The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

Does one 'have' to accept that the evolution of man occurred from one cell - fish etc, to accept that evolution occurs?

Not neccessarily, although you might be accused of cherry picking.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote: »

^^ Cheers for that bonkey.

Very welcome.

You alluded to the fact that the current evolution model has shown to be accurate in its predicting. In relation to the evolution of man, from one cell -fish etc, what has it accurately predicted, and how has this been shown?

You may not realist it. but you are - in effect - asking little less than "what has evolutionary theory ever predicted, and how have all of those predictions lived up to observation".

I'm sure there's some isolated areas in evolutionary theory which we can say with condidence have no implications on human development, but honestly....I can't think of any.

Thats ultimately too general and large a question for me to even think about tackling.

What I would point out is that if - as the question suggests - you can see none of the relevance, then you must surely concede that you are not really in a position to question or evaluate the strength of the position at present, nor criticisms thereof.

All that said...if you can limit the scope of the question, I'll be more than happy to try and answer it from my own layman's perspective

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

Not neccessarily, although you might be accused of cherry picking.

So what. I'm not interested in taking a side, or getting the approval of anyone. I'm trying to get an understanding of the info available. There is alot of propaganda in this debate, alot of assumption, sniggering etc etc. I am trying to filter out such things, and get to the actual facts of the matter. In saying this, I'm not a scientist, so alot will pass over my head, but I'll try.

JimiTime

bonkey wrote: »

Very welcome.



You may not realist it. but you are - in effect - asking little less than "what has evolutionary theory ever predicted, and how have all of those predictions lived up to observation".

I'm sure there's some isolated areas in evolutionary theory which we can say with condidence have no implications on human development, but honestly....I can't think of any.

Well, I'm asking, at what point in the evoltion model, does one predict accurately, that man came from fish? I don't know if thats any better, but thats my question in a nutshell.

What I would point out is that if - as the question suggests - you can see none of the relevance, then you must surely concede that you are not really in a position to question or evaluate the strength of the position at present, nor criticisms thereof.

You may well be correct, but i'd like to have a look anyway, if its plausible

Ekancone

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, I'm asking, at what point in the evoltion model, does one predict accurately, that man came from fish? I don't know if thats any better, but thats my question in a nutshell.

I see what you are asking. Well to put it simply, after the theory of evolution was published one could draw the conclusion while looking at the strata of the fossil record that the earliest organisms lived in the sea. The further up the strata you go, you begin to find land-based animals. So, if the theory of evolution if correct, you would expect to find a series of creatures that appear form a sequence from 'fish' to 'land animal'. This is what the theory would predict.

Here is one such creature found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

With its ancestors illustrated in the picture here:



So there is just one of many examples of where the evolutionary model makes a prediction and is seen to be correct. Over millions of years we see a transition from sea-only creatures to creatures who live in both land and sea. Then eventually you get land-only creatures. And there are thousands of such predictions that evolution makes, not just in the fossil record, but in the DNA record also. The strongest factor that backs up the theory is that so many different fields corroborate to make the same conclusion; that evolution is real.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, I'm asking, at what point in the evoltion model, does one predict accurately, that man came from fish? I don't know if thats any better, but thats my question in a nutshell.

Definitely somewhat better but still tough.

Permit me to take a somewhat circuitous route to offering a stab at an answer...

When we look at recent fossil remains (recent in evolutionary terms), we can clearly identify almost-but-not-quite-human humanoid forms. As these were aged etc. we came to a number of realisations, amongst which was that the more recent, the closer to human some were.

Ultimately, a model was formed which has a "chain" of distinct forms, showing a progression of features or traits....such as the more recent, the more upright. Predictions were made that should new forms be discovered that were dated to between existing forms, those new forms would show these progressive traits in a stage intermediate between the two existing forms. Observation subsequently bore out these "missing link" predictions.

In different fields of study, the same nature of phenomena were observed over and over again. Someone would note that at some point, there must have been a first bird, and that before that one would expect to find transitional fossils, and so forth. Time and time again, these transitional fossils were found. Similarly, the fossil record suggested that land-based animals came from the seas, so we would expect to find transitional forms there...and such transitional forms have indeed been found.

So the generalisation of the model would be something like this:

We have observation which says that before a certain point, all evidence of life points to being water-based-life only.
We have observation that says at some later point, evidence exists for land-based life at alevel of complexioty comparable to water-based life of the time.
We hypothesised that land-based life can have come from the ocean, and inferred from our evolutionary model that this should require transitional forms.
Transitional forms have been found. Whether they are found before or after the point at which we know land-based life exists is relatively moot...as there is (to my knowledge) no claim that life only emerged from the sea once. Such transiational forms merely support the notion that life can emerge from the sea.

Meanwhile, we have found no evidence to suggest that land-based life came from anywhere but from water-based life. No other scientific (i.e. falsifiable) model has been proposed which has come close to being as good a fit to observation.

I haven't come close to giving a full account of all the proof here, but hopefully enough to lead us somewhere discussion-wise.

The important thing to remember is this: There will and must be missing links. Going back to my number example...there are an infinite number of points between any two numbers. Thus, there are an infinite number of data-points between any two existing points. If you find one of those, you now have two sets of data-points, each with an infinite number of points between them. From this perspective, the more evidence you accrue, the more gaps you have!

If you look at it the other way, though, its more interesting I think. We had a large gap and said the equivalent of "Between 1,1 and 100,100, we should find something like 45,45 or 55, 55, or 75, 75". And when we found data with X between 1 and 100, lo and behold, our prediction for Y was pretty-much bang on....time and time again.

As I said before...this doesn't prove our model. Strictly, nothing scientific can be proven correct. All it means is that we can have a high degree of confidence that future observations will match prediction. When they don't, we know we need to rethink the model.

So...to go back to what you asked...

Did man come from fish?

Well, the evolutionary model says that all land-based life came from water-based life, so it certainly implies that somewhere along our chain of evolutionary ancestors, we must end up in the water. It says this because that is the simplest interpretation that fits the data properly.

If we find fossil records that suggest that there was land-based life back at teh same time as our current models say only water-based life existed, that claim is - of course - falsified. But in the absence of falsification, its an inescapable conclusion of even this horribly simplified model that I have presented.

In case anyone is currently thinking it....yes....I am fully aware that the argument I'm making suggests that its not proven. I am also fully aware that nothing in science is proven. You can't even prove that the earth existed when you started reading this post....but good luck to you in constructing a falsifiable model to show that it didn't

JimiTime

^^ Once again bonkey, thanks for all your effort. Its a great start for me. No doubt i'll be back with more Q's.
J.

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

So what. I'm not interested in taking a side, or getting the approval of anyone. I'm trying to get an understanding of the info available.

Thats fine and perfectly reasonable. I wasn't trying to suggest you were doing anything to the contrary, just pointing out that they might.

Galvasean

daithifleming wrote: »

That is a quite helpful picture, unfortunately the Ictyostega model is a bit out of date. More recent reconstructions of this particular creature make it look closer to Acanthostega (also pictured).
Also, the inclusion of the coelacanth is kind of pointless.

Ekancone

Galvasean wrote: »

That is a quite helpful picture, unfortunately the Ictyostega model is a bit out of date. More recent reconstructions of this particular creature make it look closer to Acanthostega (also pictured).
Also, the inclusion of the coelacanth is kind of pointless.

Meh, its wikipedia!

The Mad Hatter

Bonkey, this is all absolutely fascinating and very eloquently put. Thank you.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Thank you for taking the trouble to explain this again. Yes, I see the point you are making. It's just that I never picked up on it before - only models are scientific, the interpretations based on them are not. Is that correct?
On the assumption you're not going to use you're rewording to try and change the meaning of what I've been saying....yes. thats more-or-less correct.

Now that bonkey has confirmed his meaning, I renew my appeal to all scientists here:

*** Would each scientist here please indicate if bonkey is correct in his definition? ***

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote: »

What are the Life 2.0 projects? I tried googling but all I got was a bunch of rubbish on Second Life the computer game. :rolleyes:

Synthetic biology, basically - which is also a better term for it:

Synthetic biology refers to both:

• the design and fabrication of biological components and systems that do not already exist in the natural world
• the re-design and fabrication of existing biological systems.

From syntheticbiology.org.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now that bonkey has confirmed his meaning, I renew my appeal to all scientists here:

*** Would each scientist here please indicate if bonkey is correct in his definition? ***

I'm not a scientist, though I wait with baited breath for JC's response

I also wouldn't have phrased it as you have. The "only" is slightly misleading, in the say Creationists love to say "Evolution is only a theory"

Science is modelling

is how I would put it. It means a similar thing without it appearing that this is some how a deficiency.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

bonkey said:


Now that bonkey has confirmed his meaning, I renew my appeal to all scientists here:

*** Would each scientist here please indicate if bonkey is correct in his definition? ***

Hmm. Well, based on the original post, where bonkey's point is that what scientists do is make models of processes, and then make predictions from that model to see whether the predictions match the observations - but not claim to know that this is actually really how reality is working. That is certainly how science operates - modelling successive approximations of reality, and testing those approximations.

If I take "only models are scientific, the interpretations based on them are not" to mean that the model of climate change is the science, whereas the ideas that "we're all screwed" or "western civilisation is wrong" are interpretations, then yes.

There's something of a fuzzy line though. If we take the model of climate change to be accurate, then to say "anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of the current climate changes" is not really an interpretation - it's more of a conclusion. The further the interpretation strays form the model, though, the less scientific it is.

cordially,
if a little cautiously,
on account of being a scientist,
Scofflaw

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

.......if the theory of evolution if correct, you would expect to find a series of creatures that appear form a sequence from 'fish' to 'land animal'. This is what the theory would predict.

Here is one such creature found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

With its ancestors illustrated in the picture here:



So there is just one of many examples of where the evolutionary model makes a prediction and is seen to be correct. Over millions of years we see a transition from sea-only creatures to creatures who live in both land and sea. Then eventually you get land-only creatures.

.....so WHAT was the Evolutionary model 'prediction' for the Coelacanth fish.........did it 'predict' that it would remain a fish without any change over 300 million years????

......and if it 'predicted' that the Coelacanth wouldn't change......WHY does it 'predict' that Ictyostega / Acanthostega (or whatever you're having yourself) would crawl up on land and eventually become Daithifleming??????

.....could I also point out that using the word 'prediction' in relation to fanciful stories that are based on the lives of EXTINCT creatures from the historical PAST........indicates that you have got your tenses mixed up!!!!!
.....it's something like 'predicting' last week's Lotto numbers today.....only a lot less accurate!!!!!!:D

.....the so called 'predictions' of EvolutionaryTheory 'predict' everything from stasis over inordinate amounts of time .....to rapid massive change......and so they 'fit' EVERYTHING.....and explain NOTHING!!!!!!
.....the stories / 'predictions' change constantly....and nobody can prove that ANY of it ever happened!!!!!

.....indeed logic and a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence suggests that all of the 'single cell to Man' stuff NEVER actually happened!!!!:D

J C

Wicknight
its important you understand that science is about testing models, not telling people what is or was happening (as bonkey has explained)

……on that basis, Medical Science would only ‘test models’……rather than telling the patient what is wrong with them……..
…….and Astronomical Science would only ‘test models’……rather than accurately measuring the distance between the Earth and the Moon…….
……..and Biological Science would only ‘test models’……rather than explaining how photosynthesis actually works!!!!
…….and Physics would only ‘test models’ ……..rather than accurately measuring the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second

Models are important within science……but ‘testing models’ is not the ONLY activity that scientists engage in...!!!!:eek::D

Your definition of science as being all about 'testing models' ……and not telling people what is or was happening is a ludicrously limiting and restrictive definition of science…and is actually WRONG!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
It is impossible to judge in any way how accurate the idea of intelligent design may or may not be, so yes it is ignored from a scientific point of view.

Anything can be ‘impossible’ for those who don’t wish to accept it !!!

....you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.....and all that!!!!

In any event, the science of Intelligent Design has made great strides in accurately and definitively identifying the appliance of intelligence wherever Intelligently Designed artefacts are encountered!!


Wicknight
I hope you do now understand what falsifiable means from a scientific position, and why your statement about ID being the only way to falsify Darwinian Evolution is a very inaccurate statement……….
…..Even if your statement was true, that ID was the only way to falsify Darwinian biological evolution, that would not make ID a valid science discipline. In fact the two things have nothing to do with each other.

…….Intelligent Design could falsify Darwinian Evolution (it is certainly not the only thing that could),

…..so you admit that Intelligent design COULD falsify Spontaneous Evolution……just like I said it could…….
.....and I didn’t say that ID was the only way to falsify Spontaneous Evolution…..obviously Creation Science is also capable of falsifying Evolution…….and it has done so AS WELL!!!!


Originally Posted by J C
......so every time you see a nut and bolt do you always wonder whether it was spontaneously generated......or was the result of applied intelligence????

Wicknight
No

OK….


Originally Posted by J C
....and do you ALWAYS have to construct a model of how you believe the nut was created and then test this model against observation.....in order to answer the question of whether the nut and bolt were the result of applied intelligence???


Wicknight
Again, no.

I also wouldn't walk around pretending that I had, as you do with your conclusion of intelligent design.

I don't have a whole lot of problem if you want to conclude that nature must have been intelligently designed, in the same way a person can conclude that a nut and bolt must have been created by Bill down the road. To you, a Biblical literalist, this is probably "common sense".

Could I suggest that to ALL rational people this is common sense!!!:)



Wicknight
The problem comes when you start pretending that you have some how supported this conclusion of yours with science. You haven't. You are just concluding things (in a not particularly rational fashion in my opinion). That is not science.

So, for the Evolutionist it is ‘unscientific’ to draw rational conclusions based on repeatably observable evidence……..
HOW do you draw rational conclusions then????

…..maybe the explanation is that Evolutionists (who believe that if given enough time…..muck will eventually spontaneously produce a Human)…..AREN’T actually rational or objective when it comes to Evolution ......because their whole worldview is dependent on it's validity......and they therfore have a deep emotional investment in Evolution being true!!!!:)


Wicknight
In creationists circles it is called the "Starlight Problem", as AiG call it as well. It is well known enough to have a Wikipedia page

Some Creationists believe that there is a ‘Starlight Problem’…..and they have a number of ways of reconciling it with a Young Universe……

…..I personally don’t believe that there is a ‘Starlight Problem’ in the first place!!!!:cool:


Wicknight
according to general relativity (which most Creationists accept as an accurate model, including the ones I've seen on AiG), light has an upper speed limit,

There is considerable debate on whether light does have an upper limit …… within BOTH Conventional and Creation Science…..and here is an example of the debate within Conventional Science on the issue
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/guest/davis/


Wicknight
……..the speed of light LOOKS LIKE it has an upper limit (which most Creationists accept) and the universe LOOKS LIKE it is very very big (again, which most Creationists accept). Therefore the universe LOOKS LIKE it is very old, because the light needed time to get from one point to us. (emphasis mine)

…..the key phrase is that it ‘LOOKS LIKE’………light had an upper limit and the Universe is very big!!!!

the speed of light may indeed have had been much greater during the Creation Event……
………and the VISIBLE Universe may not be as large as conventional cosmologists believe!!!

….and the Universe is therefore NOT very old at all.:)

J C

Originally Posted by MooseJam
Am I actually the life form or are genes the life form, lots of genes got together and in doing so creating me, me being like the shell of a snail, the snail is the life form not the shell ?

Bonkey
That would be heading into philosophical territory.

Since when has 'heading into philosophical territory' stopped you……

Spontaneous Evolution resides completely within ‘philosophical territory’…….because it is an unfounded faith-based belief held by Materialists!!!!!:eek::D

...and MooseJam's belief that he is merely a 'grab bag' assemblage of genes .....with the approximate value of a SNAIL........rather that a unique ensoled eternal personality and spirit being made in the image of God .......that he truly is, illustrates the desparing nehilism at the heart of Materialism......a nehilism that is increasingly evident in our increasingly materialistic (but unfulfilled and dissatisfied) society!!!

...feeling that you are a freak accident of natural forces on the way towards eternal annihilation must be so depressing!!!!

......the alternative in 1Co 2:9 .....But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.....is so uplifting!!!


Scofflaw
Implications:

1. that life can arise from reactions between various forms of non-living, native matter

2. that life can be described in terms of reactions between various forms of non-living, native matter

These are testable, I think - the Life 2.0 projects certainly haven't turned out to require any mysterious "added ingredient" yet.

……they may be testable......but so far they haven’t spontaneously produced any life !!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by JimiTime
If one believes that adaptation etc can occur, does one have to accept the process that humanity formed from one cell - fish - amphibians etc?.....

....Does one 'have' to accept that the evolution of man occurred from one cell - fish etc, to accept that evolution occurs? Or is it 'reasonable' to say that you believe that this adaptation occurs, however you reject the idea that this adaptation has lead us to where we are over billions of years?

The answer to your question is that 'evolution' in the sense of genetic drift and speciation within kinds has been scientifically established......but one cell - fish etc., 'Evolution' remains firmly within the realm of unfounded speculation........
......so one DOESN'T 'have' to accept that the 'Evolution' of man occurred from one cell - fish etc, to accept that 'evolution' occurs......indeed one doesn't have to accept that Man 'Evolved' from anything else to accept that 'evolution' within Kinds occurs!!!:D



AtomicHorror
The mechanisms in question are:

1) Natural selection
2) Gene flow
3) Genetic drift

Since all three have been directly observed, that does indeed make it rather tricky to prove their non-existence.

There is no argument over the scientific validity of Natural selection, Gene flow and Genetic drift.

The argument is over whether these mechanisms can account for the inordinate amounts of tightly specified, complex, functional information found in living genomes!!!

The Evolutionist contention that they account for ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ is something like claiming that a car is manufactured by driving it from Ireland to China!!!!

Please note that driving a car isn’t a good explanation for the manufacture of a car …..because you have to have the car before you drive it in the first place…..and driving a car ISN’T a manufacturing process!!!!

Similarly, you need an already living organism for Natural selection, Gene flow and Genetic drift to operate ……and these phenomena don’t create new functional information ……they merely select from and/or re-shuffle pre-existing information!!!!!!:eek::pac::):D:rolleyes:
......and the other 'prize horse' in the Evolutionist 'stable' (mutagenesis)...actually DEGRADES functonal information!!!!!:D

Ekancone

Ahh, the bliss of having JC on ignore...

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Ahh, the bliss of having JC on ignore...

Is that ALL you can say in reply to my DEMOLITION of ALL of your arguments????:)

Ekancone

Sorry? What was that?

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Sorry? What was that?

.....it was the total DEMOLITION of ALL of your arguments......so it was!!!:pac::):D

Ekancone

Nope, still not pickin ya up there, sorry.

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's something of a fuzzy line though. If we take the model of climate change to be accurate, then to say "anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of the current climate changes" is not really an interpretation - it's more of a conclusion.

Alternately, one could say that its a falsifiable prediction of the model.

As a parallel, we were told in the 80s (or was it the 90s?) about the gowing dangers posed by the holes in the ozone layer. Scientific models predicted that these were being caused by CFCs and that they would continue to worsen if we didn't limit our emissions in that area. If we did limit our emissions, then the models predicted it would take something like 50 years for the ozone layer to recover to 1980 levels, and some longer period (100 years?) to return to "full health".

We took the recommended action, and currently see that the observations match the predictions. The condition of the ozone layer, with one or two explainable divergences, closely matches prediction.

There are, no doubt, those out there who insist that - as with global warming - its all just a natural cycle, and that the close matching of prediction and observation was just dumb luck...that CFCs had nothing to do with it, that the ozone layer is just healing itself, that Gaia has done something or other, or whatever.

These are interpretations.

The linkage of CFCs to the holes was a falsifiable prediction, in that if we cut out CFCs and it made no difference, we'd have shown the model to be false or incorrect. But if we didn't cut them out, and things continued as predicted....or we did, and things matched those predictions...thats an indication of the quality of the model.

Whether it actually proves that CFCs were the root cause is a matter of interpretation. Its one that I'd readily accept, mind you, but I would still maintain that in the strictest sense it was a case of observation matching prediction.

In the same sense, I would readily accept that AGW theories don't prove man is responsible, but would counter that the observation/prediction match is too good to discard as being non-useful.

bonkey

J C wrote: »

Bonkey
That would be heading into philosophical territory.

Since when has 'heading into philosophical territory' stopped you……

Well, seeing as I've been stressing the distinction between science and non-science for quite some time now, and limiting myself to disussing the former, I would have thought that would be clear.

I notice, however, that you are showing a predilection for this philosophical route, wilst assiduously avoid the question put by wolsfbane to the very few self-confessed scientists here, of which you are one.

Its funny that...me, the layman, wanting to limit myself to discussing science on scientific grounds, and you, the scientist, preferring to attack science on admittedly-philosophical grounds.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Nope, still not pickin ya up there, sorry.

There is none so blind as he who will not see!!!!:pac::):D

J C

bonkey wrote: »

I notice, however, that you are showing a predilection for this philosophical route, wilst assiduously avoid the question put by wolsfbane to the very few self-confessed scientists here, of which you are one.

I have comprehensively answered Wolfsbane's question on scientific models in my answer to Wicknight in posting 10338 above !!!:)

bonkey wrote: »

Its funny that...me, the layman, wanting to limit myself to discussing science on scientific grounds, and you, the scientist, preferring to attack science on admittedly-philosophical grounds.

You may 'want' to limit yourself to "discussing science on scientific grounds"....but you fail in your objective every time you discuss the unfounded belief in Spontaneous Evolution.....which is a philosophical construct!!!!!

The fact that you are a layman.....and not a scientist possibly explains your mistake in this regard!!!!:pac::):D

There is nobody attacking science here......with the possible exception of those who claim that planting a feather in muck will produce a bird in millions of years......or those who claim that a frog will (eventually) turn into a Prince!!!!:eek::pac::):D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

The fact that you are a layman.....and not a scientist possibly explains your mistake in this regard!!!!:pac::):D

No disrespect but Bonkey seems to be carrying himself in a more graceful and scientific manner than yourself. What discipline of science are you in again? Also, does this particular discipline require honors English? I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to use that many full stops mid sentence.

Galvasean

daithifleming wrote: »

Ahh, the bliss of having JC on ignore...

You're missing out. Myself and J C had an epiphany (of sorts) a few pages ago.

Ekancone

JC is just someones wum account. This is the only thread he posts in, after all. Thats why I have decided to put him on ignore, he adds nothing to this debate.