole load of vague statement, like saying the life forms were "perfect", what ever that means.The scientific design model (as distinct from the Biblical revelation) can offer no suggestion as to how or why the perfect creation came to be - just as Evolution can not deal with anything before its initial assumption.
But there are other theories that can. The laws of chemistry are used to explain how these molecules formed the way they formed.
Does Creationism have any theory to model when and where these original lifeforms appeared and what they did?Further, the design model does not offer a reason why the initial perfection declined, other than the universally acknowleged Law of Entropy.
The law of entropy has nothing to do with information disorder. That is a common myth presented by Creationists, and no doubt Son is foaming at the mouth with this nonsense.
Entropy has to do with disorder in terms of energy, not information. As energy is used to moves into a disorderd state. That is the energy itself, not the structures that are created using that energy.
There is no law that says ordered structures get more disordered over time. That is a myth based on a misunderstanding of the theory. In fact the "law of entropy" supports the opposite, since the change of energy from ordered (useful) to disorder (non-useful) facilitates the order of structure created using this energy.So the Design model postulates a low entropy origin for all things, increasing as we go.
Then this model is contradicted by observation, and should be discarded. (see above)0 -
Wicknight said:
I am aware that the evolutionist term 'species' does not equate to the biblical term 'kinds', and did not realize I had used 'species', for that very reason. If I have, I apologise for the confusion - perhaps you can point me to the offending post?
I have used 'life-form' to mean the difference between, say, a dog and a cat. I was not aware that evolutionists used it to mean the difference between a Labrador and a Jack Russell. I can see then how you could rightly insist that evoultion has produced new lifeforms. What I was challenging was it producing the dog-to-cat, molecules-to-man sort of change, over however many billions of years.
BTW, what do evolutionists term the dog-cat difference?
Well, there obviously isn't a specific term for the cat-dog difference. In general, the term would be 'phylogenetic distance'. They are both placental mammals, both in the group Carnivora, but cats (along with civets, hyenas, and mongoose) are all Feliformia (short-snouted), whereas dogs (along with bears, seals, otters, badgers) are Caniformia (long-snouted).
To some extent, it depends on whether one gives primacy to morphological characteristics, genetic proximity, biochemical similarities, fossil record, etc. There can also be several ways of drawing the "tree of life" for any given set of organisms - although in the vast majority of cases all the different strands of evidence point to one configuration.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Not quite right.wolfsbane wrote:So the Theory of Evolution has produced nothing, apart from a more arrogant atheism and the extermination camps and killing fields of the 20th Century.
The Nazi extermination camps were built and operated, not by an abstract theory which describes the effects of different levels of reproductive success or even by teams of crack professors of biology, PhD students and post-docs, but by one paranoid christian group to exterminate a non-christian group. The German christians did this at the instruction of a man who said that it was the "Lord's Work" to exterminate the non-christians. The attempt was the latest in a long series by the region's christians to exterminate the region's jews.
You can apply an understanding of evolution to see why this happened and how come there are so few jews in Europe these days, but claiming that the "theory of evolution" caused the Holocaust is as stupid as saying that the Theory of Gravity caused the bombing of Hiroshima.
.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement