The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Hot Dog

wolfsbane wrote: »

He should have read:
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp

Which is why the wonder of empirical evidence comes in, it has been observed that ships over a certain size leak a very great deal due to the flexible nature of wood. Neither you nor I can understand the maths in your link (which makes me wonder why you posted it) but we can both appreciate the anecdote of the Wyoming being so beset by flexing and twisting that she needed pumping from day one. In any case, your article pays little attention to that phenomenon, instead addressing roll stability, pitch and yaw and such like.

SO unless you can actually explain the maths to me in laymans terms (as I am a geologist, not an engineer) I'll cry foul on this one, and accuse you of posting garbage you don't understand from creationist websites.

Yet again the lack of actual scientific training ion creationists is showing.

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

......it took nearly 100 years for Evolutionists to finally jettison Ernst Haeckel's invalid belief that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"!!!!

.......and STILL Haeckel's invalid ideas are found in some science textbooks!!!

.....if embryos don't recapitulate (and I agree that they don't).....then HOW does embryology lend any support to Evolution.????



The Green Woodpecker has a tongue that is as long as it's body......and it is wrapped about it's head and stored in it's right nostril......

......to paraphrase Prof Gould's words....the absence of any evidence for intermediary stages between a Woodpecker with a short conventional tongue and the Green Woodpecker with a tongue originating on the back of it's skull, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates invalidates gradualistic accounts of evolution!!!:D




......my facial nerve works perfectly to co-ordinate the following muscles in my face :-
Occipitofrontalis, Procerus, Nasalis, Depressor septi nasi, Orbicularis culi,
Corrugator supercilii, Depressor supercilii, Auricular muscles (anterior, superior, posterior) Orbicularis oris, Depressor anguli oris, Risorius, Zygomaticus major,
Zygomaticus minor, Levator labii superioris, Levator labii superioris alaeque nasi, Depressor labii inferioris, Levator anguli oris, Buccinator and Mentalis.

.....Some feat of Intelligent Design!!!!!:)




.....and you can read WHY it is the right way around here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp




......so whales have genes that look like olifactory genes in other creatures....but modern genetics has shown that similar genes may have radically different functions in different organisms.......just like similar pieces of wire can have radically different functions in different machines......which again indicates Intelligent Design.....rather than Spontaneous evolution!!!



The 'tinkering' has been largely due to mutagenesis and recombination..... and you are correct it hasn't been directly controlled......the original intelligent input ONLY occurred at Creation!!!:):D

I have been through a zoology degree and I was taught that recapitulation is longer accepted as a valid theory. My books do not advocate the theory either.

Pharyngeal gill slits are visible in the embryos of chordates betraying their common ancestry. Tetrapod gill slits disappear as the embryo develops because such structures are no longer needed by terrestrial animals.

If you read the link I supplied you would discover that you are in err again.

“Several creationist websites and tracts which I have come across claim that the woodpecker’s tongue "is anchored in the right nostril,"(C1) or grows "backwards" out of the nasal cavity (C2). The primary connections between the woodpecker's hyoid apparatus and the rest of its body are muscles and ligaments which attach the hyoid to the mandible (jawbone), cartilage of the throat, and base (not top) of the skull - the same configuration found in all other birds. In the adults of a few species, the hyoid horns may eventually grow forward and into the nasal cavity from above - however the hyoid and the tongue certainly do not grow FROM the nasal cavity.”

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

Do you enjoy ignoring the point I’m making. The nerve does a job but it does it by taking a weird and wonderful yet unnecessary trip around the face.

The trigeminal and facial nerves both have tiny branches inside our ears. It seems overly elaborate that nerves that enervate entirely different parts of the face would send nerve bundles to muscles that are right beside each other.


Well that is some similarity regarding the whale olfactory genes. I think you’re pushing the boundaries of coincidence. Anyway all of these genes are non functional they do not have “radically different functions”, they have no function.

A biologist named Gilad also discovered that primates with colour vision have a lot of non functional olfactory genes. It appears there is a trade off between senses, some design!

Killbot2000

Anyone who claims the Ark story to be factual and at the same time proclaim to understand science is deluded.

I've explained in detail how, for many biological reasons, the story of the Ark could never have occurred in reality. Inbreeding, nutrition, evolution, genetics etc. etc. all conspire against such an event.

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

As a layman, I don't base my belief in Flood geology on creation science, but on the word of God. I welcome creation science's attempt to refute evolutionist science and remove any obstacle people may have to believing the Bible, but creation science is not how anyone can know the truth about God.

That's fine, I can understand that. You get your absolute truth from the bible. However, it keeps coming back to this point for me - why would a creator god bother to give the appearance of an ancient Earth, or the means for us as a species to question the world around us in naturalistic terms? Literally hundreds of thousands of radiometric dates have been published using 40 different methods - and that's radioactivity alone, there are other methods. Futhermore they are all consistent with each other.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's a couple of articles from the Times Higher Educational Supplement I found interesting:
Campus believers preach Genesis
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=203887

"As the crowd, aged between six and sixty, reached a state of agitation, the preacher told them of his evolution debates with scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones. "And none of them will face me again," he boasted." - Mr. Taylor

I imagine any science presented to a crowd showing such a spread of ages would have to be simplistic at best. Again it's back to appealing to people's self-worth and attacking evolution. Whether you believe that humans were God-created or not - the Earth is still 4.6 billion years old. And don't bother telling this geologist it's not!

wolfsbane wrote: »

Science of Earth's birth not set in stone
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=204052

If Ian Fuller, as a geologist, doesn't think radiometric dating comfims an old Earth then all I can say is he musn't understand it. He should have read this:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian perspective, by Dr. Roger Wiens
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

I highly recommend this link (written by a Christian) for anyone who wants to understand radiometric dating, it's not overly technical and I particularly like the APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods, starting on page 24.

If you read nothing else on radiometric dating, read that appendix.

AtomicHorror

I have to say that I find some of this quite amusing. There's a certain naivety to the notion that disproving either modern evolutionary theory or the current understanding of geology will somehow make creationism true. Either event would likely come in the wake of a new and more comprehensive scientific theory (likely leaving even less grey space for God to live in) that creationists would be forced to attack.

In truth, science is self-correcting at its core. Every scientist dreams of being the harbinger of a Kuhn-type paradigm shift. If at any point to date there were a means to categorically overturn genetics-based Darwinian evolution, a scientist would have done it, not a creationist. I'd certainly love to be that scientist (that said, I'd also like a Nobel prize)- but I've looked for holes in evolution and there's simply nothing there that suggests a new model.

On the point of J_C's credibility and his refusal to identify his field... I suppose he's worried that being either a layman or being qualified in an unrelated field will be seen as a cheap excuse to dismiss him. Or perhaps he's worried about identification?

It must be said J_C, it doesn't look great for your scientific arguments if you refuse to be "tested". There are already what appears to be a computer scientist, geologist and a degree-level zoologist in opposition to you. For my part, I have a first-class honours degree in a specialised life science and I'm now in the final year of a PhD in gene therapy. Quite specific without identifying me.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I have to say that I find some of this quite amusing. There's a certain naivety to the notion that disproving either modern evolutionary theory or the current understanding of geology will somehow make creationism true. Either event would likely come in the wake of a new and more comprehensive scientific theory (likely leaving even less grey space for God to live in) that creationists would be forced to attack.

In truth, science is self-correcting at its core. Every scientist dreams of being the harbinger of a Kuhn-type paradigm shift. If at any point to date there were a means to categorically overturn genetics-based Darwinian evolution, a scientist would have done it, not a creationist. I'd certainly love to be that scientist (that said, I'd also like a Nobel prize)- but I've looked for holes in evolution and there's simply nothing there that suggests a new model.

On the point of J_C's credibility and his refusal to identify his field... I suppose he's worried that being either a layman or being qualified in an unrelated field will be seen as a cheap excuse to dismiss him. Or perhaps he's worried about identification?

It must be said J_C, it doesn't look great for your scientific arguments if you refuse to be "tested". There are already what appears to be a computer scientist, geologist and a degree-level zoologist in opposition to you. For my part, I have a first-class honours degree in a specialised life science and I'm now in the final year of a PhD in gene therapy. Quite specific without identifying me.

No one ever said the demise of evolutionism would prove creationism. It will just remove one objection to creationism. That's all creationists are really concerned about - to remove obstacles to the belief in the Bible as the word of God.

As for JC's concerns, he has every right to be concerned as discrimination against creationist scientists is well-documented; it is even recommended by several anti-creationist academics.

Here's a flavour of the latest on such discrimination:
The Abraham Affair - Fired for Disbelief
http://www.answersingenesis.org:80/articles/2007/12/10/abraham-affair

The Dissent of Men and the Rise of Their Oppressors
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled-review

wolfsbane

Hot Dog wrote: »

Which is why the wonder of empirical evidence comes in, it has been observed that ships over a certain size leak a very great deal due to the flexible nature of wood. Neither you nor I can understand the maths in your link (which makes me wonder why you posted it) but we can both appreciate the anecdote of the Wyoming being so beset by flexing and twisting that she needed pumping from day one. In any case, your article pays little attention to that phenomenon, instead addressing roll stability, pitch and yaw and such like.

SO unless you can actually explain the maths to me in laymans terms (as I am a geologist, not an engineer) I'll cry foul on this one, and accuse you of posting garbage you don't understand from creationist websites.

Yet again the lack of actual scientific training ion creationists is showing.

I posted the link to show that research by ship experts had been done on the ark. As to the technical issues, I am unqualified - as you too admit to be - to comment. In my ignorance I assumed the section Structural Safety included all aspects, including flexing and twisting. But perhaps these staffers of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering were ignorant of the fact that wood flexes and twists.

It also strikes me to point out that the Wyoming may not have been constructed like the Ark, so the problems it faced may not have applied to the Ark.

wolfsbane

Eschatologist said:

That's fine, I can understand that. You get your absolute truth from the bible. However, it keeps coming back to this point for me - why would a creator god bother to give the appearance of an ancient Earth, or the means for us as a species to question the world around us in naturalistic terms? Literally hundreds of thousands of radiometric dates have been published using 40 different methods - and that's radioactivity alone, there are other methods. Futhermore they are all consistent with each other.

The appearance of old age in a youthful object comes in two forms:
1. Actual appearance of age: Adam and all created things would have appeared as their appropriate mature age, even when only 1 second old. BTW, this is not that old tale that creationists are supposed to believe God planted the fossils in the rocks. There is no such deliberate hiding of age in the Bible account.

2. Deduced appearance of age: man working from assumptions - e.g. radioactive rates of decay being constant - applies those asumptions to the dating of objects.

The latter is the issue here. Have the rates ever changed? Can they change?

Is it not true that some radioisotopes give different ages to other isotopes? Is it not true that other dating methods likewise give different dates? Is it not true that these discordant dates are ignored in the dating consensus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Here's a couple of articles from the Times Higher Educational Supplement I found interesting:
Campus believers preach Genesis
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...orycode=203887

"As the crowd, aged between six and sixty, reached a state of agitation, the preacher told them of his evolution debates with scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones. "And none of them will face me again," he boasted." - Mr. Taylor

I imagine any science presented to a crowd showing such a spread of ages would have to be simplistic at best. Again it's back to appealing to people's self-worth and attacking evolution. Whether you believe that humans were God-created or not - the Earth is still 4.6 billion years old. And don't bother telling this geologist it's not!

OK, but the geologist Ian Fuller differs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Science of Earth's birth not set in stone
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=204052

If Ian Fuller, as a geologist, doesn't think radiometric dating comfims an old Earth then all I can say is he musn't understand it.

See, that's my problem - you assure me as a geologist that the dating is secure of an old earth. But he is as qualified as you, and denies it - and he is not alone. Seems to me the issue is not as clear cut as we are led to believe.

He should have read this:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian perspective, by Dr. Roger Wiens
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

I highly recommend this link (written by a Christian) for anyone who wants to understand radiometric dating, it's not overly technical and I particularly like the APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods, starting on page 24.

If you read nothing else on radiometric dating, read that appendix.

I'm sure he did - and found it wanting. But it is a worthy challenge to creationists, from my humble reading of the section you recommended. I look forward to reading a direct response to it. Thanks for posting it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I posted the link to show that research by ship experts had been done on the ark.

Well no, you posted a link done by people who work at the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering. That is a bit different. I have a good friend who works at the London Met Office, but he works in databases and wouldn't be a expert in weather forecasting.

But anyway, the mistake these "experts" made is that they counted for 8 variables when in fact a study like this should include a 9th, forward velocity. They ignored how the actual movement of the boat itself would effect its sea worthiness.

The interesting thing about this study is that it is actually invalidated by another Creationist study that tried to model what the ocean currents on a world covered in water would be like

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD
JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, Ph.D.
DANIEL W. BARNETTE, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation

If Baumgardner and Barnette are right then the currents in the water would reach speeds of up to 87 meters per second. Baumgardner and Barnette use this high velocity water to explain rapid erosion btw.

The problem of course is that the Ark would have been pulled at high speed all over the place, and out to deep water and high seas. The Korean research works on the assumption that didn't happen, they treat the flood as if it was simply the Ark on a body of water like a lake, and therefore ignores the damaging effects of such effects.

This highlights one of the major issues with Creationist research.

Everyone is apparently afraid to combine their research with other research to form any type of over all picture because when they do the whole thing falls apart. Individual Creationist research invalidates other individual Creationist research far more than proper science tries to, and you can't say the other Creationists are biased or out to get the idea of a Biblical Creation. So Creationists stick to isolated individual studies. Which isn't how science is supposed to work

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

But perhaps these staffers of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering were ignorant of the fact that wood flexes and twists.

In my capacity as a professionally qualified mechanical engineer (specializing in the mechanics of solids -- flexion, torsion, bending etc), it seems that you are refreshingly and unexpectedly accurate in suggesting that these guys don't have a clue.

.

Hot Dog

No one ever said the demise of evolutionism would prove creationism. It will just remove one objection to creationism. That's all creationists are really concerned about - to remove obstacles to the belief in the Bible as the word of God.

Reality should not be considered an obstacle.

It also strikes me to point out that the Wyoming may not have been constructed like the Ark, so the problems it faced may not have applied to the Ark.

the Wyoming had the advantage of steel trusses, comparatively modern ship building techniques. it also did not have to be absolutely enormous in order to fit all representatives of all creatures that have ever lived, dinosaurs, mammals, arthropods, etc, so it seems likely that the Wyoming was "built better" than the ark, and it was still a piece of ****. So unless you actually know of some better method, it looks like you are just grasping at straws.

Ekancone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg

stevejazzx

Hot Dog wrote: »

Because the validity of your pronouncements are what gives doubt to you having any scientific training at all. Also, your jack of all trades working knowledge,encompassing as it does astronomy, geology, engineering and zoology looks more like the (poorly understood) talking points form AIG than an honest to goodness polymath. This, combined with your continual hedging when called upon to substantiate what research and learning you have actually undertaken, makes me suspect you are little more than a puffed up mouth piece for the anti scientific crowd, grossly overestimating his own ability.

Bravo for that post..although I do remeber Scoflaw I think trying to establish the same about oooooh...couple thousand posts ago? JC said he felt threatened about revealing such information, Scofflaw scoffed (zing! just got that reference - Seinfeld?) and it was pretty much left at that.

stevejazzx

aig wrote:

Since all hull forms in this study had a rectangular cross section, the GZ curve could be determined analytically by examining the movement of B as a function of the heel angle f as follows:

Makes sense now...

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

As for JC's concerns, he has every right to be concerned as discrimination against creationist scientists is well-documented; it is even recommended by several anti-creationist academics.

Discrimination, as in identifying a clear difference between these terms, is essential.

Creationists are not scientists.

The terms are mutually exclusive. A scientist may believe in creationism, but if creationism enters into a person's work as the basis of their investigations, they are not a scientist of any description.

A scientist assumes an initial position without proof, however this position must be falsifiable- must be testable. Such a falsifiable initial assumption is called a hypothesis. Hypotheses that are disproven (or found to be untestable), are discarded and a new hypothesis is assumed by the scientist.

A creationist proceeds from the assumption that an omnipotent intelligence (specifically the Judeo-Christian God) created the universe and all life. His initial assumption cannot be falsified using the scientific method, and indeed his creator forbids any such efforts. The creationist's initial assumption cannot therefore be called a hypothesis and it follows that the creationist cannot be referred to as a scientist.

None of this forbids a scientist from having religious beliefs. The conflict arises when non-testable assumptions of any form are made in the process of his investigation.

AtomicHorror

stevejazzx wrote: »

Since all hull forms in this study had a rectangular cross section, the GZ curve could be determined analytically by examining the movement of B as a function of the heel angle f as follows:

INCOMPREHENSIBLE MATHS FOLLOW

Makes sense now...

Thank you for inflicting that on us. And thank the FSM that the maths underlying genetics is so simple, I'd never cut it as an engineer.

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Discrimination, as in identifying a clear difference between these terms, is essential.

Creationists are not scientists.

The terms are mutually exclusive. A scientist may believe in creationism, but if creationism enters into a person's work as the basis of their investigations, they are not a scientist of any description.

A scientist assumes an initial position without proof, however this position must be falsifiable- must be testable. Such a falsifiable initial assumption is called a hypothesis. Hypotheses that are disproven (or found to be untestable), are discarded and a new hypothesis is assumed by the scientist.

A creationist proceeds from the assumption that an omnipotent intelligence (specifically the Judeo-Christian God) created the universe and all life. His initial assumption cannot be falsified using the scientific method, and indeed his creator forbids any such efforts. The creationist's initial assumption cannot therefore be called a hypothesis and it follows that the creationist cannot be referred to as a scientist.

None of this forbids a scientist from having religious beliefs. The conflict arises when non-testable assumptions of any form are made in the process of his investigation.

Very well put. I also like Todd Strandberg's take on it:

Evolutionism Vs Creationism a pointless debate

The conflict between the theory of evolution and creationism has been actively debated for the past century. The warfare in the court system has largely quieted down, but the battle in the print media still rages. If you visit any typical Christian bookstore, you will likely find a large section of books devoted to the topic of the origin of life.

After studying this issue for several years, I have concluded that very little can be gained by debating evolution vs. creationism. Two of the biggest obstacles to effective debate on the topic are: 1) the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to forever resolve the issue; and 2) the lack of openmindedness on the part of both camps.

Our limited understanding of the historical record and the workings of the universe makes it difficult for any side to get an advantage over the other. Until the day comes when God supernaturally reveals himself, both sides will still be entangled in this endless battle.

Because salvation is the most important issue for us to be spending our time and energy on, all Christian endeavors need to be productive in the area of winning people for the Kingdom of God. When it comes to soul winning, arguing about creationism simply does not carry any weight. Because of the combative nature of this conflict, the salvation message always seems to be lost in the struggle.

I agree 100 percent with my creationist brethren that our ancestors did not swing from trees by their tails. I just don't think we should be conducting a propaganda war to win new converts.

The Church has a proven history of using faith to triumph over science. When Christians switched to battling with the weapon of science, they began suffering one defeat after another. Evolutionists have good reason to crow about their victories in public schools and in institutes of higher learning. Over the years, they have mopped the floor up with creationists, having won virtually every major contest. With creation science having such a dismal record, I think it's time to look for a better strategy.

Read more Here

Sorry if this has been posted before, I haven't read all the posts in this discussion.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote: »

Bravo for that post..although I do remeber Scoflaw I think trying to establish the same about oooooh...couple thousand posts ago? JC said he felt threatened about revealing such information, Scofflaw scoffed (zing! just got that reference - Seinfeld?) and it was pretty much left at that.

I think we did it at least twice, but a couple of thousand posts ago for sure. I may, perhaps, have scoffed a bit. I certainly have 'form', as they say, when it comes to scoffing at JC - but I am very fond of him all the same.

Sorry I'm not here so much - have struck a rich and novel vein of loonery in the coils of the Lisbon debate, and am enjoying digging my way up people's nostrils there, although debating conditions are, alas, less cordial in politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Soul Winner wrote: »

Very well put. I also like Todd Strandberg's take on it:

Evolutionism Vs Creationism a pointless debate

The conflict between the theory of evolution and creationism has been actively debated for the past century. The warfare in the court system has largely quieted down, but the battle in the print media still rages. If you visit any typical Christian bookstore, you will likely find a large section of books devoted to the topic of the origin of life.

After studying this issue for several years, I have concluded that very little can be gained by debating evolution vs. creationism. Two of the biggest obstacles to effective debate on the topic are: 1) the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to forever resolve the issue; and 2) the lack of openmindedness on the part of both camps.

Our limited understanding of the historical record and the workings of the universe makes it difficult for any side to get an advantage over the other. Until the day comes when God supernaturally reveals himself, both sides will still be entangled in this endless battle.

Because salvation is the most important issue for us to be spending our time and energy on, all Christian endeavors need to be productive in the area of winning people for the Kingdom of God. When it comes to soul winning, arguing about creationism simply does not carry any weight. Because of the combative nature of this conflict, the salvation message always seems to be lost in the struggle.

I agree 100 percent with my creationist brethren that our ancestors did not swing from trees by their tails. I just don't think we should be conducting a propaganda war to win new converts.

Highlighting that by way of personal vindication , since I regard this as one of the major driving forces behind Creationism.

Soul Winner wrote:

The Church has a proven history of using faith to triumph over science. When Christians switched to battling with the weapon of science, they began suffering one defeat after another. Evolutionists have good reason to crow about their victories in public schools and in institutes of higher learning. Over the years, they have mopped the floor up with creationists, having won virtually every major contest. With creation science having such a dismal record, I think it's time to look for a better strategy.

Read more Here

Sorry if this has been posted before, I haven't read all the posts in this discussion.

Enjoyable read, although with the usual failure to distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution. The following paras gave me a slight pause:

Even if Mars were a mirror copy of Earth, with perfect conditions for supporting living organisms, it would still be highly unlikely that any type of life would form on that planet. The odds are stacked so heavily against the formation of the complex molecular structures, the discovery of living organisms in any other region of our own solar system would only serve to prove the existence of a divine Creator.

Good preemptive claim there. Abiogenesis is so "unlikely" that finding evidence for it on other planets is actually evidence it didn't happen. Sound strategic thinking, that man. Top marks for ability to think his way through a corkscrew without touching the sides.

Soul Winner wrote:

It is reckless for someone to think it is a simple feat to have 3 billion amino acid molecules perfectly link up to form the basic genetic code of life. All scientists should find themselves forced to use the term "miracle" when assessing the odds for life forming on any planet.

It certainly would be reckless to claim that 3 billion amino acids link up perfectly to form the basic genetic code of life. Just not reckless for the reason the author apparently assumes it would be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AtomicHorror

Scofflaw wrote: »

It certainly would be reckless to claim that 3 billion amino acids link up perfectly to form the basic genetic code of life. Just not reckless for the reason the author apparently assumes it would be.

I need an agnostic version of the exclamation "Jesus". That's pretty badly off the mark alright. Confusion between proteins and nucleic acids aside, using the word "miracle" to describe abiogenesis would certainly not be suitable. It's a loaded word.

Abiogenesis on Earth is merely "improbable" over short periods of time. The more time we allow for the event (let's assume the world is older than 6000 years), the greater the probability becomes.

Killbot2000

Another point about the Ark story, if we condsider the length of time that the world was flooded, the Ark must have had to accomodate for all flying creatures as well, bats, birds, insects, pterosaurs etc. They have to land sometime. Perhaps this was pointed out before but I never thought about it like that.

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

The appearance of old age in a youthful object comes in two forms:
1. Actual appearance of age: Adam and all created things would have appeared as their appropriate mature age, even when only 1 second old. BTW, this is not that old tale that creationists are supposed to believe God planted the fossils in the rocks. There is no such deliberate hiding of age in the Bible account.

To the majority of people the Earth appears old regardless of what the Bible says. My point was why not make the appearance of age consistent with the bible to begin with. And I know creationists already believe in that consistency, but the majority of scientists don’t. I was just curious of the disparity.

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. Deduced appearance of age: man working from assumptions - e.g. radioactive rates of decay being constant - applies those asumptions to the dating of objects.

The latter is the issue here. Have the rates ever changed? Can they change?

Assumptions are fine but there must be verifiable and repeated evidence. The majority of scientists do not dispute the theoretical (half life and decay equations) nor the experimental (hundreds of thousands of measurements) foundations on which nuclear physics is based and the practical uses we derive from such understanding. It's far more than just assumptions.

I find it incredible that some creationists can harp on about carbon isotopes, a direct application of the fundamentals of nuclear physics, as proof of a young Earth - never mind the delightfully convenient short half life and that somehow the rules apply for these short ages. Yet when they go to look at the vast literature on an old Earth and all those thousands of ages published in peer-reviewed journals – suddenly we’re dealing with “assumptions”. By that logic creationists would also have to give up on the carbon isotopes as proof of anything.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Is it not true that some radioisotopes give different ages to other isotopes? Is it not true that other dating methods likewise give different dates? Is it not true that these discordant dates are ignored in the dating consensus?

You’re not being very specific about the context of the ages. I’ve addressed in previous posts why geologists don’t use K-Ar to date lava flows (older xenoliths). It's not appropriate for metamorphic rocks either (subject to reheating). Discordant dates? Yes of course they exist, but being ignored in the consensus? There are many published papers which deal with discordant dates, in fact these dates can actually be used to time metamorphic events. It’s not like we’re hiding away these results! The U-Pb concordia-discordia method is also used in discordant systems to circumvent the problem of lead loss.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, but the geologist Ian Fuller differs.


See, that's my problem - you assure me as a geologist that the dating is secure of an old earth. But he is as qualified as you, and denies it - and he is not alone. Seems to me the issue is not as clear cut as we are led to believe.

Yes well, we also have creationist biologists saying evolution can't happen. Again, the majority of scientists feel the way I do – old Earth. I’m faintly incredulous that he can hold the stance he does, being of my field of science. Regardless of my opinion though, the vast evidence for an old earth remains.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's all creationists are really concerned about - to remove obstacles to the belief in the Bible as the word of God.

The vast majority of Christians believe without rejecting science such as evolution, so that seems a pretty weak excuse.

In fact plenty of Christians view YEC itself as an obstacle to belief in the Bible, because they are concerned that people seeking salvation but not sure of which religion will believe Christians like you and think that to be a Christian and accept Jesus one must believe in the YEC interpretation of Genesis (which hardly anyone does for obvious reasons).

Because it is so obvious that YEC is nonsense it is in fact turning people away from Christianity, and the rest of Christianity is rather annoyed at you guys for doing that.

http://www.answersincreation.org

Soul Winner

Soul Winner quoting Todd Strandberg and highlighted by Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree 100 percent with my creationist brethren that our ancestors did not swing from trees by their tails.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Highlighting that by way of personal vindication , since I regard this as one of the major driving forces behind Creationism.

I also agree with him but I think that is beside the point he is making. He is entitled to believe that we did not swing from the trees by our tails without proof just like a scientist can believe we did descend from the trees without proof, (not withstanding Ken Miller's gnome linkage between apes and man), there might be a relationship between the two but that is not proof of descent. Is it?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Enjoyable read, although with the usual failure to distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution.

I’m confused. What does his failure to distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution indicate?

Scofflaw wrote: »

The following paras gave me a slight pause:

Todd Strandberrg wrote: »

Even if Mars were a mirror copy of Earth, with perfect conditions for supporting living organisms, it would still be highly unlikely that any type of life would form on that planet. The odds are stacked so heavily against the formation of the complex molecular structures, the discovery of living organisms in any other region of our own solar system would only serve to prove the existence of a divine Creator.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good preemptive claim there. Abiogenesis is so "unlikely" that finding evidence for it on other planets is actually evidence it didn't happen. Sound strategic thinking, that man. Top marks for ability to think his way through a corkscrew without touching the sides.

I agree with you 100%. The unlikely-ness of something existing is not proof of its non existence. Just like the unlikely-ness of Christ rising from the dead is not proof it didn't happen. Or is that what you are saying? I’m not sure what either of you are saying to be honest But again I think that is all beside the overall point he is making. Which said point is that this is an endless pointless debate, one you could say that the scientists are winning and will always win, because the creationists use science to prove their religion without using the scientific method to back it up.

Tod Stranderg wrote: »

It is reckless for someone to think it is a simple feat to have 3 billion amino acid molecules perfectly link up to form the basic genetic code of life. All scientists should find themselves forced to use the term "miracle" when assessing the odds for life forming on any planet…

Scofflaw wrote: »

It certainly would be reckless to claim that 3 billion amino acids link up perfectly to form the basic genetic code of life. Just not reckless for the reason the author apparently assumes it would be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Possibly, but from a scientific point of view we don't actually know that yet do we? So if we use the scientific method as outlined by Atomichorror above, that “A scientist assumes an initial position without proof” we can assume this molecular link up to be a miraculous one until it is proven otherwise by testing via that same scientific method. Can’t we? Or am I now guilty of the charge Todd Strandberg makes, the charge of wielding a scientific weapon to favour a religious end?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I also agree with him but I think that is beside the point he is making. He is entitled to believe that we did not swing from the trees by our tails without proof just like a scientist can believe we did descend from the trees without proof, (not withstanding Ken Miller's gnome linkage between apes and man), there might be a relationship between the two but that is not proof of descent. Is it?

Depends on what you mean by "proof"

As you no doubt know nothing in science is proved in a scientific sense. That is impossible since we lack the ability to test that we have demonstrated something 100% correct (to do so you would have to know everything, and we aren't gods)

In layman terms though we can say we are pretty confident or certain about something as to say that it is "proved". Scientists are as certain that we evolved from other species of apes (we are apes by the way), that most likely at some point "swung from trees", as they are about how your computer works or how to build a car engine.

A large body of evidence has been found that doesn't make any sense unless it is viewed in terms of human evolution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m confused. What does his failure to distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution indicate?

Lack of proper understand of the subject he is discussing.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m not sure what either of you are saying to be honest

Abiogenesis is the natural formation of the start of life, or life like systems.

The author is saying that this is very unlikely to happen which points to a Creator making it happen. But he rather strangely states that if we find life has happened on other planets this doesn't demonstrate that natural formation of life is not as unlikely as we thought, but that this some how still supports the idea of a Creator.

Which doesn't make a lot of sense. Surely the more we find life throughout the universe the more this demonstrates that abiogenesis is not as unlikely as once believed and the less we need the concept of a Creator to explain life.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if we use the scientific method as outlined by Atomichorror above, that “A scientist assumes an initial position without proof” we can assume this molecular link up to be a miraculous one until it is proven otherwise by testing via that same scientific method. Can’t we?

Evolution doesn't state that amino acids suddenly linked up (this is a common misrepresentation by Creationists of what evolution states).

So it isn't really an issue.

Thousands of amino acids can't just randomly form together, nor is such an unlikely event necessary to providing a natural explanation for the formation of life on Earth (such as Neo-Darwinian evolution).

The point is that amnio acids are not evidence of a miracle, because we can explain how they form without divine creation (without resorting to extremely implausible random events).

That isn't to say that they weren't divinely created. But there is little reason to suppose that. For example if it starts raining there is no way to say that God hasn't just caused that to happen (a miracle), but equally we can explain the phenomena perfectly well without invoking God so people wouldn't be rushing to say "miracle! miracle!"

Eschatologist

Wicknight wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians believe without rejecting science such as evolution, so that seems a pretty weak excuse.

In fact plenty of Christians view YEC itself as an obstacle to belief in the Bible, because they are concerned that people seeking salvation but not sure of which religion will believe Christians like you and think that to be a Christian and accept Jesus one must believe in the YEC interpretation of Genesis (which hardly anyone does for obvious reasons).

Because it is so obvious that YEC is nonsense it is in fact turning people away from Christianity, and the rest of Christianity is rather annoyed at you guys for doing that.

http://www.answersincreation.org

Well said.

Job 12:8 "Speak to the Earth and it shall teach thee" - I like it!

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

I also agree with him but I think that is beside the point he is making. He is entitled to believe that we did not swing from the trees by our tails without proof just like a scientist can believe we did descend from the trees without proof, (not withstanding Ken Miller's gnome linkage between apes and man), there might be a relationship between the two but that is not proof of descent. Is it?

The evidence shows that, at the very least, we share a common ancestor with the modern monkey species. The apes, the old world monkeys and the new world monkeys diverged from a common ancestor approximately 40 million years ago. The apes, which would later give rise to humans, diverged from the old world monkeys some 15 million years later. I'm not sure if it has been firmly established whether we have a direct monkey ancestor species, but we certainly share a burrow-digging, bug-eating, common ancestor with our prehensile tailed cousins.

Whether a direct ancestor of man literally swung from trees by its tail is largely irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It should also not be a factor in how palatable the theory is. Such a distaste for the characteristics other simian species is irrational.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m confused. What does his failure to distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution indicate?

A failure to understand that evolution can occur without abiogenesis. At this time an alternate origin of life is unsupported by any evidence- if this changes it has no impact on evolutionary theory whatsoever.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree with you 100%. The unlikely-ness of something existing is not proof of its non existence. Just like the unlikely-ness of Christ rising from the dead is not proof it didn't happen. Or is that what you are saying?

Many of the reactions required for abiogenesis can be demonstrated in a laboratory setting. It is, in principle, something that we can test and eventually prove or disprove. This makes abiogenesis a hypothesis. The possibility of the resurrection of people as a practical event may also be testable given sufficiently advanced science. As an event proving the power of an untestable deity as well as the subjects own supernatural nature- it is not testable and is therefore not a hypothesis.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Possibly, but from a scientific point of view we don't actually know that yet do we? So if we use the scientific method as outlined by Atomichorror above, that “A scientist assumes an initial position without proof” we can assume this molecular link up to be a miraculous one until it is proven otherwise by testing via that same scientific method. Can’t we? Or am I now guilty of the charge Todd Strandberg makes, the charge of wielding a scientific weapon to favour a religious end?

The best answer to this is a question; "How would you scientifically test if an event were 'miraculous'?". The essential difference between a scientist and a creationist is that a scientist will only adopt testable initial assumptions. All other assumptions are meaningless within the context of the scientific method.

On abiogenesis, nobody is suggesting that complex molecular structures spontaneously came into existence.

Here comes my speculation (less than a hypothesis really).

Putting aside amino acids as a starting point (they don't convey genetic information), my own current assessment of the most likely path of abiogenesis begins with the synthesis of the nucleotides (which are minor modifications of the organic molecules common on the young earth) and the formation of short RNA strands. RNA can self-polymerise to form strands (probably no more than 20 nucleotides in length for the first few million years) and also forms a template for a "mirror strand" (what we call an antisense strand). This allows Darwinian evolution to begin its work. Natural selection acts at this point to favour the most stable and easily replicated strands, some of which become structures resembling ribosomes (large clumps of RNA with an enzyme-like function rather than a genetic function). The concurrent formation of amino acids (the blocks which form protein) and phospholipids (which will spontaneously form compartments that would some day become cell membranes) creates a mix of bits which would have formed protocells by sheer accident and with a calculable low frequency. The very first protocells would have been wildly unsuccessful, would have promptly degenerated into bits and the process would have to start all over again. The above process repeats itself countless times in multiple locations (of varying suitablity) over the course of approximately 2 billion years (that's 2000 million years), before we finally get the protocell (or possibly several seperate protocells in multiple locations) that gave rise to life on Earth. It is also possible that all or part of this process occurred elsewhere in the universe before reaching earth via some sort of impact event.

Far from being the very convenient (and much less probable) lightening-bolt moment of "muck to life" implied by J_C, the actual process must have been a painfully slow and drawn out set of convergences of probabilities over the course of an unimaginably massive stretch of time.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Far from being the very convenient (and much less probable) lightening-bolt moment of "muck to life" implied by J_C, the actual process must have been a painfully slow and drawn out set of convergences of probabilities over the course of an unimaginably massive stretch of time.

Probably a billion or more years. Which, needless to say, is a long time.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Probably a billion or more years. Which, needless to say, is a long time.

I think the rough timescale, so long as it happened on Earth, is something like 2.2 billion years. I think that covers the condensation of liquid water up to the earliest fossils.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

Very well put. I also like Todd Strandberg's take on it:

Evolutionism Vs Creationism a pointless debate

The conflict between the theory of evolution and creationism has been actively debated for the past century. The warfare in the court system has largely quieted down, but the battle in the print media still rages. If you visit any typical Christian bookstore, you will likely find a large section of books devoted to the topic of the origin of life.

After studying this issue for several years, I have concluded that very little can be gained by debating evolution vs. creationism. Two of the biggest obstacles to effective debate on the topic are: 1) the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to forever resolve the issue; and 2) the lack of openmindedness on the part of both camps.

Our limited understanding of the historical record and the workings of the universe makes it difficult for any side to get an advantage over the other. Until the day comes when God supernaturally reveals himself, both sides will still be entangled in this endless battle.

Because salvation is the most important issue for us to be spending our time and energy on, all Christian endeavors need to be productive in the area of winning people for the Kingdom of God. When it comes to soul winning, arguing about creationism simply does not carry any weight. Because of the combative nature of this conflict, the salvation message always seems to be lost in the struggle.

I agree 100 percent with my creationist brethren that our ancestors did not swing from trees by their tails. I just don't think we should be conducting a propaganda war to win new converts.

The Church has a proven history of using faith to triumph over science. When Christians switched to battling with the weapon of science, they began suffering one defeat after another. Evolutionists have good reason to crow about their victories in public schools and in institutes of higher learning. Over the years, they have mopped the floor up with creationists, having won virtually every major contest. With creation science having such a dismal record, I think it's time to look for a better strategy.

Read more Here

Sorry if this has been posted before, I haven't read all the posts in this discussion.

i agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments. I'd go one further though, and say so what if evolution is real. Creation in Genesis is one page. God made everything and rested. There's obviously a hell of alot of detail missing. I'm certain that we were created, and i have Faith in the risen Christ as my Lord, and in his father as our creator. Enough said. i wouldn't even add in the little dig about 'i don't believe we were swingin' from the tree's'. In fact I would distance myself from the creationists. It seems to me that they believe that they are zealously defending the faith. In reality, I think they would have no problem coming up with a falsehood if they felt it helped their 'cause'. Thats my 2 cent anyhoo.