The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C · 31-12-2007 1:10am

Wicknight wrote: »

BTW I would love to get Wolfsbane's reaction to the fact that JC is now trying to throw out to us not only examples of macro-evolution, but examples of macro-evolution that take place within an observed time frame.
Poor old Wolfsbane must be rather confused, considering that he (and JC btw) were demanding that we present him with such evidence, as he was working under the (mis)information given by JC that macro-evolution had never been observed, was only a "theory" and was in fact impossible.

It obviously depends on how you define macro- and micro- Evolution.

Micro-evolution (or the loss of genetic information via selection) is an observable fact!!!!

Harvard's late Professor Gould clearly defined the insurmountable problem that macro-evolution represents for evolutionists who beileve that Pond Slime 'gradually evolved' into Man ......and you can read all about it here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-means.asp

I quote from the above article :-
"Gould chides his fellow evolutionists for illogical extrapolation. He says that “Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes to the most profound structural transitions … .” For the old line mutation-selection evolutionist, “macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in bottles) extended.”

But then Gould asks himself, “How can such processes change a gnat or a rhinoceros into something fundamentally different?” Answering his own question in a later article, Gould simply says: “That theory [orthodox neo-Darwinian extrapolationalism], as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”

:)

Wicknight wrote: »

Welcome back JC, you have been missed

......and I missed you too!!!:D

J C · 31-12-2007 1:17am

Originally Posted by robindch
I've been tracking the evolution of creationism and religion in general and I've suspected privately for quite a while that what we currently think of as creationism would eventually evolve, by natural selection and over a long period of time, into evolution.

Schuhart wrote: »

lol. I don't read this thread too often, as it looks like a full-time career. Is there any possiblity that someone could do an edited highlights on a monthly basis so we don't miss these gems?

......and please also include my answer to Robin's question in the 'monthly highlights'.....

Dream on!!!!

You are correct that, Evolutionism may become indestingushable from Creationism..........BECAUSE within 10 years, the Theory of Materialistic Evolution will be largely eclipsed by Intelligent Design Theory within Science .......and Creationism within Theology........some would say that this has ALREADY occurred........within the top etchelons of both disciplines!!!!!! :eek::D:)

......and please also include Professor Gould's quote in the 'monthly highlights' as well .....
“That theory [orthodox neo-Darwinian extrapolationalism], as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”

......and please also include the following quote from the article on Professor Pierre Grasse, who has been called “the dean of French zoologists,” in the 'monthly highlights' as well .....

(Mutations are) “merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.” He goes on to say that mutations “are not complementary … , nor are they cumulative.” That is, they don’t work together, and they don’t add up to anything. “They modify what pre-exists,” says Professor Grasse, which means you can get no more from mutations than variation within kind.
In fact, you get even less, because mutations are mostly harmful, says Professor Grasse, producing “downhill” changes, not “upward-onward” evolution. He strongly condemns attempts to use selection to salvage a few favorable mutations for evolution:
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence [i.e., “God”] … which is secretly worshipped."

.

SubjectSean · 31-12-2007 1:21am

Steve Jay Gould is dead now and I didn't know until I read this post. There was a good man.

J C · 31-12-2007 1:34am

SubjectSean wrote: »

Steve Jay Gould is dead now and I didn't know until I read this post. There was a good man.

Yes indeed Professor Gould is sadly departed from this life.

He was a first rate Evolutionary Scientist ..... and a person whose scientific prowess and intellectual rigour I greatly admired.

Zombrex · 31-12-2007 9:58am

J C wrote: »

It obviously depends on how you define macro- and micro- Evolution.

It certainly does, but considering that they are turns invented by Creationists I would have though you should be being consistent on that issue.

In the past you yourself have defined macro-evolution as the evolution of one species into a different species, something that you have claimed is impossible.

J C wrote: »

Micro-evolution (or the loss of genetic information via selection) is an observable fact!!!!

It certainly is, all biological reproducing creatures evolve based on the loss or gain or rearrangement of genetic material.

It is the accumulation of changes brought about by this "micro-evolution" that leads to macro-evolution. Muck to man as it were.

I'm glad you Creationists have (rather suddenly) realised that the evidence for this is over whelming and you have to work around that fact.

J C wrote: »

Harvard's late Professor Gould clearly defined the insurmountable problem that macro-evolution represents for evolutionists who beileve that Pond Slime 'gradually evolved' into Man ......and you can read all about it here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-means.asp

Actually he didn't JC, that is a lie.

"Answering his own question in a later article, Gould simply says: “That theory [orthodox neo-Darwinian extrapolationalism], as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”"

See that bit in the middle, that interpretation inserted by AiG. That wasn't what Gould was talking about.

Gould on being mis-quoted and having his work lied (there is that word again) about by Creationists

Gould wrote:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Oh course I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you realise that AiG is lying JC, and are continuing to link to these articles knowing they contain lies. You are clearly just copying and pasting these links to these articles without any clear understand of what you are doing.

But that fact that AiG repeatably and consistently lie to the public and misrepresent quotes and evidence, makes it very tiresome that you and Wolfsbane seem incapable of linking to anyone else, or for that matter explaining seemingly simple Creationist ideas on your own without telling us all to go read about it some where else.

Scofflaw · 31-12-2007 5:37pm

J C wrote: »

You are correct that, Evolutionism may become indestingushable from Creationism..........BECAUSE within 10 years, the Theory of Materialistic Evolution will be largely eclipsed by Intelligent Design Theory within Science .......and Creationism within Theology........some would say that this has ALREADY occurred........within the top etchelons of both disciplines!!!!!!

Now, no tales out of ward, JC. Speaking of which, nice to see you back and on form.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C · 31-12-2007 9:00pm

Wicknight wrote: »

In the past you yourself have defined macro-evolution as the evolution of one species into a different species, something that you have claimed is impossible.

Macro-Evolution is the evolution of one Kind into another Kind .......Ape into Human and Reptile into Mammal would be examples of Macro-Evolution......and no evidence exists that such transitions are either possible or ever occurred!!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

All biological reproducing creatures evolve based on the loss or gain or rearrangement of genetic material.

It is the accumulation of changes brought about by this "micro-evolution" that leads to macro-evolution. Muck to man as it were.

Professor Pierre Grasse, from the University of Paris has some eloquent things to say about such speculation

(Mutations are) “merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.” He goes on to say that mutations “are not complementary … , nor are they cumulative.” That is, they don’t work together, and they don’t add up to anything. “They modify what pre-exists,” says Professor Grasse, which means you can get no more from mutations than variation within kind.
In fact, you get even less, because mutations are mostly harmful, says Professor Grasse, producing “downhill” changes, not “upward-onward” evolution. He strongly condemns attempts to use selection to salvage a few favorable mutations for evolution:
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence [i.e., “God”] … which is secretly worshipped."

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm glad you Creationists have (rather suddenly) realised that the evidence for this is over whelming and you have to work around that fact.

Most Creation Scientists have always accepted that speciation occurrs within Kinds......and indeed such rapid speciation is required to explain the diversity of species surrently observed.

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually he didn't JC, that is a lie.

"Answering his own question in a later article, Gould simply says: “That theory [orthodox neo-Darwinian extrapolationalism], as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”"

See that bit in the middle, that interpretation inserted by AiG. That wasn't what Gould was talking about.

Gould on being mis-quoted and having his work lied (there is that word again) about by Creationists

The quote isn't a lie nor a distortion of Professor Gould's views on gradual Darwinian Evolution.

I admire Professor Gould for identifying the impossibility of Darwinian Evolution as a valid explantion for the supposed Evolutionary continuum between Pons Slime and Man.

I also fully accept that Professor Gould was a 'died in the wool' Evolutionist who didn't spare Creation Scientists in his comments about them.

I am in a rush....so I will deal briefly with one of Prof Gould's quotes with which I disagree:
"Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."

Could I gently point out that.......Apples are repeatedly OBSERVED to fall under gravity.........but Humans have NEVER been observed to evolve from Ape-like creatures......and therefore "Darwin's proposed mechanism" is a mechanism for something that has never been observed in the first place......

Both Newton and Einstein were theorising about the observed fact of Gravity.......while Darwin was theorising about the speculative idea that Pondslime somehow evolved into Man!!!!:D

wolfsbane · 31-12-2007 9:12pm

Wicknight said:

Then how can you you say that all species on Earth developed from a few thousand on a wooden boat.

This seems to be the point you are missing Wolfsbane.

You are perfectly right that evolutionary biologists don't have an exact decedent tree. But then they don't claim to. You guys claim you have evidence that the species on the Ark existed. You do not have any evidence of this

Er, just the same evidence as you - the biosphere around us. It is how we account for that evidence that is debated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
See above and:
Species problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Yes, perhaps you should read that wikipedia article yourself Wolfsbane.

The species problem is not that one cannot define a species, it is that there are different ways to define a species. All ways are well defined.

Where evolutionists struggle to decide what constitutes a species, creationists face the same problem with kinds. One could go for a kind being all species that can breed together. But does it include species that can no longer do so? We can't be sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes. You want me to call the common ancestor of the horse and zebra a Zerse? OK. But what colour was it? Was its ears more like the zebra or the horse of today? We can't know.

Yet some how you can know that it was on a wooden boat 6,000 years ago and is the single common ancestor of hundreds of modern day species (of course you don't know what species).

You can know this how exactly?

Present the evidence please.

We know because Someone wiser than us told us so. The evidence to support that account:
Similiar or obviously derived accounts world-wide.

Geological: See for example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

Catastropic origin of fossils: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-neo-catastrophism.asp

Genetic bottlenecks: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/events.asp

Lets just sum up shall we.

Creationists claim that life on Earth (except snails apparently) are descendent from a few thousand animals that lived for a year on a wooden boat some 6,000 years ago.

Snails was used as an illustration that even Darwin recognised the survival opportunities in a prolonged flood. But there is no reason to think they weren't on board.

You have no fossil evidence of any of these original animals

They are the fossils (obviously not the individuals, since they survived the Flood, but their peers outside). Some fossils would be from earlier and later less spectacular catastrophies.

You have no genetic evidence that modern day species all came from these original kinds

Let me suggest that any species that can breed with another is genetically extremely close. You deny that?

You have no classification of which modern day animal came from which one of the original animals

Indeed, we must speculate based on similarities. Is this not what evolutionists do?

So what exactly do you have?

Or lets put it another way -

Say I make the claim that all species on Earth developed from 10,000 animals that lived 15,000 years ago. On what evidence do you claim that your creationist theory is any more correct than that one that I just made up on the spot there.

We would have great difficulty in scientifically challenging something so (relatively) close to our own position. We would of course reject it for Biblical reasons.

Yes Wolfsbane but evolutionary fossils are DATED

Fossils are dated, using various different independent methods, from different radio meteric dating to where they are found in rock.

As you should know if you were following the debate, such dating is also rejected scientifically by creationists.

Proper scientists don't just guess that they are all younger than 6,000 years.

Quite so. They use science to do it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

So where are your fossils and how are they dated. Please don't change the subject and tell me radio meteric dating is flawed, you have already covered that.

I want your fossils and I want your dating method

Fossils: same as yours.
Dating Method: e.g. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The same evidence you appeal to: the fossils. They are mostly of the creatures around the time of the Flood.

What, all of them.

No, catastropes would have occurred before the Flood and do so after.

Here is a list of known (discovered) dinosaur genus (genus now, not species, each would contain individual species).

http://users.tellurian.com/rmarguls/d-genera.html

Quite a few as you can imagine. And that is just dinosaurs. If you include the entire known fossil record you are talking hundreds of thousands of more species.

So they were all on the Ark were they? Because your Ark needs to be a LOT bigger.

As I said above, virtually all of the fossils can't be the individuals who were on the Ark. The kinds represented were.

Oh and by the way, how have you dated all these fossils to 6,000 years ago. Please describe your dating methods.

Creation and the Fall occurred 6000 years ago. The Flood occurred c.2304BC.

One scientifc dating method for the fossils is given above, but since it is their recent origin that is in question, evidence for a recent creation will serve as a rough guide for the fossils also. Such evidence: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is just figuring out which are of the kinds that survived through the Ark and continued by speciation till today.

Ok, how have you figured this out?

Please describe the science behind this process.

As I said above, just like yourselves, we rely on similarities and breeding compatibility. How do you seek to trace the ancestors of the tiger, for example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I thought you wanted records of the kinds going on to the Ark. I can think of no other likely source than those who saw it leaving a pictoral record.

Ok, produce these cave drawings Wolfsbane. You can't because you don't have them. Yet you have concluded that this event happened, and now you are guessing that in some point we will find a cave drawing of it. What are you talking about? How is this science?

I didn't say there was such a record, only that a physical description of the kinds which entered the Ark is an unreasonable request. All we can point to are the fossils, and they will no doubt include speciation examples also.

It is like me claiming that my great great grandfather lived on the moon. You ask "What evidence do you have of that?" and I say "Well I'm alive aren't I"

Neither modern species nor the fossil record have any indicators that all life on Earth developed from a few thousand species living on a boat in the middle east 6,000 years ago.

And you can't provide any, no matter how many times you are ask.

The evidences of a recent creation, recent global catastrophe and of genetic bottlenecking say otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is not how many species we have now that has to be catered for, but the original kinds. Let's be generous and only halve that figure. How much space would that take?

450,000 species.

Update: Fossil figures fall http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/focus.asp

There are 900,000 known insect species alive today, with approx 1,000 new ones being discovered every year.

How much space and food would you need for 450,000 species of insect for a year? Ireland would probably do

The number of species today is vastly more than the number of kinds 4300 years ago. For an introduction to the Ark size see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm taking speciation as having increased since the Ark; you are doing the same in the evolutionary scenario. That means less species back then.

Well firstly that isn't how evolution works. There weren't "less species" back then in the evolutionary model. In fact that would work at all.

You think that the number of species is a constant? That as one drops out another takes its place? That new adaptions necessitate the extinction of their originators?

