The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

bonkey

Soul Winner wrote: »

Evolutionism is as non-falsifiable as creationism because there is no way ever ever ever ever that it can be dis-proven to be the method by which all living things came into being and evolved thereby, evidence of evolutionary changes observed in nature today not withstanding.

Wolfsbane has an excellent article from NewScientist concerning Evolution Myths that he has promised to keep close to hand.

If you ask him nicely, I'm sure he'll share.

Galvasean

daithifleming wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678

This pretty much sums up the creationist debate for me.

Good video. The last 2 minutes really sum it up. 'Nope'.

So Stein, who told you evolution dictated how the planets revolve around the sun?

Hang on, I think we've just found J_C's secret identity!!!! :eek::pac::eek::pac::eek::pac::D

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

To give a simple example, I claim that someone called Fredrick Q. Bloggs lives in Ireland today. Scofflaw says there isn't. By your reasoning, the onus should be on Scofflaw to prove my claim wrong. How can he do this? Lets say he provides what he claims to be a complete list of birth records, all recorded entries and exits to the country and even an affidavit he claims is signed by every single individual in the country, and none of them are called Fredrick Q. Bloggs. I counter-claim that he's missed someone, and that someone is called Fredrick Q. Bloggs and he's just refusing to accept that I'm right.

Scofflaw can never, ever prove that my claim is wrong. Ever. Its just not possible. In fact, in mathematical terms, Its mathematically proveable that he cannot prove me wrong (an interesting implication of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, if memory serves)!

This suggests that the onus should never have been on Scofflaw to prove my claim wrong. I claim FQB exists, Scofflaw claims he doesn't. Scofflaws claim is unproveable-but-falsifiable. All I have to do is produce a guy who can show his name is Fredrick Q. Bloggs, show he lives in Ireland, and Scofflaw's claim of non-existence is shown to be false.

How did I get dragged into this exactly?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soul Winner

Eschatologist wrote: »

Heck, radioactive decay is purported to have been faster in the past according to creationist 'scientists', never mind that this scenario would also melt the planet. Nice and convenient to just change fundamental physical laws than to have to accept the actual evidence.

Taken form the site you reccomended (first paragraph top of page 14).

"What does one find in the calibration of carbon-14 against actual ages? If one predicts a carbon-14 age assuming that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air has stayed constant, there is a slight error because this ratio has changed slightly. Figure 9 shows that the carbon-14 fraction in the air has decreased over the last 40,000 years by about a factor of two. This is attributed to a strengthening of the Earth's magnetic field during this time. A stronger magnetic field shields the upper atmosphere better from charged cosmic rays, resulting in less carbon-14 production now than in the past. (Changes in the Earth's magnetic field are well documented. Complete reversals of the north and south magnetic poles have occurred many times over geologic history.) A small amount of data beyond 40,000 years (not shown in Fig. 9) suggests that this trend reversed between 40,000 and 50,000 years, with lower carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios farther back in time, but these data need to be confirmed."

Sounds like the same thing. Is it?

Eschatologist wrote: »

No, that's circular reasoning, apologies if I implied that (my post was a bit rushed). The Earth isn't 4.5 Gyr old because evolution needs it to be - the Earth is 4.5 Gyr old because radiometric dating (40 different isotope methods) confirms it to be. This is based on the equations of nuclear physics, careful, repeated and independent measurements of half lives and corroborative ages from Moon samples and meteorites. Literally hundreds of thousands of isotope dates have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. More than one dating method is often used to verify the ages of rocks too. I recommend this site for good solid info on radiometric dating, written by a Christian too! http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Very well explained. I've just finished it and found it very interesting and informative, thanks for the link.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Very good! We can, I think, point to thousands of papers and other works that show the former statement to be the case. Can you point us to the references that show your argument to be true, please?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sure. Here's one from my first google:
Variation and natural selection versus evolution
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/

This from another:
The problem, both then and now, was going from the known to the unknown. Humans have produced many new strains of animals through breeding which have made our life easier and more pleasant. Although these strains were different in certain major ways from their predecessors, they usually soon reverted back to the previous types if allowed to interbreed with them again. Totally new major traits were never developed, but existing ones were re-arranged and favorable ones retained so that certain traits were more pronounced. This type of evolution (if it could be called such) is often termed microevolution, as opposed to macroevolution. Breeding solid black horses is microevolution, breeding winged horses is macroevolution. This dichotomy is artificial, and a clear distinction cannot always be made-and what is now macro may be classified as micro, meaning possible. Microevolution is what we have achieved, thus have experimentally verified, and this is probably a more realistic definition. Macro is what we hypothesize could be achieved, or which, according to fossil evidence and conjecture, might have occurred in the past, given a set of assumptions about the fossil evidence.
Some Biological Problems With The Natural Selection Theory
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure. Here's one from my first google:
Variation and natural selection versus evolution
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/

This from another:

Some Biological Problems With The Natural Selection Theory
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/29/natsel.html

And are these two links evidence that natural selection is a generally accepted part of 'Creation Science'?


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It looks like it is the macro-micro debate all right.
...
Er, OK, if you abide by the same rules.

Most certainly.

Here's what I propose...neither of us will mention the micro/macro issue, directly or tangentially, until I've had a chance to review the entire thread and present a compiled list of links to when it was seriously discussed before. (By seriously, I mean more than a passing reference that one side or the other then ignored, unless I feel that the post is particularly important to one side or the other).

Given that we're talking about a thread thats over 10,000 posts in length, I hope you'll be willing to give me a short amount of time to prepare this. I'd ask for a week to ten days, meaning I "only" have to review somewhere in the region of 1000 to 1500 posts each day.

Along the way, I'll also pick out any definitions of evolution, as offered by either side or discussions of same, seeing as you've mentioned it.

OK. You've a heart like a lion, the back of donkey, ...

It has been unquestionably been alleged to be a strawman. I take it from this response that you agree that this allegation has been made....just that you don't agree that the allegation has been proven.

Correct.

Now...we've agreed not to disuss the past content until we've reviewed it, so I'm only going to address this point tangentially...

As anyone who is familiar with logic should know and which also has oft been pointed out(I hope I don't need to compile a third list here!) it is impossible to prove a negative. No-one can prove that something is a strawman...merely prove that the allegation that it is a strawman is incorrect.

So I would put it to you, given that we appear to agree that the asseertion of "strawmanship" has been made on this issue, that when I produce my list of references, the onus must be on you to show that you (or someone) has proven that it is not a strawman by showing that it does indeed attack something evolution says, rather than something it erroneously claims evolution says.

Certainly.

Now, of course, the implication of this is somewhat unsettling. It means that anyone can just shout 'strawman' any time they like, and put a load of work on anyone making a claim. Well, Id firstly argue that no-one should be making claims they cannot (or are not willing to) back up. More importantly though, after someone has made such claims of 'Strawman' a couple of times and been shown to be wrong each time...well, its a like the Boy Who Cried Wolf really, they won't have much credibility left.

So when this list comes back, are we agreed that the onus is not on me to show that the claim of strawman has been proven, but rather that it is on you to show that the claim is false?

Gladly.

Are we agreed that I cannot show that the theory of evolution doesn't say something, but you can (or should be able to) show that it does?

Hmm. I thought my point was that creationism also holds to adaptation and selection - on the micro scale. You say that is a strawman argument (I'm not sure why). But I'm prepared to show it is not. I made no assertions about evolution's claim to the same process - it is shared by us both.

Quite honestly....if we can't get past such simple understandings of what falsifiability entails, or indeed the fundamentals of the correct apoplication logic, then I'd much rather we spare myself the significant number of hours I'm going to invest in this research.

I'd be happier to just show that you're not applying logic correctly to your argument and let the interested reader draw their own conclusions based on that evidence alone.

Feel free to draw my attention to any logical slips, as you see them.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure. Here's one from my first google:
Variation and natural selection versus evolution
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/

If I'm reading that article right (its not a scientific paper btw, but I've long given up trying to explain the difference to you), the author is suggesting that the Creationist "model" has every organism containing all the genes necessary to produce any type of external feature already in the DNA. Mutation doesn't cause new genetic structure, the genes that are already there just end up being put in the right place to cause the phenotype?

Is that correct?

You can probably guess why I'm asking, such a suggestion (if I'm reading it right) is easily falsifiable and has in fact been falsified already, such as in the case of the "super-bugs" that the author inaccurately describes as already having the gene. They do have the gene before the anti-biotic is applied, but experiences have shown they don't have the gene before the experiment starts. They get the gene through mutation that happens sometime after the start and before the introduction of the anti-biotic.

Are Creationists (or at least this one) stating that in the Creationist "model" (or at least this Creationist's model) mutation doesn't happen? Because again that is easily falsifiable and has in fact been falsified.

Eschatologist

Soul Winner wrote: »

Taken form the site you reccomended (first paragraph top of page 14).

"What does one find in the calibration of carbon-14 against actual ages? If one predicts a carbon-14 age assuming that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air has stayed constant, there is a slight error because this ratio has changed slightly. Figure 9 shows that the carbon-14 fraction in the air has decreased over the last 40,000 years by about a factor of two. This is attributed to a strengthening of the Earth's magnetic field during this time. A stronger magnetic field shields the upper atmosphere better from charged cosmic rays, resulting in less carbon-14 production now than in the past. (Changes in the Earth's magnetic field are well documented. Complete reversals of the north and south magnetic poles have occurred many times over geologic history.) A small amount of data beyond 40,000 years (not shown in Fig. 9) suggests that this trend reversed between 40,000 and 50,000 years, with lower carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios farther back in time, but these data need to be confirmed."

Sounds like the same thing. Is it?

As I understand it, the half life of carbon isotopes is not what changes, but rather the amount of one isotope relative to the other as a result of magnetic shielding and such, as mentioned in the article. The ratio is assumed to be constant because the magnetic field has been fairly stable over the last few thousand years. The field has weakened in the past and this allows more carbon-14 produced by cosmic rays to build up in the atmosphere, so the ratio of it to carbon-12 will change accordingly. But the half-life itself remains constant. With longer-lived isotopes the original amount isn't even necessary for calculating the age, and anyways can be worked out using the simple nuclear equation.

Some creationist 'scientists' claim that the decay rate itself, not the amount of isotopes as in the carbon case, had to have accelerated in the past (sometime after 4000 BC) in order to explain the old ages given by many rocks (which is explained quite nicely by nuclear physics and geology). The Jack Hills zircons from Australia for example give an age of 4.4 billion years (Wilde et al., 2001).

According to the creationists, the decay rate would have to have accelerated by a factor of millions in order to shorten the half lives of long-lived isotopes such as U-Pb, Sa-Nd etc. My favourite point from that article is this: As one small example, recall that the Earth is heated substantially by radioactive decay. If that decay is speeded up by a factor of a million or so, the tremendous heat pulse would easily melt the whole Earth, including the rocks in question! No radiometric ages would appear old if this happened.

So rocks shouldn't even have the appearance of great age, any rock for that matter, if accelerated nuclear decay was the case. The long half lives of these isotopes is what keeps the Earth warm, as their decay over billions of years releases energy in the form of heat.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Very well explained. I've just finished it and found it very interesting and informative, thanks for the link.

No problem, helps keep me on top of the basics too!

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. I thought my point was that creationism also holds to adaptation and selection - on the micro scale. You say that is a strawman argument (I'm not sure why). But I'm prepared to show it is not.

The strawman I am referring to is the artificial, ill-defined micro-macro distinction...which is what I'm going to go and get links for.

The oft-repeated argument, which I do not want to begin from afresh, is that Creationists argue that they accept of adaption and selection, just like evolution, but "on a micro scale" only. Evolutionary theory has no such macro-micro distinction - it is purely and solely a Creationist invention, but you keep phrasing things to say that "just like evolution" you accept these things "on a micro level".

MooseJam

which will win out modern medicine of evolution in term of the batttle against resistant super bugs ?

wolfsbane

bonkey wrote: »

The strawman I am referring to is the artificial, ill-defined micro-macro distinction...which is what I'm going to go and get links for.

The oft-repeated argument, which I do not want to begin from afresh, is that Creationists argue that they accept of adaption and selection, just like evolution, but "on a micro scale" only. Evolutionary theory has no such macro-micro distinction - it is purely and solely a Creationist invention, but you keep phrasing things to say that "just like evolution" you accept these things "on a micro level".

Yep, that is a good description of the issue: whether the distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial or real. I look forward to your presentation.

robindch

MooseJam wrote: »

which will win out modern medicine of evolution in term of the batttle against resistant super bugs ?

Old, but appropriate:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

If I'm reading that article right (its not a scientific paper btw, but I've long given up trying to explain the difference to you), the author is suggesting that the Creationist "model" has every organism containing all the genes necessary to produce any type of external feature already in the DNA. Mutation doesn't cause new genetic structure, the genes that are already there just end up being put in the right place to cause the phenotype?

Is that correct?

You can probably guess why I'm asking, such a suggestion (if I'm reading it right) is easily falsifiable and has in fact been falsified already, such as in the case of the "super-bugs" that the author inaccurately describes as already having the gene. They do have the gene before the anti-biotic is applied, but experiences have shown they don't have the gene before the experiment starts. They get the gene through mutation that happens sometime after the start and before the introduction of the anti-biotic.

Are Creationists (or at least this one) stating that in the Creationist "model" (or at least this Creationist's model) mutation doesn't happen? Because again that is easily falsifiable and has in fact been falsified.

The details are beyond my competence to comment on. Maybe JC can oblidge?

BTW, I posted the link to show that natural selection was accepted in the creationist model. It is of a popular level book, not of a scientific thesis. You could have gathered that from the book's title and subtitle:
Refuting Evolution
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

wolfsbane

MooseJam wrote: »

which will win out modern medicine of evolution in term of the batttle against resistant super bugs ?

Looks like a 'never-ending war on terror' scenario to me. The bugs mutate, we design new drugs to kill them; they mutate, and so on. We can hold the line if we keep up the effort. Intelligent design vs micro-evolution.

But if the bugs ever evolve into non-bugs, I expect things would get really scary. Thankfully, that's only an evolutionary fairy-tale.

pH

wolfsbane wrote: »

Looks like a 'never-ending war on terror' scenario to me. The bugs mutate, we design new drugs to kill them; they mutate, and so on. We can hold the line if we keep up the effort. Intelligent design vs micro-evolution.

But if the bugs ever evolve into non-bugs, I expect things would get really scary. Thankfully, that's only an evolutionary fairy-tale.

According to J C this is only devolution, no new information and all that, so the bugs can't evolve to do anything new, in theory fighting them should get easier over time, in fact we're lucky we're not fighting the real super bugs, the ones with all the genetic diversity created by God 6,000 years ago, only trying to kill their much devolved, information-lost descendants.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Looks like a 'never-ending war on terror' scenario to me. The bugs mutate, we design new drugs to kill them; they mutate, and so on. We can hold the line if we keep up the effort. Intelligent design vs micro-evolution.

Except of course, researchers are already using evolution to help them develop better antibiotics:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050922021043.htm

Do creationists believe that god is reaching down into the test-tube and helping out the researchers here by fiddling with the chemistry to make it looks like evolution is happening?

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

The details are beyond my competence to comment on. Maybe JC can oblidge?

BTW, I posted the link to show that natural selection was accepted in the creationist model. It is of a popular level book, not of a scientific thesis. You could have gathered that from the book's title and subtitle:
Refuting Evolution
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

I still don't get why this is all about evolution. You really should be opposed to abiogenesis. That is the real threat to any intelligent design hypothesis, not evolution.

robindch

daithifleming wrote: »

I still don't get why this is all about evolution.

I suspect the reason is that they've been fighting the anti-evolution fight for so long and have so much political capital tied up with it, that it's impossible to change the name of the war. Bear in mind that it's a political fight, not an evidence-based one.

Like their earlier colleagues who witnessed their gods being chased by observation from the tops of mountains and onto the clouds, then off the clouds and into space, then from there, into "another dimension outside of space and time", creationists have been fighting a violent and fact-free rear-guard action against observation in biology too. A reasonable number of the movement's leaders have admitted for some time that natural selection "works", although they halt at the point at which "new information" is generated, despite it being possible to see this happening in a suburban kitchen with a kid's microscope.

Metaphysically, the issue seems to be that they cannot accept that "information" which is understood to require a conscience-based intention to create and understand, can be created without a conscience and with no intention. Much of religion rotates in circles, sometimes subtly, sometimes not, around this point -- that physical reality is the poor cousin of intentional or symbolic reality and the two realms are separate. Most naturalists have little trouble stepping from one to the other, as any understanding of evolution requires you to do.

Anyhow, back to the point again -- yes, they could stop being as thick as short planks about evolution, but why bother? It's serving its memetic purpose brilliantly and lots of people are making lots of money out of it. In the world of religion, that's really all you've to do.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The details are beyond my competence to comment on. Maybe JC can oblidge?

Ok ... is it "beyond" your competence to understand that what the text book is describing has been demonstrated incorrect a number of times?

What I mean by that is good old fashioned, honest to God, not based on interpretation or how you "view" the evidence, incorrect

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Looks like a 'never-ending war on terror' scenario to me. The bugs mutate, we design new drugs to kill them; they mutate, and so on. We can hold the line if we keep up the effort. Intelligent design vs micro-evolution.

Do you accept that this is what happens?

Because the Creationist "model" presented in that text book you just quoted from specifically says that this is not what happens. Mutation does not cause the development of new features such as drug resistance.

Its very hard to see all this as anything more than knee jerk reaction to science ... science says the sky is blue so Creationist come up with the "theory" that it is in fact yellow ....

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you accept that this is what happens?

Because the Creationist "model" presented in that text book you just quoted from specifically says that this is not what happens. Mutation does not cause the development of new features such as drug resistance.

Its very hard to see all this as anything more than knee jerk reaction to science ... science says the sky is blue so Creationist come up with the "theory" that it is in fact yellow ....

Not being a scientist, I may have misunderstood what it said caused drug resistance. Please point out where it says mutation is not the cause. Am I confusing it with natural selection?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok ... is it "beyond" your competence to understand that what the text book is describing has been demonstrated incorrect a number of times?

What I mean by that is good old fashioned, honest to God, not based on interpretation or how you "view" the evidence, incorrect

Please point out the specifics.

wolfsbane

robindch said:
A

reasonable number of the movement's leaders have admitted for some time that natural selection "works", although they halt at the point at which "new information" is generated, despite it being possible to see this happening in a suburban kitchen with a kid's microscope.

Humour an old layman by telling me specifically where the kid might see this "new information" being generated in his microscope.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not being a scientist, I may have misunderstood what it said caused drug resistance. Please point out where it says mutation is not the cause. Am I confusing it with natural selection?

Well here is a simple equation to explain it:

Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution

I havent read the article, but in simple terms Natural Selection is the external environment in which the bacteria finds itself. So if a type of antibiotic is applied to this environment it is likely to kill 99% of the bacteria. But imagine that some mutation (or copying error) was the reason that 1% survived. Now those bacteria will go on to reproduce and pass on their antibiotic resistance gene to their offspring. Suddenly, the whole population is full of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The scientists invent a stronger type of antibiotic and the whole process starts again.

So in summary: Mutation (antibiotic resistance) + Natural Selection (Environmental changes favouring certain genes) = A newly evolved antibiotic resistant bacteria

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

I still don't get why this is all about evolution. You really should be opposed to abiogenesis. That is the real threat to any intelligent design hypothesis, not evolution.

We are not defending Intelligent Design as such, but the Biblical account of Creation. Both abiogenesis and evolution contradict that, so we oppose them both.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

We are not defending Intelligent Design as such, but the Biblical account of Creation. Both abiogenesis and evolution contradict that, so we oppose them both.

I understand that, but there is such obsession with evolution in particular. If I was a creationist, I would be more worried about abiogenesis than evolution.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Well here is a simple equation to explain it:

Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution

I havent read the article, but in simple terms Natural Selection is the external environment in which the bacteria finds itself. So if a type of antibiotic is applied to this environment it is likely to kill 99% of the bacteria. But imagine that some mutation (or copying error) was the reason that 1% survived. Now those bacteria will go on to reproduce and pass on their antibiotic resistance gene to their offspring. Suddenly, the whole population is full of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The scientists invent a stronger type of antibiotic and the whole process starts again.

So in summary: Mutation (antibiotic resistance) + Natural Selection (Environmental changes favouring certain genes) = A newly evolved antibiotic resistant bacteria

Thanks for a helpful explanation.

But the evolution is still of the micro-level sort, which is common to both the creationist and evolutionist cases. Bacteria micro-evolving into antibiotic resistant bacteria. Not bacteria evolving into non-bacteria, as the theory of evolution says happened to all the present biosphere.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

I understand that, but there is such obsession with evolution in particular. If I was a creationist, I would be more worried about abiogenesis than evolution.

Why? Either are fatal to the Biblical account. Head chopped off or blown to pieces, all the same to the individual.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for a helpful explanation.

But the evolution is still of the micro-level sort, which is common to both the creationist and evolutionist cases. Bacteria micro-evolving into antibiotic resistant bacteria. Not bacteria evolving into non-bacteria, as the theory of evolution says happened to all the present biosphere.

It comes down to what you classify as speciation, I suppose. Science can provide numerous examples of speciation, but you guys just won't accept it until you see a frog turn into prince charming.

Which, by the way, is not what evolution predicts. No big changes, only small incremental ones.