The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

26-10-2007 1:49pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Funny that the Christian churches have opposed it for so long then? But as to the Biblical case, it is based on the baby in the womb being fully human.

Since you don't want to hear from the Old Testament, here's one from the New:
John the Baptist
Luke 1:15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb...41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit...44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Another prophet who did the usual kicking in the womb that all pregnant mothers feel. And so distinguished in god's eyes that he would be filled with holy spirit even in the womb. Which most people are not.

As for churches being against it for so long, Aquinas certainly wasn't, before a certain number of days into the pregnancy. Can't remember if that policy was adopted by the church for some time.

wolfsbane · 26-10-2007 1:50pm

Scofflaw said:

So, no matter what Hitler himself actually said, in Mein Kampf or wherever, you know that his references to religion etc are in fact spurious. Does anything strike you as odd about such a claim?

They are seen to be spurious when one sees what he actually said, in whole as well as part. See:
Page 276, final paragraph, Mike Hawkins (1997). Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: nature as model and nature as threat (in English). Cambridge University Press, pp. 276. ISBN 052157434X. OCLC 34705047:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SszNCxSKmgkC&pg=PA276&dq=Hitler%27s+Secret+Book+sparta&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=q5g40V7M6bHFNX8pm4ZD65FxH6s#PPA276,M1

Further, since "science" was the very definition of progress at the time, why does your argument not apply to Hitler's reference to 'science'?

Because racist theories were not the sole possession of Hitler and Nazi scientists: evolution had developed social Darwinism and eugenics widely in the scientific community in the Democracies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Look at how the contenders for the Presidency of the US are today emphazising their religious beliefs. Do you think they are serious? No, it's what they say and do when they are in power that counts. If America were governed by Christians, how come in some thirty years 42 Million abortions were legally carried out?

Perhaps because the judiciary is separate from the executive.

Who appoints the judiciary? Which of the main parties is is committed to ending abortion?

And as usual, we can only ever tell the good Christians after the event, and in light of what we personally believe makes a good Christian. Persecution of the Jews has been one of the marks of a "good Christian" for a lot longer than not.

Persecution of anyone different was part of a perverted mindset from the Roman Catholic Church. Lutherans and Reformed brought that over when they left. But the voluntary basis of the church was a truth held by many down the ages, and as the Reformers continued to re-examine Scripture more and more saw the truth of it.

But I agree, persecution based on religion made the Jews a target long before Hitler's evolutionist mindset killed them for their 'race'.

26-10-2007 1:53pm

wolfsbane wrote:

Who appoints the judiciary? Which of the main parties is is committed to ending abortion?

Bush banned non-elective abortion iirc, so him I suppose

wolfsbane · 26-10-2007 2:21pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Another prophet who did the usual kicking in the womb that all pregnant mothers feel. And so distinguished in god's eyes that he would be filled with holy spirit even in the womb. Which most people are not.

As for churches being against it for so long, Aquinas certainly wasn't, before a certain number of days into the pregnancy. Can't remember if that policy was adopted by the church for some time.

1. OK, another example:
Genesis 25:21 Now Isaac pleaded with the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?|” So she went to inquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said to her:

“Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.”

2. Are you seriously suggesting a baby in the womb at, say, 8 months is not fully human? That one moment they are non-persons and if they are suddenly delivered by section or premature birth they become human?

The issue is when the baby in the womb becomes human - more than mere flesh. Some churches, like the RCC, say it is from the moment of conception. Others are not so sure, suggesting maybe it happens with the production of blood. Others later. The moment of ensoulment has indeed been debated.

An interesting non-Christian site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

26-10-2007 2:24pm

wolfsbane wrote:

Genesis[/B] 25:21 Now Isaac pleaded with the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?|” So she went to inquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said to her:

“Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.”

But this is another specific example.
She was only pregnant through god's intervention, so of course he had an idea what was going on in there.

2. Are you seriously suggesting a baby in the womb at, say, 8 months is not fully human? That one moment they are non-persons and if they are suddenly delivered by section or premature birth they become human?

Me? I never said such a thing?
And of course they're all human - noone is arguing they're crocodiles

I actually read the religioustolerance site - it's usually not bad.

wolfsbane · 26-10-2007 2:31pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Bush banned non-elective abortion iirc, so him I suppose

I'm sorry, what does iirc mean?

He banned non-elective abortion? You're not allowed to have a miscarriage?

Zombrex · 26-10-2007 2:32pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

evolution had developed social Darwinism and eugenics widely in the scientific community in the Democracies.

"Social Darwinism" was not a development of evolutionary theory.

"Social Darwinism" is a term used mostly retroactively to refer to a the ideas of a bunch of idiots who, not understanding Darwinism at all, attempted to "improve" their society by selectively eliminating what they considered weak or faulty.

Not only is that not Darwinism, it actually goes against the very foundations of what Darwin discovered, that there was in fact no such thing as "weak or faulty" in nature, just adapted and non-adapted, and this is determined by environmental influences. That is the basis of evolution. A weakness can be an advantage the next day, and vice versa, depending on the constant flux of the environment. There are no universal scales of quality, there is no system of "good better best", there are no evolutionary scales of development.

Seriously, if you don't understand this key point you don't understand anything about evolutionary theory.

And if that is the case one wonders if there is any hope for you at all, or what the point of discussing this with you is?

26-10-2007 2:34pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry, what does iirc mean?

He banned non-elective abortion? You're not allowed to have a miscarriage?

Sorry, it means "if I recall correctly".
He banned 3rd trimester D&X procedures, sometimes referred to by prolifers as "partial birth abortions", they're not elective procedures. Done only to save life of the woman etc
Maybe they were unbanned, I'm not sure
caused great furore at the time though

wolfsbane · 26-10-2007 2:38pm

bluewolf said:

But this is another specific example.
She was only pregnant through god's intervention, so of course he had an idea what was going on in there.

Of course it's a specific example - I'm trying to show how God regards the unborn. The general principle for human life is that given in:
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder."

Quote:
2. Are you seriously suggesting a baby in the womb at, say, 8 months is not fully human? That one moment they are non-persons and if they are suddenly delivered by section or premature birth they become human?

Me? I never said such a thing?
And of course they're all human - noone is arguing they're crocodiles

So you are saying it is OK to kill another human if they inconvenience you?

26-10-2007 2:41pm

wolfsbane wrote:

bluewolf said:

Of course it's a specific example - I'm trying to show how God regards the unborn. The general principle for human life is that given in:
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder."

Well, god seems to regard very highly specific unborn for whom he has great plans, and the rest of them don't get a mention

So you are saying it is OK to kill another human if they inconvenience you?

My point was the difference is whether they are a human being rather than just "human" as of course they have human DNA
And early on I don't think they are a person, so before that should be an option, IMO. Not ok, but an option.
And it's a lot more than "inconvenience" to many.

Scofflaw · 26-10-2007 2:51pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scofflaw said:

They are seen to be spurious when one sees what he actually said, in whole as well as part. See:
Page 276, final paragraph, Mike Hawkins (1997). Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: nature as model and nature as threat (in English). Cambridge University Press, pp. 276. ISBN 052157434X. OCLC 34705047:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SszNCxSKmgkC&pg=PA276&dq=Hitler%27s+Secret+Book+sparta&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=q5g40V7M6bHFNX8pm4ZD65FxH6s#PPA276,M1

You appear to be missing the point. I am not arguing that Hitler didn't follow Social Darwinist though, nor that Social Darwinist thought was not racist, nor even that Social Darwinists didn't think they were being scientific.

The problem for your claim that evolutionary theory promotes racism is that it can only do so by misinterpretation. Evolutionary theory does not apply to social theory, and eugenics is not a logical corollary of evolutionary theory.

Social Darwinism contains as much science as a Clairol ad.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because racist theories were not the sole possession of Hitler and Nazi scientists: evolution had developed social Darwinism and eugenics widely in the scientific community in the Democracies.

How is that relevant? Christianity, and Christian anti-semitism, were equally widely developed in the democracies.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Who appoints the judiciary? Which of the main parties is is committed to ending abortion?

The judiciary remains constrained by the accumulated body of law, and by the US constitution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Persecution of anyone different was part of a perverted mindset from the Roman Catholic Church. Lutherans and Reformed brought that over when they left. But the voluntary basis of the church was a truth held by many down the ages, and as the Reformers continued to re-examine Scripture more and more saw the truth of it.

You are attempting to move the blame for Christian anti-Semitism entirely onto the Catholic Church? Where were the Protestant churches from the early ADs to the Reformation?

Further, it seems to me that if you can simply disown the actions of some of those who call themselves Christians on the basis that they didn't practice the Christianity you do, you could hardly complain if I took the equally easy opt-out of disowning the actions of any atheist or 'evolutionist' I happen to disagree with - but then perhaps you already think I do.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I agree, persecution based on religion made the Jews a target long before Hitler's evolutionist mindset killed them for their 'race'.

I'm prepared to accept "before Hitler's pseudoscience defined them in terms of 'race'". Otherwise, as I say, one has to accept that evolutionary theory actually does define the Jews as different and inferior - something I suspect even you might strain to swallow.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane · 26-10-2007 2:53pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Sorry, it means "if I recall correctly".
He banned 3rd trimester D&X procedures, sometimes referred to by prolifers as "partial birth abortions", they're not elective procedures. Done only to save life of the woman etc
Maybe they were unbanned, I'm not sure
caused great furore at the time though

Thanks for the info.

Many pro-lifers accept abortion as a legitimate possibility if it is a trade-off for another's life. My understanding of partial-birth abortion justification in the States is that it is just like the rest of the cases of abortion. This:
There is also controversy about why this procedure is used. Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[35] Some prominent self-described pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons' statements.[36]

In support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a nurse who witnessed three IDX procedures found them deeply disturbing, and described one performed on a 26½-week fetus with Down Syndrome in testimony before a Judiciary subcommittee of the US House of Representatives, where she states "[t]he baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking," right before the procedure.[37]
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

26-10-2007 2:56pm

My understanding of it from talking to many Americans is that it's done only to save a woman's life. Given some of the antics pro-life campaigners get up to over there, I'm not entirely sure they wouldn't be happy to pretend it was an elective procedure to get it banned.

In support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a nurse who witnessed three IDX procedures found them deeply disturbing, and described one performed on a 26½-week fetus with Down Syndrome in testimony before a Judiciary subcommittee of the US House of Representatives, where she states "[t]he baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking," right before the procedure.[37]

Well, she doesn't say if the woman was healthy or not.
Still, they're now banned, non-elective or otherwise.
So the govt over there do care about it

PDN · 26-10-2007 3:04pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Sorry, it means "if I recall correctly".
He banned 3rd trimester D&X procedures, sometimes referred to by prolifers as "partial birth abortions", they're not elective procedures. Done only to save life of the woman etc
Maybe they were unbanned, I'm not sure
caused great furore at the time though

I have seen interviews with the abortionist Martin Haskell who coined the phrase D&X. He claims that he performed over 1000 partial-birth abortions and that 80% were elective. The other 20% were for purely medical reasons including, amazingly, the fact that the baby would be born with a cleft palate.

wolfsbane · 26-10-2007 3:10pm

daithifleming wrote: »

I would like to point out that every single academic that has taught me in university (and i assume most universities) has warned the class NOT to use Wikipedia as a source of reference, for obvious reasons.

OK, then try this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SszNCxSKmgkC&dq=Hitler%27s+Secret+Book+sparta

And: Racism and Nazism
As mentioned earlier, racism (together with anti-Semitism) played a defining role in Nazi ideology. But on which ideas did this racism build? In order to answer this question it is necessary to go back to the second half of the 19th century, where many of the intellectual roots of Nazism came into existence.

The Western European countries exploited their colonies in typically capitalistic fashion. This exploitation frequently resulted in the conclusion that the local population in the colonies had to be inferior individuals in order to put up with their situation. Racism, spear-headed by the writings of Charles Darwin, with time became a widely acknowledged set of thoughts that led to scientific treatises, books and research projects. Frequently this research served the purpose of pointing out the superiority or inferiority of a specific nation or race.

Based on such ideas of a racial hierarchy many European nations, including Germany, possessed a feeling that their nation was superior to everybody else. This also meant that all members of this nation should dwell within the same national borders. Such ideas can be termed ‘positive racial policy’. From this come the extensive Nazi plans to move all ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche), who were citizens of other countries, into the Third Reich.

Racist ideas were also the basis of ‘negative racial policy’, in the form of the exclusion of undesirable individuals from the German race. A result of this notion was the Nazi desire to remove Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and others, from the German Volksgemeinschaft (‘people’s community’). This ‘negative racial policy’ or ‘racial hygiene’ was carried out systematically with great cruelty after 1933. from:
http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/nazismensideologi.asp

wolfsbane · 26-10-2007 3:17pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're jumping to conclusions again. Let me pick you up on a particular point:

1. "Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin, with evolutionary biology, or the Theory of Evolution. It is racism, dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothing. It bears as much relation to science as the Inquisition did to Christ's message.

The science of evolution cannot advocate anything, because science, as we've said repeatedly here, is not normative. Scientists may espouse doctrines just as loony as the next man, but science urges nothing, recommends nothing - it is nothing but observation and explanation of the facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

See:
Darwin's unique discussion of evolution was over the supernatural in human development. Unlike Hobbes, he believed that this struggle for natural resources allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to succeed more frequently than others, and that these traits accumulated in the population over time, which under certain conditions could lead to the descendants being so different that they would be defined as a new species.

However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."[1] from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Zombrex · 26-10-2007 10:30pm

Darwin was wrong

You do understand that there is a difference between Darwinism and Darwin himself. Darwinism is a form of evolution. In fact modern biologists use the term Neo-Darwinism because the actual theories have been updated quite a bit since the understanding of genetics.

Again you are coming back to the cult of the scientist. You pull out scientists who are Creationist and scientists who aren't and go "Look at them"

I must remember Darwin's little racist rant the next time someone says "Darwin was really a Christian by the way!"

Darwin's person views are largely irrelevant. Newton was a staunch Creationist. He also spent large amount of time trying to change one metal into another (namely gold).

What matters is the science.