Secondly to you "back then" is only 6,000 years ago. You have no evidence that macro-evolution can actually happen that fast,

It doesn't. It doesn't exist. Only micro-evolution - adaption within kind.

or any process that can cause it to happen in the first place bar mutation based evolution, which you reject as being impossible.

I think JC covered that well, but here are some relevant articles on 'micro-evolution' and the problems involved - including the confusion that can be caused by creationists using the term micro-evolution: Variation, information and the created kind http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp

Ok, well we have hundreds of thousands of species in the fossil record Wolfsbane, so which ones were on the Ark?

ALL of their kinds.

And when did the others appear? 10 years after the flood? 100 years after the flood.

Remember, kinds not species were on board.

You see the problem is you don't just have to explain the species alive today. You have to explain ALL THE SPECIES IN THE KNOWN FOSSIL RECORD.

Exactly - all covered by kinds. For example - if I wanted to preserve a big cat kind today, need I preserve every specie of that kind? If I just select one specie, then the others will perish, but the big cats will continue. Is this how sabre-tooths and mammoths perished and tigers and elephants survived? Perhaps. Every other variation in man perished in the Flood, except those of Noah, his wife, sons and daughters-in-law. But Man survived.

You say the list of genus for dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were simple one order of Reptile class. The fossil record is MASSIVE Wolfsbane, and according to you all of them came from the animals on the Ark.

Yes, their kinds, not species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp

That article doesn't explain how fish or plants survived the Flood.

We must agree to differ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is a big leap for evolutionary biologists, but not for the creatures themselves. See above on rapid speciation.

Explain to me now how macro-evolution happens on a rapid time line (hundred years)

As I said above, it doesn't exist. Rapid speciation does.

wolfsbane · 31-12-2007 9:22pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the additional divinity of Mary? Belief in the Holy Trinity?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, both would be essentials to the Christian faith: the former, as a negative - the belief in Mary as divine would exclude one from the faith. The denial of the latter, likewise.

As this will be my last post of this year, let me wish you all a very happy 2008.

:):)

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

pH · 01-01-2008 1:19am

wolfsbane wrote:

Creation and the Fall occurred 6000 years ago. The Flood occurred c.2304BC.

One scientifc dating method for the fossils is given above, but since it is their recent origin that is in question, evidence for a recent creation will serve as a rough guide for the fossils also. Such evidence: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Interesting! The flood in 2304 BC ... and tigers, lions, pumas, jaguars all formed species since. Any rough idea how long after the flood did it take these species to form? Are we talking 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years?

Zombrex · 01-01-2008 1:51am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, just the same evidence as you - the biosphere around us. It is how we account for that evidence that is debated.

that is not evidence that the ark existed.

Put it this way, if I said every life form on Earth developed from a boat 30,000 years ago in Africa, how would you say "No, we have evidence that they all developed from an Ark 6,000 years ago in the middle east"

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where evolutionists struggle to decide what constitutes a species, creationists face the same problem with kinds.

That is nonsense. Evolutionary biologist have defined what a "species" is. More than once, which is where the difficulty comes from.

Creationists have yet to define a "kind" at all

wolfsbane wrote: »

Geological: See for example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
Catastropic origin of fossils: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-neo-catastrophism.asp
Genetic bottlenecks: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/events.asp

None of those answer my question :rolleyes:

Heres a wacky idea, how about you and JC stop simply posting a nonsense article from AiG that doesn't actually answer the question I'm asking, and attempt to explain it to me yourselves

It is after all supposed to be crystal clear.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Snails was used as an illustration that even Darwin recognised the survival opportunities in a prolonged flood. But there is no reason to think they weren't on board.

Or any reason to think they were. You see the problem here? You are just guessing. There is no science here. You can't tell what was on the ark, how what was on the ark actually survived, what wasn't on the ark, how they survived, or what modern animals descended from what original "kind" species.

You can't actually tell me anything scientific.

You could say anything you like. You could say snails were on board or you could say they weren't. You could say they all survived on leafs for a year, you could say they didn't. You could say that God himself took them to another planet and shelter them and then put them back.

You don't have any science here, its all just make believe.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They are the fossils

Which ones?

Tell me ONE fossil animal that you know was the original "kind" that died during the flood. And explain how it is dated.

And I want YOU to explain how you know this to me, I don't want another link to a nonsense article on AiG that doesn't answer me question.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me suggest that any species that can breed with another is genetically extremely close. You deny that?

No, I don't deny that. But AGAIN that doesn't answer my question. You have no genetic evidence that all life on Earth came from a handful of original "kind" species.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed, we must speculate based on similarities. Is this not what evolutionists do?

But you don't speculate based on similarities. You can't tell me what creationists "speculate" the original kinds where, or what animals descended from which.

Tell me what the name of the species on the Ark that Great Apes descended from 6,000 years ago. Tell me what Creationists believe is the evolution from that species to the modern one. When did the modern species first appear.

Tell me what the name of modern European horses ancestor that was on the Ark was 6,000 years ago. Tell me what animals come in between. I don't need all of them, give me just a few.

You can't do this because the science is simply not there. You are just making this nonsense up as you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We would have great difficulty in scientifically challenging something so (relatively) close to our own position. We would of course reject it for Biblical reasons.

Well you shouldn't. If the Earth is in fact only 10,000 years old, and all life on Earth developed from a handful of animals 6,000 years ago it should in fact be very simple to demonstrate that modern animals didn't come from a set of animals 15,000 years ago.

So of you go, do it. It should be easy, you do after all have all this over whelming evidence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As you should know if you were following the debate, such dating is also rejected scientifically by creationists.

What, all independent dating methods? All of them.

Well obviously you have your own way of dating fossils and rocks, that don't use any of these flawed methods.

I want you to explain them to me. I don't want a link to AiG, I want you to explain it to me now how Creationist date their fossils all to about 10,000 - 6,000 years ago. You do date all your fossils to that age right? You do have fossils right?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite so. They use science to do it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

That article is simply an attack on radiometric dating. It does not explain how Creationists date their fossils.

If you reject all radiometric dating methods (there are a few and strangely for such a flawed system the give the same result more often than not), please explain how creationists date their fossils without using radiometric dating. I want you to explain it please, not a link to AiG nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, catastropes would have occurred before the Flood and do so after.

Please explain how you know this. Give me the date of these catastrophes and the methods used to date them

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I said above, virtually all of the fossils can't be the individuals who were on the Ark. The kinds represented were.

What does that mean? There were thousand of dinosaur species. Which ones were on the Ark? And what happened to the others?

wolfsbane wrote: »

One scientifc dating method for the fossils is given above, but since it is their recent origin that is in question, evidence for a recent creation will serve as a rough guide for the fossils also. Such evidence: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Your previous article from AiG didn't contain dating methods an neither does one.

As I already asked I want you to explain to me the process of dating that Creationists use.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I said above, just like yourselves, we rely on similarities and breeding compatibility. How do you seek to trace the ancestors of the tiger, for example?

Ok, and what has this study of "similarities and breeding" told you.

Pick any modern animal and trace back through the fossil record their ancestors back to the ark. If there are bits missing that doesn't really matter, but considering the huge amount of fossils that span that 4,000 years it should be very simple for you to do.

And can you do it please, not a link to AiG.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I didn't say there was such a record, only that a physical description of the kinds which entered the Ark is an unreasonable request. All we can point to are the fossils, and they will no doubt include speciation examples also.

Fine, point to the fossils. Which are the fossils of the original "kinds" that were on the ark. Which are the fossils of their ancestors.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Update: Fossil figures fall http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/focus.asp

Yes, that is the most recent figure.

Care to explain how 450,000 species fitted on the ark?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The number of species today is vastly more than the number of kinds 2304 years ago.

Explain to me how you know this. And when I say "you" I mean you, not yet another link to AiG nonsense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You think that the number of species is a constant? That as one drops out another takes its place? That new adaptions necessitate the extinction of their originators?

No?

wolfsbane wrote: »

It doesn't. It doesn't exist. Only micro-evolution - adaption within kind.

That isn't micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is evolution within species.

Macro-evolution is evolution from species to species.

"Kind" isn't yet defined, so lets ignore that shall we.

Explain to me how macro-evolution takes place so quickly. If you like you can explain how different species of Zebra can have different size chromosomes within the space of 4,000 years.

Actually that is a good one.

I want you to explain how your version of macro-evolution increases the size of species chromosomes without using mutation, which you say cannot do add genetic information.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, their kinds, not species.

Yes but you have to explain where the species AFTER the flood came from. Which you can't do.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I said above, it doesn't exist. Rapid speciation does.

So me evidence of one mammal species where this has taken place.

J C · 01-01-2008 4:02am

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said above, it doesn't exist. Rapid speciation does.

Wicknight wrote: »

So me evidence of one mammal species where this has taken place.

Dogs, Wolves, Dingoes, Jackals, Foxes........or Lions, Tigers, Leopards.......or Horses, Zebra, Donkeys.......or the various different species of Domestic and Feral Cattle.....such as Bison, Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus!!!:D

Quote:
That article doesn't explain how fish or plants survived the Flood.

.....hmm.....let me think.........HOW would FISH survive a FLOOD?????

.....by swimming around in it I guess!!!:eek:;):)

Scofflaw · 01-01-2008 5:22am

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said above, it doesn't exist. Rapid speciation does.

Dogs, Wolves, Dingoes, Wolverines, Foxes........or Lions, Tigers, Leopards.......or Horses, Zebra, Donkeys.......or the various different species of Domestic and Feral Cattle.....such as Bison, Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus!!!:D

Assertion is not evidence. What evidence is there?

J C wrote: »

Quote:
That article doesn't explain how fish or plants survived the Flood.

.....hmm.....HOW would FISH survive a FLOOD?????

.....by swimming around in it I guess!!!:eek:;):)

Except that saltwater fish tend to die in freshwater, and freshwater fish in saltwater, and both kinds in brackish water - and nearly all fish in turbulent water.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH · 01-01-2008 11:41am

I must say, J C embracing evolution with such gusto is an unexpected change for 2008. Good to see you have accepted that different species can form from a common ancestor via evolution, next you'll be telling us this is evolution by natural selection? surely not?

Your only argument with evolutionists now appears to concern the speed of the process, with you claiming that evolution can happen at a rate that most biologists wouldn't accept.

However this seems such a trivial detail, compared to the difference you have with geologists and astronomers, all who continue to insist that the universe and the planet we live on are billions of years old. Surely the time has come to bury the hatchet with the evolutionists (with whom you're only argument is rate of mutation)?

But I would like one point cleared up if you or a fellow creation scientist could oblige? What is your best estimate for a timeline for the formation of species like pumas, cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, lions and tigers from their common ancestor on the ark?

5uspect · 01-01-2008 12:27pm

J C wrote: »

.....by swimming around in it I guess!!!

You see, there's your problem right there.

SubjectSean · 01-01-2008 12:57pm

pH wrote: »

Your only argument with evolutionists now appears to concern the speed of the process, with you claiming that evolution can happen at a rate that most biologists wouldn't accept.

When this thread started I didn't agree with the creationists but now I do

Rapid speciation is certainly odd and many evolutionary biologists do seem to be at a loss to explain it. I read an article in New Scientist one time that dealt with the likely time scale for the development of our higher mental functions and the thing that struck me was how rapidly this had happened. Not slow and gradual at all.

pH · 01-01-2008 1:57pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

When this thread started I didn't agree with the creationists but now I do

Which is another way of saying that creationists have changed their arguments and are now arguing for evolution!

How to win the Creationist vs Evolution debate as a Creationist
1/ Make a prediction that all evolutionists will be agreeing with creationists on some date.
2/ Slowly change your creationist argument until it matches evolution.
3/ Declare victory
4/ Profit (Prophet?)

Rapid speciation is certainly odd and many evolutionary biologists do seem to be at a loss to explain it. I read an article in New Scientist one time that dealt with the likely time scale for the development of our higher mental functions and the thing that struck me was how rapidly this had happened. Not slow and gradual at all.

Link and sample time scale please.

Zombrex · 01-01-2008 2:07pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Rapid speciation is certainly odd and many evolutionary biologists do seem to be at a loss to explain it. I read an article in New Scientist one time that dealt with the likely time scale for the development of our higher mental functions and the thing that struck me was how rapidly this had happened. Not slow and gradual at all.

Speciation is one species turning into another due to the accumulation of many many evolutionary changes.

It can happen very quickly but biologists aren't at a loss to explain it, it happens exactly the same way as every other thing in evolution happens.

Time is not a controlling factor in evolution. Replication cycles and the changes that occur during them are the important factor. Generally the time taken for these changes to build up is a long time simply because they more often than not don't happen that often. But they can happen very rapidly.

Think of it this way. A man wins the lotto. The next week he goes out and plays the lotto again. He has exact same chance of winning it twice in a row as anyone else has of winning that week.

Now most times he won't. But there is actually nothing in the system that guarantees that he won't. He could.

And you do get weird anomalies where someone wins the lotto and then a few weeks later wins the lotto again. We have a Bonus Ball syndicate in work where everyone pays a euro each week and who ever has the bonus ball of the draw wins something like €45 euro. I've only won it once but there is a guy who has one it 4 times this year.

Son Goku · 01-01-2008 2:17pm

wolfsbane wrote:

Creation and the Fall occurred 6000 years ago. The Flood occurred c.2304BC.

During the reign of Pepi I Meryre in Egypt. Why do the Egyptian records not confirm this?

Scofflaw · 01-01-2008 2:24pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

When this thread started I didn't agree with the creationists but now I do Rapid speciation is certainly odd and many evolutionary biologists do seem to be at a loss to explain it. I read an article in New Scientist one time that dealt with the likely time scale for the development of our higher mental functions and the thing that struck me was how rapidly this had happened. Not slow and gradual at all.

Gould and Eldridge in 1972 essentially blew the concept of slow gradual evolution out of the water.

Modern evolutionary theory uses Gould and Eldridge's theory of "punctuated equilibrium" - that evolution proceeds by way of long periods of stasis interspersed with short periods of rapid evolution.

That's why the Creationists endlessly quote little bits of chopped up Gould - but their quotes are always tailored to make it look as if Gould knocked down gradualist Darwinian evolution and didn't put anything in its place. A lie, of course, but there we go.

"Gradualistic" evolution has been out of date for 35 years, but Creationists can't handle that - they prefer to go on knocking a straw man. They do exactly the same with geological uniformitarianism, which in the sense the Creationists use it, is Victorian science.

Trying to relive the glory days of established creationism, I suppose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SubjectSean · 01-01-2008 2:33pm

pH wrote: »

Which is another way of saying that creationists have changed their arguments and are now arguing for evolution!

Agreed.

Link and sample time scale please.

I've looked all over for that damn magazine and I'm not subscribed to the online version so I can't provide the exact article I'm talking about however I think I found the study being cited by a fan of the Bhudda at
http://evolution-becoming.com/speciation.html

"A recent study exposes the difficulties evolutionary biologists are faced with, when they attempt to account for the emergence of the human brain by natural processes. They studied 214 genes involved in human brain development and established, from an evolutionary perspective, that these genes must have undergone hyper-fast evolution to produce the large human brain with its advanced cognitive capacities. In the words of one investigator: " To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time…requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits. This type of rapid and extensive genetic turn over makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this type of rapid evolution should be catastrophic”.

I think the original study is referenced at http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/cat_brain_evolution.html near the bottom of the page under the heading for 2004 December 30 Thursday
"Many Genes Changed To Make Human Ancestors Progressively Smarter". If anybody can provide a link to the original paper I'd like to read it again.

pH · 01-01-2008 2:41pm

Son Goku wrote: »

During the reign of Pepi I Meryre in Egypt. Why do the Egyptian records not confirm this?

Tut Tut SG, stay awake, J C covered this earlier - the entire Egyptian civilisation was wiped out and then replaced almost immediately by another people who immediately adopted their language and culture. It's all in this thread!

However he did hint that creation scientists were making progress in marking the high water mark on the great pyramid of Giza, alas of this important work we have heard no more.

SubjectSean · 01-01-2008 2:45pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Modern evolutionary theory uses Gould and Eldridge's theory of "punctuated equilibrium" - that evolution proceeds by way of long periods of stasis interspersed with short periods of rapid evolution.

Excuse my ignorance but I don't understand why this would be the case and it looks a little spooky to me. Surely environment and the rate of mutation would be fairly constant? I'd rather not go all supernatural on this one so if anybody can explain I'd be greatful.

J C · 01-01-2008 3:29pm

Son Goku wrote: »

During the reign of Pepi I Meryre in Egypt. Why do the Egyptian records not confirm this?

These records are unreliable and probably were reconstructed after the Flood......to 'puff up' the importance of the incumbent Pharaoh of the time.......and the reason that the ancient 'Egyptians' themselves didn't record the Flood was because they were DROWNED by it!!!:D

Scofflaw · 01-01-2008 3:55pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but I don't understand why this would be the case and it looks a little spooky to me. Surely environment and the rate of mutation would be fairly constant? I'd rather not go all supernatural on this one so if anybody can explain I'd be greatful.

Well, if you think about the way that evolution is a process that fits organisms against their environment, it makes sense. Environmental niches are stable over very long timescales - millions of years in some cases. However, when they change, they often change abruptly. It should be no surprise that under those circumstances evolutionary adaptation is rapid.

In addition, the evolution of a single really new feature may open a whole new cluster of environments for exploitation. For example, the first arthropods to be able to live out of water essentially unlocked all the environmental niches to be found on land - and the result was a huge burst of adaptive radiation. A good modern example of this is one JC hates - nylon digestion, recently seen as a mutation in a particular species of bacteria. This actually opens a large range of possible new niches (laundry baskets, nylon bedding, etc) to the bacterium - but each niche has slightly different characteristics.

Essentially, what happens is that either the constraints of natural selection suddenly "tighten", and the population either rapidly adapts or perishes, or the "loosen", and the population rapidly spreads out and adapts to take advantage of the new niches.

Finally, small local populations can change quite quickly through accidental means - say, some disease which coincidentally happens to wipe out the red members of a red-to-brown population. No particular reason for it, but the result is a sudden shift to a completely brown population.

Where environments don't change over huge periods of time, we see forms which don't change over tens or hundreds of millions of years - sharks (pelagic), and crocodiles (river banks, estuaries). Usually such forms are widespread and common, so that the local effects above don't occur.

Basically, geological history is full of large and dramatic events (something Creationists like to pretend no-one believes but themselves), and evolution reflects this - sometimes occurring rapidly, sometimes barely visible. The fossil record reflects exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C · 01-01-2008 4:01pm

Originally Posted by Wicknight
So me evidence of one mammal species where this has taken place.

Originally Posted by J C
Dogs, Wolves, Dingoes, Jackals, Foxes........or Lions, Tigers, Leopards.......or Horses, Zebra, Donkeys.......or the various different species of Domestic and Feral Cattle.....such as Bison, Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus!!![

Scofflaw wrote: »

Assertion is not evidence. What evidence is there?

They are creatures with similar physiognomies and are able to cross-breed.....but they are separate species because they generally don't produce fertile offspring.......this is very strong scientific (i.e. repeatably observable) EVIDENCE that they have recently and rapidly speciated from a common Kind!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that saltwater fish tend to die in freshwater, and freshwater fish in saltwater, and both kinds in brackish water - and nearly all fish in turbulent water.

There are many aquatic organisms that are physiognomically identical and that are present in BOTH freshwater and saltwater varieties.....these include oysters, prawns, lobster, crayfish......and there are even freshwater and seawater Dolphins ......which is very strong scientific (i.e. repeatably observable) EVIDENCE that they have ALL recently and rapidly speciated from a common Kind!!!:D

......and to put my argument beyond ALL doubt there are even fish that move freely between freshwater and seawater as part of their lifecycles......and these include Salmon, Trout and Eels!!!!!:D:)

pH · 01-01-2008 4:08pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, if you think about the way that evolution is a process that fits organisms against their environment, it makes sense. Environmental niches are stable over very long timescales - millions of years in some cases. However, when they change, they often change abruptly. It should be no surprise that under those circumstances evolutionary adaptation is rapid.

This is something that interests me, but probably not for this thread. Take two examples from Ireland recently - grey vs red squirrels and the zebra mussel invasion - both seem to indicate that evolution lags well behind environmental change in that there are plenty of examples where an introduced species has outperformed all indigenous ones - which you would imagine that evolution should have fine tuned to the environment. As I said probably not for this tread though.

Son Goku · 01-01-2008 4:25pm

pH wrote:

Tut Tut SG, stay awake, J C covered this earlier - the entire Egyptian civilisation was wiped out and then replaced almost immediately by another people who immediately adopted their language and culture. It's all in this thread!

I was actually about to post "You're not serious; he couldn't have said something that ridiculous". As if to punish my incredulity, the following nonsense was summoned from the void:

J C wrote: »

These records are unreliable and probably were reconstructed after the Flood......to 'puff up' the importance of the incumbent Pharaoh of the time.......and the reason that the ancient 'Egyptians' themselves didn't record the Flood was because they were DROWNED by it!!!:D

In fact it still doesn't make sense. I mean even if there was puffing up done, why wouldn't they mention the flood. As in "Oh yeah, there was massive flood that covered the whole Earth a few years back".

SubjectSean · 01-01-2008 4:38pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Basically, geological history is full of large and dramatic events (something Creationists like to pretend no-one believes but themselves), and evolution reflects this - sometimes occurring rapidly, sometimes barely visible. The fossil record reflects exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw for taking the time. That would all seem to make good sense generally although I'm having a little difficulty in reconciling it with the statement that in regard to the human brain:

"This type of rapid and extensive genetic turn over makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this type of rapid evolution should be catastrophic"

I think this is a quote from Bruce Lahn, an assistant professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago.

J C · 01-01-2008 5:09pm

Originally Posted by J C

.....by swimming around in it I guess!!!

5uspect wrote: »

You see, there's your problem right there.

I was being ironic.......do Evolutionists not recognise irony????

:)

pH wrote: »

I must say, J C embracing evolution with such gusto is an unexpected change for 2008. Good to see you have accepted that different species can form from a common ancestor via evolution, next you'll be telling us this is evolution by natural selection? surely not?

Your only argument with evolutionists now appears to concern the speed of the process, with you claiming that evolution can happen at a rate that most biologists wouldn't accept.

Creation Scientistists are nearly all former (Materialistic) Evolutionists ..... and they have always accepted that 'Evolution' occurs (within Kinds and using pre-existing information).

The key point that Creation Scientists and Evolutionists disagree on is the source of the genetic diversity (Divine Creation) and the scale over which it operates (within Kinds).

SubjectSean wrote: »

When this thread started I didn't agree with the creationists but now I do.

Good!!:D:)

SubjectSean wrote: »

Rapid speciation is certainly odd and many evolutionary biologists do seem to be at a loss to explain it.

Rapid speciation is only odd to those operating with a 'millions of years' and 'materialistic' frame of mind......it is expected by those who hold that living creatures were intelligently designed by God to go forth and multiply....each according to it's Kind!!!

SubjectSean wrote: »

I read an article in New Scientist one time that dealt with the likely time scale for the development of our higher mental functions and the thing that struck me was how rapidly this had happened. Not slow and gradual at all.

More like instantaneously......at Creation!!!:D

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments