The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I like the plover/croc, the bombardier beetle, giraffe and sea slug as
> creatures that could not have survived the evolutionary process.

"survived the evolutionary process" -- what on earth do you mean by this?

> These activities as the birds mentioned above defy evolution.

In honesty, brian, do you ever consider that you may not actually understand evolution?

It's obvious that I don't understand it the way you do. I also wonder if you understand that evolution, without God, has to apply to 100% of all matter and species, and their subsequent behaviours.

I do not nor will I ever argue against slight changes and adaptations to environment. But, when you talk about the formation of whole species and all the species, (plant, insect, animal, etc.) coming from one common little organism in some primordial soup that then proceede to mutaute into all the species of the world, you are talking impossibility.

With regard to the bombardier beetle. It has a defense mechanism that needs two chemicals to mix and then be excreted in an explosion through a special canal between it's hind legs. The evolutionist says that through small mutations over the millenia it developed these mechanisms. One without the other two is completely useless and therefore would have been discarded.

With the plant that smells; Flowers bloom in the day and are pollinated by insects carrying the pollen between plants. Why would this plant smell like it does and open at night? Without the bat the flower dies. Without it's smell it dies. Therefore the bat had to have evolved at the exact same time as the flower evolved it's characteristics in order for this to happen. It also would have had to evolved it's characteristic of night opening and it's smell at the same time. If it opened during the day at first and survived, at has no reason to evelve into a night plant, nor to evolve it's unique smell.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

It's obvious that I don't understand it the way you do. I also wonder if you understand that evolution, without God, has to apply to 100% of all matter and species, and their subsequent behaviours.

I do not nor will I ever argue against slight changes and adaptations to environment. But, when you talk about the formation of whole species and all the species, (plant, insect, animal, etc.) coming from one common little organism in some primordial soup that then proceede to mutaute into all the species of the world, you are talking impossibility.

Why is it an impossibility though? What actually prevents it. Any chaotic system, which DNA most certainly is, tends toward structured organisation like this. It is a natural tendency of chaotic systems. Something would have to prevent it.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I like the plover/croc, the bombardier beetle, giraffe and sea slug as
creatures that could not have survived the evolutionary process.

Of all the animals to pick. The giraffe and its fossil record contain some of the best examples of the Red Queen effect.

BrianCalgary wrote:

With the plant that smells; Flowers bloom in the day and are pollinated by insects carrying the pollen between plants. Why would this plant smell like it does and open at night? Without the bat the flower dies. Without it's smell it dies. Therefore the bat had to have evolved at the exact same time as the flower evolved it's characteristics in order for this to happen. It also would have had to evolved it's characteristic of night opening and it's smell at the same time. If it opened during the day at first and survived, at has no reason to evelve into a night plant, nor to evolve it's unique smell.

Brian, even the most cursory example of this show that this is not the case.

Both your examples contain the same fallacy, presuming the animal must have arrived directly at its current state and since removing anything from the animal would kill it, evolution could therefore have not occured.

Taking the example of the plant above, the bat/insect nor the smell needed to have evolved at the same time. They could have entered the plant's habitat at some point after the plant developed the smell.
Since the smell increased fertilisation accidentally, using the bat/insect as a mechanism, any plant with a "superior" smell would be more successful.
Given this it is likely that eventually the plant would evolve to supplement regular methods of fertilization, if fertilization via the bat/insect was a better short term solution. Eventually this could have evolved into a dependancy on the bat, such that the plant now cannot survive without the bat/insect.

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Brian, even the most cursory example of this show that this is not the case.

Both your examples contain the same fallacy, presuming the animal must have arrived directly at its current state and since removing anything from the animal would kill it, evolution could therefore have not occured..

Then you have to tell us how these animals and many more did survive without the help?

Son Goku wrote:

Taking the example of the plant above, the bat/insect nor the smell needed to have evolved at the same time. They could have entered the plant's habitat at some point after the plant developed the smell.
Since the smell increased fertilisation accidentally, using the bat/insect as a mechanism, any plant with a "superior" smell would be more successful.
Given this it is likely that eventually the plant would evolve to supplement regular methods of fertilization, if fertilization via the bat/insect was a better short term solution. Eventually this could have evolved into a dependancy on the bat, such that the plant now cannot survive without the bat/insect.

I have highlighted your language that shows how many ifs, likelies and could haves occur. No definites. The only way this flower survives is with the bat. Therefore it is a case of becoming extinct without the bat. They would have to have evolved at the same time.

I don't need could haves and likelies. I have a definite; God created it. Being on a Christian site, you have to take into consideration that evolution and it's theory have to answer all these qustions with a more and definite answer that outdoes "God did it".

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't need could haves and likelies. I have a definite; God created it. Being on a Christian site, you have to take into consideration that evolution and it's theory have to answer all these qustions with a more and definite answer that outdoes "God did it".

No, we don't. You might need that, but your opinion is not universal truth. Not even universal Christian truth, except by your limited definitions of Christian.


possibly a bit tired and irritable,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

bmoferrall wrote:

As a humble layperson, phenomena like this (and the cilium/blood-clot examples) make it very difficult for me to believe in (macro)evolution.

Well done. That's why scientists tend to have training. What you're saying is that without understanding the science, you'll happily wave it away because it all sounds a bit difficult, although clearly nearly every scientist understands and accepts it. I'm not certain why you bothered to mention it, unless you follow wolfsbane into the dark realms of atheistic scientific-establishment conspiracy theory.

definitely a bit tired and irritable,
Scofflaw

samb

BrianCalgary wrote:

We were just talkimg last night about our favourites. I like the plover/croc, the bombardier beetle, giraffe and sea slug as creatures that could not have survived the evolutionary process. My friend mentioned a flower that opens at night and smells like dead mice so that bats attack and then end up pollinating.

These activities as the birds mentioned above defy evolution. As I watch the Canada Geese fly overhead adn pray they don't poop.

How do they defy evolution? When a trait such as smelling like dead mice arises from genetic mutation, then the strenght of that smell and its frequency within the flower population will increase by those flowers reproducing more. Yes the bats were clearly present when the flower developed this unusual trait, as they are now. Two species that interact in a unique or intrinsic way ussually will have been in close proximity with eachother in order for that relationship to develop.
Plover/croc, mutualy beneficial to both, doesn't defy evolution.
giraffe? Longer necked individuals reproduced more until population became very very long necked.
What are you on about?
Therefore it is a case of becoming extinct without the bat
All species are dependant on other organisms. what is your point?

bmoferrall

Scofflaw wrote:

Well done. That's why scientists tend to have training. What you're saying is that without understanding the science, you'll happily wave it away because it all sounds a bit difficult, although clearly nearly every scientist understands and accepts it. I'm not certain why you bothered to mention it, unless you follow wolfsbane into the dark realms of atheistic scientific-establishment conspiracy theory.

definitely a bit tired and irritable,
Scofflaw

If it's as clearcut and all-encompassing as you suggest, then I can understand your irritation and frustration with all this; even more so, the bare-faced insolence of non-scientists like myself for questioning your conclusions.
I accept that there appears to be a tiny percentage of relevant scientists that dismiss evolution. However, 10000, or whatever the exact (US-based) figure, is still a sizeable number. I don't believe professional incompetence, subterfuge or dishonesty, accounts for it.

For what it's worth, I'll be watching with interest, and an open mind, over the coming years.

respectfully doffing the cap and tugging the forelock,
bmof

Scofflaw

bmoferrall wrote:

If it's as clearcut and all-encompassing as you suggest, then I can understand your irritation and frustration with all this; even more so, the bare-faced insolence of non-scientists like myself for questioning your conclusions.
I accept that there appears to be a tiny percentage of relevant scientists that dismiss evolution. However, 10000, or whatever the exact (US-based) figure, is still a sizeable number. I don't believe professional incompetence, subterfuge or dishonesty, accounts for it.

For what it's worth, I'll be watching with interest, and an open mind, over the coming years.

respectfully doffing the cap and tugging the forelock,
bmof

A decent grovel, humble layperson. I shall let you live, this time.

arrogantly, but less irritatedly,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

bmoferrall wrote:

I don't believe professional incompetence, subterfuge or dishonesty, accounts for it.

And neither do I, although I am well aware (having seen someone do it) that it's possible to study a scientific subject as a creationist, without allowing the science to impinge on your creationism, or vice-versa. The person I am thinking of actually took Biology as an option (his major was Computer Science), and simply treated the evolutionary parts of the syllabus as something he had to learn by rote. He didn't believe any of the answers he gave in tests and exams, but could simply give them out as practiced answers. I am, therefore, somewhat suspicious of those whose scientific credentials post-date active creationism, particularly where they have not been active in research (because to do proper research one has to go beyond the rote).

I would prefer, obviously, that the same courtesy was extended to the majority of scientists, most of whom actually start from a youthful belief in Genesis and the literal truth of the Bible. Certainly many people I know in science (nearly all my friends, and my wife, are all scientists) abandoned the literal interpretation of the Bible because of the impossibility of reconciling it with the physical evidence. As far as I am aware, however, none of us were ever underwent any kind of 'atheistic initiation' (possibly my invite went astray?) or came under any pressure to abandon religion.

Many scientific explanations of the world seem to contradict common sense or are very complex. A fair number of them have uncomfortable corollaries (a lot of creationists seem to have specific difficulties with us being descended from other 'lower' life forms), although not as many as is commonly believed (that we are descended from apes does not make us apes, any more than a descent from a Medieval ancestor makes you Medieval). It does require training, and not everyone is equally good at it. Some people, being unable to crack a puzzle, give up and say "it's a mystery, because I cannot understand it", or "God made it so, because I can conceive of no other way". To me, that's improbably arrogant. Certainly it's doubly arrogant, and extremely irritating, if it is done by someone who hasn't really tried.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have highlighted your language that shows how many ifs, likelies and could haves occur. No definites. The only way this flower survives is with the bat. Therefore it is a case of becoming extinct without the bat. They would have to have evolved at the same time.

I don't need could haves and likelies. I have a definite; God created it. Being on a Christian site, you have to take into consideration that evolution and it's theory have to answer all these qustions with a more and definite answer that outdoes "God did it".

First of all, a grammatical correction. Accidentally is not a conditional it is an adverb.

Secondly, no they wouldn't have to have evolved at the same time. That’s what I'm trying to tell you.
Congratulations on dodging the point in such a manner that you actually resort to the use of conditionals to get you out of it.
My point is that it is not necessary for both to evolve at the same time, my conjectured path of evolution is only for illustrative purposes, which is why it contains conditionals.

It is true that without the bat the plant would not survive, however you cannot infer from this that both must have evolved in conjunction. Animals can evolve a life supporting connection with another animal.

Then you have to tell us how these animals and many more did survive without the help?

They evolved to need the help, because being that tied to another ;ife form was "cost efficient" from a evolutionary point of view.
It has been observed in the Amazon Rain forest(Over the span of two generations) that certain fungi spores which were originally independant of a type of wall flower eventually evolved so that they now require the flower to live.

Scofflaw

By the way, I think we've probably heard quite enough of one particular argument.

There are a very small percentage of scientists who support creationism, however you wiggle the figures - we have definite figures of 450 ID, 600 Creationists, and an estimate of 10,000. Plus, of course, one bloke in Japan who's interested. Against this, there 2 million+ scientists in the US alone. The highest percentage we can come up with is 0.37% - less than half a percent.

That being the case, the following arguments are clearly incorrect:

1. that there is a serious debate about creationism within science. No, not with those numbers. There are crank theories within science that could muster more supporters (Lamarckianism, for example), and no-one is claiming those to be 'serious debates within science'. What is open is whether science has a case to answer.

2. that there is some kind of 'balance of probability'. No, not with those numbers. 99.5%+ versus less than half a percent is not a balance unless you're already sitting on the scales.

3. that those who do not know or understand the relevant science are fully supported in their position within the scientific community. No, not with those numbers. While some fringe opinions have turned out to be correct, simply being a fringe opinion doesn't automatically mean you are some kind of struggling beacon of truth in a dark world. It usually means you're wrong, particularly when it turns out your theory can't be tested.

4. that the best thing to do is keep an open mind until the debate is settled. I've noticed several people (all Creationists) claiming this one. It's tosh, given those numbers. You're not keeping an open mind at all - you're sticking to your position without even having the decency to defend it. You're not entertaining the majority opinion, you're sticking with what is, scientifically, a fringe theory, because you already believed it. That someone would claim that that's 'keeping an open mind' is to seriously distort the meaning of the phrase.

If you do not understand the science, the fact that a tiny minority of science say something that the rest of the scientists consider rubbish is not something you get to point to and say "hey look, those guys say it's so, so it must be true". You have already admitted that you do not understand the science, and therefore you cannot form a judgement on whether the tiny minority are right.

That being the case, you have no grounds whatsoever for accepting this fringe opinion except for the fact that you already agree with them. It does not make you more right, it makes you an ignorant bystander cheering a team that has already lost because you do not understand the game.

Note that I've left out wolfsbane's contention that the majority of scientists are in fact some kind of cabal and their dupes. It's probably beyond any form of rational dispute.

gloomily,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

Maybe when Scofflaw takes Bmofarrell out on their first date he could take him to one of the New World Order: Scientician Division socials?

bmoferrall

Excelsior wrote:

Maybe when Scofflaw takes Bmofarrell out on their first date he could take him to one of the New World Order: Scientician Division socials?

Hey, I only doffed my cap to Scofflaw . I'm not ready to court him just yet .

*googles scientician*
Ouch !

Huff...I'm off to help Bono save the world!

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Maybe when Scofflaw takes Bmofarrell out on their first date he could take him to one of the New World Order: Scientician Division socials?

On a first date? Without background checks? What kind of a girl do you think I am?


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

that is not a test of the predictive powers of creationism

Again, ID is not synonymous with creationism. What prediction can ID make other than irreducible complexity? If it can be shown that what they assert is irreducibly complex could in fact have evolved, then ID would be disproved.

The predictions of creationism are vastly wider. Let me remind you of something I posted earlier:
...Some of the arguments creationist scientists believe support their interpretation of the evidence:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home..._humphreys.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...1/chapter8.asp

BTW, Wikipedia has an interesting bio. of Steven C. Meyer, whose article caused such a crisis at the Smithonian. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Biography

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

On a first date? Without background checks? What kind of a girl do you think I am?

A male one, to be honest...

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

It does require training, and not everyone is equally good at it. Some people, being unable to crack a puzzle, give up and say "it's a mystery, because I cannot understand it", or "God made it so, because I can conceive of no other way". To me, that's improbably arrogant. Certainly it's doubly arrogant, and extremely irritating, if it is done by someone who hasn't really tried.

Scofflaw's problem is that those scientists who reject the evolutionary interpretation are not the less able, but include the excellent. Not graduates who scraped by with a 2:2 but those who have excelled in their field. Examine the lists of PhDs already posted and the institutions they received those from.

robindch

> [BrianCalgary] It's obvious that I don't understand it the way you do.

Again, that's an answer to a question that I didn't ask, so I'll rephrase my original question, and put in some background assumptions, which I believe are valid:

You believe that evolution is an inadequate explanation for the origin of species from primitive lifeforms. You also believe that the current theories which explain how primitive lifeforms could arise from inanimate matter are also inadequate. However, you do not understand evolution as it is understood by professional biologists.

So, given this difference between your understanding and a professional biologist's understanding -- bear in mind here that around 99.90% of professional biologists accept evolution -- why do you believe that your imperfect (and wrong) understanding outweighs their much better understanding?

BTW, you can find out all about the wonderful world of Bombardier Beetles over at our good friends in talkorigins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

including a step-by-step guide to how evolution can explain its development.

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

A male one, to be honest...

Well, yes, but aside from that...?

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw's problem is that those scientists who reject the evolutionary interpretation are not the less able, but include the excellent. Not graduates who scraped by with a 2:2 but those who have excelled in their field. Examine the lists of PhDs already posted and the institutions they received those from.

I can tell, for example, that wolfsbane thinks I'm a stupid one, because he expects me to believe that the tiny fringe of scientists who support Creationism contains the best scientists. Alas for his argument that I didn't 'scrape a 2.2' myself! Never mind, I see I've at least shifted him (for the moment, until he thinks people have forgotten) from quantity to quality.

On the quality issue, I'm afraid I don't see his purported 'excellence', unless you measure it by 'adherence to creationism'. If he would care to cite some examples of exactly how excellent these scientists are (publication record, patents, prizes etc), or point me to which list he means specifically (I'd hate to get it wrong), then we can come to some kind of objective measure of this 'excellence'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

And now, to work on some of wolfsbane's latest rubbish (alas, the first and third links are 404s):

answersingenesis wrote:

1. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.

Possibly, if it were milk, which it isn't. Certainly it isn't part of evolutionary theory - care to explain exactly what Darwin's thinking was here? Also, perhaps someone might care to explain how it is 'known' that this is what would happen?

answersingenesis wrote:

2. According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto.

What, the Oort cloud where they just found that extra planet? That unobserved Oort cloud full of stuff?

Also, where do you get your comet ages? The ages I've seen published don't bear any relation to what is claimed here. [EDIT]Sorry, just looked at the reference - a Creationist book.[/EDIT]

Is this a Creationist prediction - that there is no Oort Cloud?

answersingenesis wrote:

3. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

What is this fantastic stretching of evolutionary theory? See note above on Oort Cloud. Again, please explain Darwin's thinking on this point.

Is this a Creationist prediction - that there is no Kuiper Belt?

answersingenesis wrote:

4. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep.

I think this actually refers to plate tectonics, which is in a different discipline from evolutionary theory. However, it may amaze you to hear that oceans, according to said theory, do not in fact last for billions of years - they are formed and destroyed in tens of millions of years. Sediment rates are not as quoted here, and subduction rates are higher, and a lot of the stuff gets scraped onto the continental shelves (which is where it was eroded from).

Again, is this a Creationist prediction - that plate tectonics does not happen?

answersingenesis wrote:

5. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.9 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years

Rubbish for much the same reasons as above, plus the subduction of seawater as part of wet sediments.

A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 10E10 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 10E10 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed. "Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt." How strange!

answersingenesis wrote:

6. The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.

Magnetic field waxes and wanes, whereas this is an attempt to simply extrapolate the last 100 years backwards (sorry, who was measuring magnetic fields accurately 1000 years ago?).

answersingenesis wrote:

7. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred.

This is complete tosh. If you bend wet sediments they usually break. If on the other hand you fold deeply buried hot rock, you can get all kinds of plastic deformation without breakage. You're welcome to try this at home with hot plastic and cold mud - see which one you can fold tighter!

Feck it, I'll do the rest later, when I'm bored. I've got better things to do with my time than debunk this pseudo-scientific garbage. Aside from anything else, I have yet to see one of these that actually makes a useful prediction - all they do is take a few uncertainties, dismiss all existing models and methods, and say "hey look, it doesn't work, so we must be right!". Plus, none of these are related to evolutionary theory, although they claim they are! There appears to be some conflation here of all the generally accepted scientific theories about the world into some kind of 'evolutionist worldview'?


how tedious,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Onward ho:

answersingenesis wrote:

8. Strong geologic evidence16 exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone—formed an alleged 500 million years ago—of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale.

Unfortunately, the author clearly knows nothing about lithification, or is conveniently ignoring it. Lithification depends on a number of factors, including depth of burial. It is not primarily time-dependent - there are Carboniferous clays I have stuck my fingers into, and solid limestones from the Persian Gulf with Coke bottles in them.

In addition, the evidence given here is from the injection of clastic dikes of the Sawatch formation into the overlying sediments, not their exposure at surface.

answersingenesis wrote:

9. Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.17 ‘Squashed’ Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.18 ‘Orphan’ Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.

This is Robert Gentry's stuff, based on misreading of a couple of pegmatites as host rock.

answersingenesis wrote:

10. All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.

Atmospheric: Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).

Geological: Helium is a very light atom, and diffusion rates are highly variable. No-one has been able to repeat these results.

In addition, as has been said before, allowing all radioactive decay to take place within the timespan suggested by YECs would have vapourised the surface of the Earth.

answersingenesis wrote:

11. Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.23 By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.24 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

Feh. Again, no understanding of fossilisation processes. Why isn't the world stuffed full of roman and medieval bones? Because most skeletons are not preserved.

answersingenesis wrote:

12. The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.

Origins of agriculture are being pushed back, but this assumes that agriculture is some kind of teleological end in itself, and would automatically be thought of, without any dependency on population density or other technological advances. Low population densities mean that people tend to live in small groups, with plenty of hunter-gatherer territory. Hunter-gatherers work less, live longer, and are healthier than non-mechanised farmers. See Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel for a good account.

answersingenesis wrote:

13. According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.25 Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely

Largely as above. Who needs writing? Complex societies. When do you get complex societies? After agriculture.

and so on and so forth,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

On the quality issue, I'm afraid I don't see his purported 'excellence', unless you measure it by 'adherence to creationism'. If he would care to cite some examples of exactly how excellent these scientists are (publication record, patents, prizes etc), or point me to which list he means specifically (I'd hate to get it wrong), then we can come to some kind of objective measure of this 'excellence'.

See for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Also: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_creationsci and follow the lists.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I've got better things to do with my time than debunk this pseudo-scientific garbage.

Since the articles are made by real scientists, your dismissal of their work as pseudo-scientific returns us to the original question: who is the layman to believe? The small group of scientists who include those whose integrity I am certain of, or the great majority, most of whom are antagonistic to Christianity? Who therefore have a vested emotional/psychological interest in interpreting the facts in a non-ID, non-creationist way. Just as you accuse the creationist scientists of being commited to interpreting the facts in a creationist way.

Aside from anything else, I have yet to see one of these that actually makes a useful prediction - all they do is take a few uncertainties, dismiss all existing models and methods, and say "hey look, it doesn't work, so we must be right!".

They show what one would expect to find if the creation model were accurate, and conversely so for the evolutionary model. So they are not just pointing out the failure of the evolutionary model, but pointing out where creationism can be tested.

Plus, none of these are related to evolutionary theory, although they claim they are!

You asked for predictions made by the creationist model - I have given you these examples. Now you want to know how they are related to Darwin!

They are related to debunking the evolutionary theory in pointing out the prediction it requires if it were to have happened: the age of the earth/universe. Likewise for the creation model. A young earth = no evolution; an old earth = no creationism ( there are old earth creationists, but for our debate I stick to defending YEC).

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Since the articles are made by real scientists, your dismissal of their work as pseudo-scientific returns us to the original question: who is the layman to believe? The small group of scientists who include those whose integrity I am certain of, or the great majority, most of whom are antagonistic to Christianity? Who therefore have a vested emotional/psychological interest in interpreting the facts in a non-ID, non-creationist way. Just as you accuse the creationist scientists of being commited to interpreting the facts in a creationist way.

wolfsbane do you genuinely think that?
Most scientists are either indifferent to Christianity or Christians themselves.

Very few are actually anti-Christian and those that are you'll often find are in fact anti-religion in general, rather than specifically anti-Christian.

wolfsbane, in about three years I'll be a Ph.D. holding scientist myself. At what point along the way will I get indoctrinated into the anti-Christian Liberal Scientific conspiracy?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Since the articles are made by real scientists, your dismissal of their work as pseudo-scientific returns us to the original question: who is the layman to believe? The small group of scientists who include those whose integrity I am certain of, or the great majority, most of whom are antagonistic to Christianity? Who therefore have a vested emotional/psychological interest in interpreting the facts in a non-ID, non-creationist way. Just as you accuse the creationist scientists of being commited to interpreting the facts in a creationist way.

I have dismissed them after reading as pseudo-science, because that is what they are. I have not dismissed them simply because they are the work of Creation scientists. Were they the work of 'evolutionist' scientists, they would be subject to the exact same dismissal. Science is about the work, not about the people.

wolfsbane wrote:

They show what one would expect to find if the creation model were accurate, and conversely so for the evolutionary model. So they are not just pointing out the failure of the evolutionary model, but pointing out where creationism can be tested.

They do not make any predictions themselves except young ages, but they do so by dismissing the methods normally used for dating.

wolfsbane wrote:

You asked for predictions made by the creationist model - I have given you these examples. Now you want to know how they are related to Darwin!

They are related to debunking the evolutionary theory in pointing out the prediction it requires if it were to have happened: the age of the earth/universe. Likewise for the creation model. A young earth = no evolution; an old earth = no creationism ( there are old earth creationists, but for our debate I stick to defending YEC).

See point above re. predictions. I have asked whether 'no plate tectonics' or 'no Oort Cloud' are Creationist predictions, but I know that can't be answered, because not all Creationists agree, do they?

I take it then that there is (to the Creationist) an 'evolutionist world view' to be debunked, and that the Theory of Evolution is only one part thereof?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

wolfsbane do you genuinely think that?
Most scientists are either indifferent to Christianity or Christians themselves.

Very few are actually anti-Christian and those that are you'll often find are in fact anti-religion in general, rather than specifically anti-Christian.

wolfsbane, in about three years I'll be a Ph.D. holding scientist myself. At what point along the way will I get indoctrinated into the anti-Christian Liberal Scientific conspiracy?

I have your invite. Your supervisor will tell you how to collect it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

wolfsbane do you genuinely think that?
Most scientists are either indifferent to Christianity or Christians themselves.

Does 'indifferent' mean they are OK with the idea of a God who created the universe and who maintains it by His power?

Very few are actually anti-Christian and those that are you'll often find are in fact anti-religion in general, rather than specifically anti-Christian.

Anti-any creator would be good enough to predispose them to anti-creationist interpretations.

wolfsbane, in about three years I'll be a Ph.D. holding scientist myself. At what point along the way will I get indoctrinated into the anti-Christian Liberal Scientific conspiracy?

Hopefully you will have noted my warnings and avoid that. At least you will be an honest skeptic. You will not try to gag your fellow-scientists who hold a different interpretation of the facts.

At best you will come to accept the truth of creationism - and most importantly of the God whom it proclaims. Keep us updated.

BrianCalgary

If anyone gives a rip about my 2 cents. I would say that Son Goku doesn't need any convincing about the non-existence of God. His posts and immediate responses to throw out the work of scientists who are creationist; already shows the biased that exists.

Any evolutionist that I have ever seen on North American TV or heard on radio claims that there is no God and that Creation scientists are sub standard in their science.

Talk about intolerance and closemindedness. Why Son Goku and Scofflaw would you conduct your research without even considering the possibility that it was all created by Christ and that everything is a marvel of His handiwork work?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why Son Goku and Scofflaw would you conduct your research without even considering the possibility that it was all created by Christ and that everything is a marvel of His handiwork work?

Why do you assume that I do? I don't recall saying that I did (or being asked).

regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Why do you assume that I do? I don't recall saying that I did (or being asked).

regards,
Scofflaw

I would say it was from your approach to anything posted that would support ID. If I am wrong then apologies.

It then begs the question where do you stand on Christainity and the existence of God and do you hold that His existence is a possibility?