I think you actually realise that which is why you are spending a great deal of time avoiding the issue of the actual science.

Scofflaw · 26-10-2007 11:03pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

See:
Darwin's unique discussion of evolution was over the supernatural in human development. Unlike Hobbes, he believed that this struggle for natural resources allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to succeed more frequently than others, and that these traits accumulated in the population over time, which under certain conditions could lead to the descendants being so different that they would be defined as a new species.

However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."[1] from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

You are mixing Darwin up with the religious figures of your own mental toolbox - Jesus could only be wrong if God was wrong. Darwin conceptualised a natural process, he didn't bring a revelation down from the Galapagos.

As Wicknight says, Darwin was wrong. This isn't a religion, and Darwin is not its prophet. He is a historical figure, his science outdated by 150 years of new science. Further, his unscientific opinions, like James Watson's, are entirely irrelevant to the scientific work either men have done.

This is science. The man is irrelevant. Only the work is important. It must stand or fall by itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane · 27-10-2007 8:09pm

Wicknight said:

That doesn't define what a "kind" is, and in fact strongly suggests that the author himself recognises that such a definition doesn't exist by the fact that he says things like "perhaps each kind is ..." over and over in the article.

He appears to be suggesting that God knows what a kind is, wrote it in the Bible, and that is all we have to worry about, though we can guess at what it was.

Needless to say that is not science.

But that applies to the definition of species too: does that mean such classification is also not science? See: Species problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Problem

All he is saying is one cannot be sure in all cases where ‘kind’ applies as opposed to speciation. Do the horse and zebra belong to the same kind? The lion and tiger? Seems likely. But the lion and zebra? Definitely not.

However, can we say that the domestic cat and the lion came from an original parent? I suppose only an experiment on artificial insemination will resolve the issue. Cute site: http://madfoolish.blogspot.com/2007/09/top-10-hybrid-animals.html

She is not genetically identical to her parents. Neither are you. No human is. We contain a mix of our parents DNA and on average 60 mutations from that DNA mixing. Most of the time these mutations do very little. Some times they do something significant, such as increase the immune system, which is why we sometimes find people immune to diseases like HIV.

And you define them as different life-forms??? That is certainly a new use of the term to me.

What hasn't been observed? A dog evolving into a cat? No Wolfsbane, that has not been observed.

I said a dog evolving into a cat, no matter how long was allowed. Evolution insists a weasel-like animal evolved into the dog. I’m asking if we have observed that sort of change in bacteria. All you’ve described is an anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A cat-to-dog difference, not just an antibiotic resistant bacteria from a non-antibiotic restistant one?

That is a cat-to-dog difference, or at least it can be if you observe the bacteria replicating for long enough.

You seem to be working under the very ignorant idea that all bacteria are basically the same. They aren't. There are hundreds of thousands of species of bacteria. There are 300 different species of bacteria living in your mouth right now (that would be hundreds of thousands of individual bacteria)

I know there is dispute among biologists as to what exactly defines 'species', but as I pointed out before, such a difference as anti-biotic resistance hardly qualifies as a cat-dog shift. Are Africans with sickle-cell a different species, just because they are resistant to things that harm the rest of us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All of this ignored what I said about initial assumptions. The Design Model starts with the designed article being created in full working order.

Ok. What was that like?
Define "full working order" What was where? And what were they like? You have already said that they were "kinds", animals and plants that apparently don't exist any more in their original states. So what where their original states? And where did these animals and plants start off from?

For Man, probably a disease free, coffee-coloured adult with a full complement of non-mutated genes. Was the carrot originally just as orange? We don’t know. But it was a carrot-like plant, just as the horse or zebra would resemble their ancestor.

Man started out from the soil. Likely the animals the same; the water creatures from the water. I’m sure you won’t have any trouble with that concept.;)

None of this is defined. Its like saying I'm going to model a ball roll off a roof but I'm not going to decide where the ball starts off from, just that it is somewhere on the roof. That wouldn't be a model of anything.

I’ve said where Creation starts: about 6000 years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It does not try to account for how that could happen.

It should. Because without that how can you know what the initial state of the model is?

We are told the initial state of the model: mature, and in perfect working order. How do you account for how the Big Bang occurred? You don't - you start with the singularity as a given. The Creation model starts with the perfect creation as a given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Creationism identifies the cause as the designer, God.

That is irrelevant. It could have been James Dean. Who he is is not important. What he did is important if you want to create a theory around this, a theory that can be used to model it.

If I wanted to model time point 0 to time point now, what would I tell the computer to start off with, exactly?

A mature, perfect Creation about 6000 years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
From then on, the various designed articles bred within their design form and have given rise to many modifications

How? What happens? If evolution is not the process by which this happens, what is the process?

Natural selection and adaption, along with man-planned selection.

Actually this has never been observed (a "kind" dividing into multiple species in a few generations). Ever. Even the Creationists admit this, JC says God stopped this a few hundred years ago (right around the time we started looking)

How long has it taken for man to breed many different breeds of dog? That certainly has been observed.

That isn't true. Increase in the complexity of genetic information due to mutation has been observed, as has been pointed out to you before many many times on this forum.

See: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5355/

"Dirt" is not disorder.

No, but it is much less ordered than a flower.

Its hard to tell if you are joking now for a laugh, or to cover up the fact that you actually don't understand what we are talking about ...

OK, then tell me with a straight face that a molecule of iron and a flower are equally full of information.

Again do you actually understand what we are talking about. Do you understand what "disordered energy" means? What entropy means.

The second law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy as you put it) has nothing to do with the clutter in your living room. It has to do with the usage of energy and the change from energy from an ordered to a disordered state. There is no law that says your sitting room will become more disordered as time goes by. If you think that is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says you need to read up on your physics.

Sure, I know you want to make entropy apply only to heat. If that were the case, then I claim the honour of discovering a new law: that all things tend to move from a more ordered state to a less ordered one. Has someone beaten me to it? Or do you deny the truth of that law?

Ekancone · 27-10-2007 8:39pm

Is it that the earth is 6,000 years old, or the universe? Just curious.

Zombrex · 27-10-2007 10:43pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

But that applies to the definition of species too:

No it doesn't because biologists have at least attempted to define species.

There is no definition of a "kind" and considering that you are supposed to not only know what it is but how many of them there were on the Ark and who decided from which kind, this seems rather puzzling to me.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Do the horse and zebra belong to the same kind? The lion and tiger? Seems likely. But the lion and zebra? Definitely not.

Why does that "seem likely"

On what basis are you assessing that assertion? In detail please.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution insists a weasel-like animal evolved into the dog. I’m asking if we have observed that sort of change in bacteria.

Yes we have. And in plants.

To physically observe it in say a mammal would require a couple of hundred thousand years of constant observation. What we can do is look at the fossil record that has been left behind and see various stages on this path.

wolfsbane wrote: »

For Man, probably a disease free, coffee-coloured adult with a full complement of non-mutated genes.

So the entire sum of what Creationists theories the very first humans were like was that they were "disease free" (that means what exactly?) and dark skinned.

That's it is it?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it was a carrot-like plant, just as the horse or zebra would resemble their ancestor.

And you know this how?

Please be exact Wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote: »

I’ve said where Creation starts: about 6000 years ago.

On what day?

Considering I have a program that can tell me exactly where the sun, moon and stars were any day 6,000 years ago to the minute it should be little trouble for you to tell me what day I should point this program to. I would like to see what the first moments of Creation looked like.

Also can you list the different kinds and tell me where on Earth they all were "created" please, across the globe.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We are told the initial state of the model: mature, and in perfect working order.

I have absolutely no idea what that specifically means.

Please define it in detail.

wolfsbane wrote: »

How do you account for how the Big Bang occurred? You don't - you start with the singularity as a given.

And apparently you start with everything as a given.

The problem with that (as if I even need to say) is that a singularity is a lot easier to model from than, well, everything. There are very detailed models of what the entire universe looked like a few minutes after the Big Bang.

On the other hand you say that the universe looked "perfect" a few minutes after Creation.

You do realise that that isn't actually a scientific model of anything at all.

You might as well try modelling an atom by saying the electrons looked "colourful"

What did the Earth and the Universe look like 4 seconds after Creation (and yes the physics can tell you that about the Big Bang universe)

For a start tell me what a "perfect" animal looks like, in detail

wolfsbane wrote: »

A mature, perfect Creation about 6000 years ago.

Yes but you still haven't defined what that actually is.

Which should actually be very simple to do because you claim that Creationists have all the theories to back this stuff up.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Natural selection and adaption, along with man-planned selection.

Which, according to everything we know about genetics, takes hundreds of thousands of years.

Except you are saying that it can actually happen in decades.

So I'll ask again, how does this happen.

And an important question, why has it not happened in the last 200 years since, strangely enough, biologists actually started looking seriously at the natural world.

You ask to know has anyone ever seen a dog evolve into a cat, and I so no because evolution takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to do such a massive change.

Yet for some reason you accept the Creationist argument that a few thousand "kinds" can "adapt" into hundreds of thousands of individual species in what, decades?

Well if that is true why can I not observe this happening?

wolfsbane wrote: »

How long has it taken for man to breed many different breeds of dog?

About 17,000 years. And in that time no one has every manage to create a new species. They are all still the same species, Canis lupus

Yet seemingly, according to Creationists, hundreds of dog like mammal species, actual species not breeds, were supposed to "adapt" from one or two dog like "kinds" that were on the Ark only 4,000 years ago.

Can you see the problem with that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

See: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5355/

Why?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, but it is much less ordered than a flower.

Under what definition?

Seriously, because I feel a "isn't it obvious" reply coming on, and sorry my dear boy but that isn't how science works.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, then tell me with a straight face that a molecule of iron and a flower are equally full of information.

They are both full of information. I have no idea what you mean by "equally" full, something is either full or it isn't

Can we assume though from this little side track that you don't actually know what ordered and disordered energy is?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure, I know you want to make entropy apply only to heat.

Ok ... seriously, what?

Entropy doesn't apply "only to heat". Entropy applies to energy

The second law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The law of entropy is a consequence of that. As energy is used it changes state. It cannot disappear from the universe, because energy cannot exit the universe. So what happens to this energy? Well it changes from a state of usefulness to a state of uselessness. When the energy is in this state it is known as "disordered"

The law of entropy states that through the passage of time, since energy cannot escape the system (ie the universe), the energy in a system will gradually change to a state of disorder (uselessness) as time passes and the energy itself is used.

wolfsbane wrote: »

that all things tend to move from a more ordered state to a less ordered one. Has someone beaten me to it? Or do you deny the truth of that law?

Yes I would strongly "deny" the truth of that law, since it has demonstrated false.

Son Goku · 27-10-2007 11:55pm

Sure, I know you want to make entropy apply only to heat.

What is heat?
It's a question that took thirty years of research in the 19th Century to figure out. When you appreciate what heat actually is you will see that your statement is absurd.

The second law of thermodynamics states that:
It is impossible to take heat from a given body to another body at a higher temperature without performing work.

Nothing to do with disorder.

Entropy was discovered mainly by Clausius and only applied to heat. In thermodynamics entropy has no interpretation. It is simply another number which characterises a system. In statistical mechanics however, as I've said before, it is related to genericness, not disorder.

Entropy is more associated with homogenity than disorder. That is what every physics textbook says. You seem to have a particular axe to grind with this wolfsbane.

Son Goku · 27-10-2007 11:58pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

How do you account for how the Big Bang occurred? You don't - you start with the singularity as a given. The Creation model starts with the perfect creation as a given.

The singularity is not a part of the model. Again what is a singularity? People say these words without knowing what they mean.

wolfsbane · 29-10-2007 6:24pm

Wicknight said:

"Observed adaption" is evolution.

You've resolved the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists then, for both believe in Observed adaption.

But somehow I think you have just missed the point: you can't just make the claim, you have to prove it before you own it. Creationists could just as easily claim Observed adaption proves their case, as it establishes a mechanism for the varieties of dogs, etc. we find today. All Observed adaption does is show how things can change over observed time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Perhaps you can point out where we have observed one organism evolve into another? Flies into? Mice into?

We have already done that a thousand times already, but sure why not once more

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Still just the dogs-dogs change.

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.

I'm looking for an expert evolutionist to tell us how what appears to be irreducibly complex did in fact evolve bit by bit. Did I detect in another post an appeal to silence: that we can't now say how, but one day we will?

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.

Given that both sides agree on much of how the universe works, that would be stuff like alternatives to the Big Bang? Hartnett sets out his model in Dismantling the Big Bang http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&dq=dismantling+the+big+bang&pg=PP1&ots=jiUdjV80bi&sig=u1Ab-q8X8wEFHl-UzTQ_s48FL0g&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DDismantling%2Bthe%2BBig%2BBang%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA327,M1 but you may need to get the book.

Likewise Starlight and Time by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys https://shop.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUK.storefront/en/product/10-2-043

Then why do you keep listing off scientists instead of their theories? Son is still waiting ....

See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

He would say the same about Big Bang arguments. As do those non-creationist cosmologists I listed. It's not good enough to say your argument is right because ours is wrong - you have to prove it so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And the other non-creationist dissenting scientists face the same from the 'consensus' camp.

All scientists face scientific standards. Its the nature of science.

Ah, yes, yours is the scientific standard stuff, all the others are talking rubbish. That's proved your argument then.:rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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?

Telling the truth about the evidence and what alternatives it may suggest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Indeed, but the bitching is done to obscure whatever the science suggests that is not in line with the 'consensus' view.

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.

Some Creationist bodies are by intent mainly designed to support the faith by reporting science honestly, i.e., their prime aim is evangelist and doctrinal. Answers In Genesis is one of these.

But other groups are formed with research as their main aim - research that will offer new insights into the Biblical Model as opposed to the Evolutionary one. The Institute for Creation Research is one of those. I've traced their accounts this far: http://www.ecfa.org:80/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=6634

wolfsbane · 29-10-2007 6:35pm

Son Goku wrote: »

The singularity is not a part of the model. Again what is a singularity? People say these words without knowing what they mean.

Where does your model start then?

Singularity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

See also: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&dq=dismantling+the+big+bang&pg=PP1&ots=jiUdjVbZac&sig=12-aAykuhYt5Zcrf1ifp0COC5vA&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fsourceid%3Dnavclient%26aq%3Dt%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rls%3DRNWE,RNWE:2005-14,RNWE:en%26q%3DDismantling%2Bthe%2BBig%2BBang&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA115,M1

wolfsbane · 29-10-2007 6:56pm

Son Goku said:

Entropy is more associated with homogenity than disorder. That is what every physics textbook says. You seem to have a particular axe to grind with this wolfsbane.

It's just that I'm amazed intelligent folk like yourself cannot see or else admit that all things tend to move from a more ordered state to a less ordered one. If you don't want to relate it to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, OK. Then call it whatever Law. It is blatantly obvious it exists. Decay and death are the sure finale for all things. Time's Arrow.

Scofflaw · 29-10-2007 7:01pm

wolfsbane wrote:

'm looking for an expert evolutionist to tell us how what appears to be irreducibly complex did in fact evolve bit by bit. Did I detect in another post an appeal to silence: that we can't now say how, but one day we will?

We can certainly postulate evolutionary pathways for every 'irreducibly complex' system, and we can also very easily demonstrate as a general principle how things that are 'irreducibly complexity' can simply be evolved systems. We usually cannot definitively prove any given evolutionary pathway, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane · 29-10-2007 9:04pm

Wicknight said:

No it doesn't because biologists have at least attempted to define species.

There is no definition of a "kind" and considering that you are supposed to not only know what it is but how many of them there were on the Ark and who decided from which kind, this seems rather puzzling to me.

No Creationist I ever read claimed to know how many kinds were on the ark. All the Bible says is that a pair of all kinds and seven of 'clean' animals were taken on board. We can see the variations today, but not be sure of the descriptions of the originals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Do the horse and zebra belong to the same kind? The lion and tiger? Seems likely. But the lion and zebra? Definitely not.

Why does that "seem likely"

Because they can breed together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Evolution insists a weasel-like animal evolved into the dog. I’m asking if we have observed that sort of change in bacteria.

Yes we have. And in plants.

We seem to differ on what constitutes radical change. Observation of evolution in bacteria http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131observation.asp

To physically observe it in say a mammal would require a couple of hundred thousand years of constant observation. What we can do is look at the fossil record that has been left behind and see various stages on this path.

Or the fossil record shows us just extinct animals. It's the interpretation that makes the difference.

So the entire sum of what Creationists theories the very first humans were like was that they were "disease free" (that means what exactly?) and dark skinned.

That's it is it?

What else would you like to know? Shoe sizes?:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But it was a carrot-like plant, just as the horse or zebra would resemble their ancestor.

And you know this how?

Please be exact Wolfsbane

If they were unrecognisable to us, then the whole concept of a creation continuing 'after their kind' would be gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I’ve said where Creation starts: about 6000 years ago.

On what day?

Considering I have a program that can tell me exactly where the sun, moon and stars were any day 6,000 years ago to the minute it should be little trouble for you to tell me what day I should point this program to.

The chronologies do not allow us to determine the dates that accurately. But if you extrapolate backwards for about 6000 years, you will have the picture not too long after Creation.

I would like to see what the first moments of Creation looked like.

The events happened over 6 days. Read the order for yourself in Genesis 1.

Also can you list the different kinds and tell me where on Earth they all were "created" please, across the globe.

The Bible does not tell us how many kinds there were, only that they were to breed in their kind. It says nothing about where on earth they were formed, nor how many pairs (except for man). It tells us that man originated in one pair and they were located in Eden - somewhere near the Euphrates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We are told the initial state of the model: mature, and in perfect working order.

I have absolutely no idea what that specifically means.

Please define it in detail.

Mature means not as babies or children. Perfect working order means without defect. The optimum in physical and mental condition. I'm sure you observe a spectrum of physical and mental condition in man today - try extrapolating through an increasingly better state and you will arrive at what perfect looks like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
How do you account for how the Big Bang occurred? You don't - you start with the singularity as a given.

And apparently you start with everything as a given.

Correct.

The problem with that (as if I even need to say) is that a singularity is a lot easier to model from than, well, everything. There are very detailed models of what the entire universe looked like a few minutes after the Big Bang.

I can't see how there is any problem: We can construct a model for how the earth will be in 6000 years from now, using the universe we now see. So the creation model takes the universe of 6000 years ago (in its perfect state and then in the Fallen) and gets us to where we are.

On the other hand you say that the universe looked "perfect" a few minutes after Creation.

You do realise that that isn't actually a scientific model of anything at all.

Why would perfect be less scientific than less perfect? Does anything become less scientific from the process of entropy?

What did the Earth and the Universe look like 4 seconds after Creation (and yes the physics can tell you that about the Big Bang universe)

The Creation process lasted 6 days, so it is simpler if I say what things looked like after creation stopped:
The Earth seems to have been one land-mass surrounded by the sea. The land was populated by the animals and birds; the sea by the fish and other sea-creatures.
The Universe would have looked much like it would if you extrapolate back some 6000 years the positions of the heavenly bodies we see today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A mature, perfect Creation about 6000 years ago.

Yes but you still haven't defined what that actually is.

See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Natural selection and adaption, along with man-planned selection.

Which, according to everything we know about genetics, takes hundreds of thousands of years.

Except you are saying that it can actually happen in decades.

Decades? Where did I say that? Centuries maybe, Millenia certainly - for the natural stuff. Artifical much shorter.

And an important question, why has it not happened in the last 200 years since, strangely enough, biologists actually started looking seriously at the natural world.

See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp

You ask to know has anyone ever seen a dog evolve into a cat, and I so no because evolution takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to do such a massive change.

Yet for some reason you accept the Creationist argument that a few thousand "kinds" can "adapt" into hundreds of thousands of individual species in what, decades?

A bit longer than that.

Well if that is true why can I not observe this happening?

You are not looking in the right places. See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
How long has it taken for man to breed many different breeds of dog?

About 17,000 years. And in that time no one has every manage to create a new species. They are all still the same species, Canis lupus

That's my point. We do see all the variation (and it doesn't take 17000 years) - but no dog-cat change.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0110news.asp

Yet seemingly, according to Creationists, hundreds of dog like mammal species, actual species not breeds, were supposed to "adapt" from one or two dog like "kinds" that were on the Ark only 4,000 years ago.

Where did you see this Creationist claim of non-dogs and dogs having a common ancestor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
See: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5355/

Why?

Because you said Increase in the complexity of genetic information due to mutation has been observed. That article refuted it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, but it is much less ordered than a flower.

Under what definition?

Seriously, because I feel a "isn't it obvious" reply coming on, and sorry my dear boy but that isn't how science works.

If your science can't tell you that the flower has a much greater information content, is much more complex than a molecule of iron, then I understand how you can swallow evolutionary tales. Certainly, both are made up of molecules - but it is the complex order of the molecules that is the greater information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, then tell me with a straight face that a molecule of iron and a flower are equally full of information.

They are both full of information. I have no idea what you mean by "equally" full, something is either full or it isn't

OK, to accommodate your pedantry, let me rephrase it: tell me with a straight face that a molecule of iron and a flower contain equal amounts of information.

Can we assume though from this little side track that you don't actually know what ordered and disordered energy is?

I'm asking about complexity and information.

Ok ... seriously, what?

Entropy doesn't apply "only to heat". Entropy applies to energy

The second law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The law of entropy is a consequence of that. As energy is used it changes state. It cannot disappear from the universe, because energy cannot exit the universe. So what happens to this energy? Well it changes from a state of usefulness to a state of uselessness. When the energy is in this state it is known as "disordered"

The law of entropy states that through the passage of time, since energy cannot escape the system (ie the universe), the energy in a system will gradually change to a state of disorder (uselessness) as time passes and the energy itself is used.

I'm glad you do accept the move to disorder. The flower falls and decays; the engine rusts; all, if left alone, will end up as dissipated energy. Evolution has the Molecules becoming Man by applying heat and time to the molecules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
that all things tend to move from a more ordered state to a less ordered one. Has someone beaten me to it? Or do you deny the truth of that law?

Yes I would strongly "deny" the truth of that law, since it has demonstrated false.

I'm all ears. References please.

wolfsbane · 29-10-2007 9:06pm

daithifleming wrote: »

Is it that the earth is 6,000 years old, or the universe? Just curious.

All of it.

wolfsbane · 29-10-2007 9:17pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

You are mixing Darwin up with the religious figures of your own mental toolbox - Jesus could only be wrong if God was wrong. Darwin conceptualised a natural process, he didn't bring a revelation down from the Galapagos.

As Wicknight says, Darwin was wrong. This isn't a religion, and Darwin is not its prophet. He is a historical figure, his science outdated by 150 years of new science. Further, his unscientific opinions, like James Watson's, are entirely irrelevant to the scientific work either men have done.

This is science. The man is irrelevant. Only the work is important. It must stand or fall by itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Let me remind you why I posted Darwin's comments:

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
You're jumping to conclusions again. Let me pick you up on a particular point:

1. "Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin, with evolutionary biology, or the Theory of Evolution. It is racism, dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothing. It bears as much relation to science as the Inquisition did to Christ's message.

[Underlining mine]

Social Darwinism had everything to do with Darwin and Darwinism. I'm glad Neo-Darwinists have rejected his social conclusions as well as the evident faults in his scientific theories.

But Neo-Darwinists will have to face up to the social implications of their theories too. Where does it place Man? What morality may be derived from the scientific theory?

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments