Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
AtomicHorror said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't have to prove the existence of the garden - it is a given for my argument's starting point.
If you can't even verify your starting point, what hope does the rest of your argument have. I was under the impression that you were willing to have a logical debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, that is an alternative to a straight defiance of God. It is listed in the Bible as the method the devil uses to con people who would be unsettled by an obvious defiance of God. It is called delusion - any lie that is designed to replace the Truth in men's minds. Anything that assures them there is a better explanation than that given in God's word.
As to motivation, at bottom it is still defiance of God, but self-deluding oneself that one is being an honest pursuer of truth.
The above is largely the same as the "defiance of God" motive. The only difference being the followers' ignorance of the underlying cause. It's a real convenient one too, another cop out. You can ascribe "delusion" to any and all who appear to you subjectively to be contradicting scripture. My question was how you can tell that these are the motives of those who accept the theory of Evolution?
1. I was once one of you.
2. The Bible tells me so.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You don't. They share with you - indeed excel you - in an underlying antipathy to God. Hypocrisy stinks, and the more outwardly religious one is while being godless within, the greater the stink.And again, you assume an antipathy towards God, but how do you know this to be the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
AtomicHorror: Why are so few scientists willing to support your literal interpretation of scripture? Is this some profession-specific curse of wickedness? Something that naturally comes with knowledge of nature?
Yes - Pride.
Considered a negative characteristic by Christians. Certainly many scientists have it. But that is no cause for self delusion or mindless herd behaviour. Pride did not save Franz Gall's theories of phrenology from being debunked, nor Maxwell's luminiferous aether. Even Isaac Newton, one of the giants of physics, was eventually cast down by the constant self-analysis of the scientific community. Like Newton, Darwin was found lacking too. We discarded that of his work which did not fit observations in order to formulate the modern synthesis. And the names of those who debunked the others are remembered well too. Einstein put an end to Newtonian gravity as anything more than an approximation. Were evolution found wholly lacking, there would be no shortage of scientists ready to tear it down and place their own mark in scientific history.Uhuh. So, essentially a broad anti-intellectual message? "Don't mind those clever types telling you that you're wrong. They're the ones who are wrong. Trust me, God told me that."No, my point was that your assertion that science is merely trying to fit into the framework of evolution is incorrect. Much of the framework came first. Evolution just happened to fit neatly into it. Every day new observations are made which continue to fit into the theory of evolution without any difficulty. Next to some fields in science, we biologists have a pretty easy job. Most of the really big questions have been answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I think you are really saying they would have accepted any dating that fitted their theory - 100M or 4.5B.
Nope. When Darwin wrote Origin, the time needed for evolution from a common ancestor was not known. Nor was it clear that a single common ancestor was actually the starting point. Later that notion became a widely accepted hypothesis that could only be tested once the nature of the gene were discovered. The fossil record soon demonstrated that a whole lot of time was actually needed. This was not news to geologists, but it was to biologists and physicists. Later, when Watson and Crick identified DNA as the genetic material, the single origin hypothesis could finally be tested. It held.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Radiometric dating has its own assumptions, which creationists challenge and have shown not to be inviolable.
Radiometric dating encompasses more than a dozen techniques, each best suited to differing time scales which overlap. All are known to be error prone. However, as with the Egyptian chronology, only the creationist posit that these errors are on a scale grand enough to allow the world to be less than 10,000 years old. This fits in with what is known of tectonics, erosion, and all the general rules of geologists, who had long held that the world was billions of years old before the physicists came along and said "oops, actually you were right".Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
None. For that is not the starting assumption of their scientific theory. It is part of their theology.
Let me get this straight. The "hypothesis" of creationism is not that Genesis is literally true? Do they not hold that any evidence which appears to contradict scripture cannot be true?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They start with a perfect, mature creation. You start with the first self-replicating life. Neither you nor they have to account for how that came about for the respective theory to stand.
Evolution stands without an explanation of the origin of life. But creationism is not equivalent to the theory of evolution in terms of scope. Creationism is equivalent in scope to the Standard Model of Physics, Inflation Theory, Stellar and Planetary Formation Theory, Geology, the putative Origin of Life hypotheses and Evolution.Essentially, it holds itself as an alternative to all of the natural sciences combined.Science, as a whole framework, is obligated to ask questions as long as there are questions to be asked. Creationism will stop asking when someone says "God did it".Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Thanks for the concession. But you need to read more or listen to some of the creationist vs evolutionist debates on DVD. Didn't seem to me that the evolutionists came through unmarked - to say the least!
Would those DVD debates happen to be published by creationists?
If any of you would like a FREE copy of this:
https://store.creationontheweb.com/uk/product_info.php?cPath=23_32&products_id=646&osCsid=00f7c7ba01580d6fa6bc99145569d854
just email your address to:
http://www.icmbooks.co.uk/ and say wolfsbane said to sent you a copy of 'Facing the Fire'. No need to give your forum/thread details - this should keep your anonymity safe.0 -
And that is why you shall never convert us. If you proved something like that we would have no choice but to side with you immediately.
Luke 16:31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
You will be converted if God converts you, not me. He has done so for countless millions down the ages. Even violent opposers came to recognise the truth in their hearts and turned to God in repentance of their sins and trusted in Christ for salvation.
That's my prayer for you - even if you don't like it.:D0 -
I'm just fed up of reading articles by people with no experience in the field of palaeontology trying to dismiss the latest fossil finds when they clearly have no clue of what they are on about.0
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »I think Robin's point stands. We are here to debate with each other. By all means use sources to support a point that you are making, but short answers followed by a link to an essay written by someone else don't deserve many points.
I can't speak for the others but I feel no fear in reading these articles you link to. I do at times feel a deep frustration at the simple-minded and often dismissive content, just as anyone would when confronted flat denialism. But there is nothing in there that challenges me in the intellectual or scientific sense.
As to my position: I just do not have the time to work out in my own words the scientific argument in all these posts. I'm here to help others find the answers creationism has - that's best done for me by giving the refs. It would be even easier to just make the assertion, and leave you to search for yourselves - but that's to impose too much on your time.
All I can say to Robin et al is it's there if they want it.0 -
Certainly the more popular-level stuff would come across like that to many. But I found the more technical articles much more formal.
As to my position: I just do not have the time to work out in my own words the scientific argument in all these posts. I'm here to help others find the answers creationism has - that's best done for me by giving the refs. It would be even easier to just make the assertion, and leave you to search for yourselves - but that's to impose too much on your time.
All I can say to Robin et al is it's there if they want it.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror said:
Ok, then please indentify the location where the first replicating cell occurred.
Its location is unknown, but under investigation as a part of abiogenesis research. This will of course have relevance to evolution. Its existence, location unknown, is already proven by genetic analysis.Two reasons:
1. I was once one of you.
2. The Bible tells me so.
1. Whether you subjectively believe yourself to have been acting in defiance of God has no bearing on anyone else.
2. Your interpretation of that source is disputed by the vast majority of Christians. The source itself has never been fully verified.
And an added point:
3. You cite delusion as a tool that Satan uses to make us wicked types act in defiance of God. Assuming this delusion is powerful enough to make us discard rationality entirely, as it would have to be, how can you establish firmly that you are not deluded?The atheist disobeys God because he believes He does not exist. The religious hypocrite disobeys God because he believes in a god totally unlike the God of the Bible. His idea of God is one that condones his sin. The hypocrite is a practical atheist.
Not an answer to my question. You stated that atheist seek to destroy the belief in God so that we may act imorally without guilt. I asked you to demonstrate how atheists are acting less morally than theists. If the "hypocritical" theists are no more moral than we, then why do we need to abandon God in order to be immoral?What, and humble themselves to confess the God of the Bible is real? That His word about origins has been confirmed? I doubt it. But if they brought strong evidence to support any other theory - panspermia, whatever - that would bring them great cudos and inflate their pride even further.
I didn't say that they would prove God real if the opportunity arose. I said that they would happily prove evolution false. Your equation of these two things is part of the problem. Evolution does not disprove God. Disproving evolution does not prove God. The dichotomy is false.
So the question remains. Given that scientists will not accept the existence of God in either case, why have they not disproven evolution?Well, not dismissing intellectual effort, but firmly putting it in its place. God's revelation is supreme, and is the test for all else. The intellectuals and powerful of this world have an especial difficulty with that.
So essentially, if it were written in the bible that the world were flat, you would at this moment be disputing its roundness in the face of all evidence. Or if there were an ambiguous meaning to that line, one literal and the other metaphorical, you would still choose the literal. Good to know what we are up against.The different disciplines seek to fit in with one another - always in the billion year scenario. Uniformitarianism was there before Darwin, but evolution and the long ages scenario reinforce one another. If a dating doesn't fit, it is cast aside as anomalous. All is made to fit or is discounted.
Utterly untrue. Anomaly is one of the triggers of scientific revolution. For example, when evidence began to emerge in opposition of Newton's laws, some scientists did indeed dismiss the measurements as erroneous. But the measurements were reproducible and so modifications to the existing framework were made to explain them. It didn't work. The physics community were thrown into crisis, and this was not resolved fully until Einstein published General Relativity.
A wee essay on the structure of scientific revolution, for your consideration:
It's Revolution, BabyAs I said, any date that suited their theory.
Did you read what I said? The old Earth came first. This gave the biologists far more time than they thought they needed. It wasn't until later that they realised that the geologists had pre-empted their need.Does it fit in with what is known of the decay in the magnetic field, or the salinity of the oceans, or the rate of recession of the moon, for example? And why do some geologists dispute your claims on scientific grounds?
Creationists do, geologists do not. They certainly revise those radiometric techniques whenever a new parameter can be shown to be influencing the results. Old dating results are cited and adjusted constantly.
The salinity of the oceans speaks of an old Earth, not a young one. As to the rate of recession of the moon, what of it?They have that as a theological standard. It does not form a part of their scientific model.
Then if they were presented with evidence that refuted their "hypothesis", they would abandon the literal interpretation of genesis?Indeed it encompasses all that. But in its dispute with evolution, it accepts whatever starting point the evolutionists limit themselves to. In this case, the first life, not how that life came to be.
Why then, do we continue to debate abiogenesis as if it were a part of evolution? Why does J C insist on bringing up "combinatorial spaces" with reference to nucleic acids and proteins when these are elements of abiogenesis and not evolution?Rather, the current understanding of those.
Science requires no external body to challenge it's current understanding. It is self challenging. Anyone who wishes to use science as a method becomes part of that self challenging system. Creationists are excluded because they're not using science. I've already mentioned the nature of scientific revolution and change above. To use J C's patented argument by analogy, what you are suggesting is rather like claiming that a rugby team can win Wimbledon. It's not just that we aren't playing by the same rules, we're not even playing the same game.
We're playing "Prove it" and you guys are playing "God did it".That point only happens when science can go no further. Or are you saying science asks what brought the universe into being, and what brought that into being, etc?
Yes. At this time we cannot see an end to questioning. If we happened to find God in there somewhere, we'd carry on questioning even then.Yes - I'm not sure if the evolutionist debaters also issued copies of the debates - but these give the full debate, not just the creationist part.
If any of you would like a FREE copy of this:
https://store.creationontheweb.com/uk/product_info.php?cPath=23_32&products_id=646&osCsid=00f7c7ba01580d6fa6bc99145569d854
just email your address to:
http://www.icmbooks.co.uk/ and say wolfsbane said to sent you a copy of 'Facing the Fire'. No need to give your forum/thread details - this should keep your anonymity safe.
Interesting, I may actually take you up on that Wolfie. Thank you.0 -
-
Just to clarify that point, I think the term "unit" is better than cell. Cell implies the modern complicated cell structure, which wouldn't have just popped into existence, but most likely would have evolved itself. The first replicating unites, the start of evolution, would have been a lot similar to what we know today as a cell
I mention this so we can get away from having another tired debate about the odds of a cell forming randomly.
Would someone mind explaining the difference? I'm just curious...0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Would someone mind explaining the difference? I'm just curious...
Well, self replication is not limited to cells as we would know them. Nucleic acid strands could hypothetically be self-replicating. Such strands contained within a membrane might also be as well. I tend to refer to these as proto cells, but I guess the definition is debatable.0 -
Ah they are quoting the scriptures now....
im outta here0 -
Advertisement
-
HouseHippo wrote: »Ah they are quoting the scriptures now....
im outta here
Ah don't let it get to you, they'll do that. For them, scripture > seeing stuff.0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Would someone mind explaining the difference? I'm just curious...
Well a cell is quite a complex thing, made up of a lot of different functioning parts. It is highly unlikely that a cell simply came into existence spontaneously.
The most likely explanation is that cells as we understand them evolved from simpler replicating molecular units. As far as I know computer simulations have shown self-replicating molecules evolving to have simple wall like structures, forming as Atomic might say, proto-cells, the precursors to what we know today as modern cells. This is one possible way that self-replicating molecules could have evolved into cell like structures, though there are other hypothesis as well.
The issue, as Atomic points out, is that because there is no physical evidence left of these proto-cells, unlike fossilize cells that have been dated to approx 3 billion years ago (or last week if you are a Creationist :eek:), so it is currently just speculation about how they formed. It is doubtful we will ever find physical evidence of these proto-cells as they most likely didn't fossilize. So the theory of the evolution of biological life starts with cells because they are the earliest biological replicating units we have evidence existed in the fossil record.0 -
Well a cell is quite a complex thing, made up of a lot of different functioning parts. It is highly unlikely that a cell simply came into existence spontaneously.
The most likely explanation is that cells as we understand them evolved from simpler replicating molecular units. As far as I know computer simulations have shown self-replicating molecules evolving to have simple wall like structures, forming as Atomic might say, proto-cells, the precursors to what we know today as modern cells. This is one possible way that self-replicating molecules could have evolved into cell like structures, though there are other hypothesis as well.
The issue, as Atomic points out, is that because there is no physical evidence left of these proto-cells, unlike fossilize cells that have been dated to approx 3 billion years ago (or last week if you are a Creationist :eek:), so it is currently just speculation about how they formed. It is doubtful we will ever find physical evidence of these proto-cells as they most likely didn't fossilize. So the theory of the evolution of biological life starts with cells because they are the earliest biological replicating units we have evidence existed in the fossil record.
I think computer modelling will be the key to extending the theory to its greatest possible extent. Probably the closest we will come to seeing the first protocell will be by simulation. We have a lot of the information we need now- the current state of the various genomes and the fossil record. We have a good understanding of the environmental conditions going back a fair while too. What we really need is a clearer picture of the time scale for abiogenesis as well as a better idea of the starting conditions. Abiogenesis experimentation will help with that, as will our understanding of geology. The more we know, the less uncertainty will be in our simulation.
Even if we were to find newly formed proto cells here on Earth, or elsewhere, the conditions are different. So I think the geologists and physicists are going to be the guys that'll break this one more so than the biologists.0 -
robindch said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I can say to Robin et al is it's there if they want it.
I've read it. It's crap.
A pity you find them all crap. I leave that to the other readers to assess for themselves. They most likely will be limited in their time to read, and in the range of their expertise, but will be able to assess some of it. I hope they do so without prejudice.0 -
robindch said:
I commend you for your extensive reading, and expertise in all the disciplines. The creationist sites cover all the sciences and have thousands of articles. Well done!
A pity you find them all crap. I leave that to the other readers to assess for themselves. They most likely will be limited in their time to read, and in the range of their expertise, but will be able to assess some of it. I hope they do so without prejudice.
EDIT: very fitting article.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
MrP0 -
robindch said:
I commend you for your extensive reading, and expertise in all the disciplines. The creationist sites cover all the sciences and have thousands of articles. Well done!
A pity you find them all crap. I leave that to the other readers to assess for themselves. They most likely will be limited in their time to read, and in the range of their expertise, but will be able to assess some of it. I hope they do so without prejudice.
Wolfie, you have several times admitted your inability to assess the "science" in these articles. To be honest I'd say you could easily read them critically if you wanted, and quite easily read conventional science in the same matter. But it seems you are resigned to being a "non-scientist". So take it from a biologist, the ones that cover biology are just as Robin says, crap. There's a reason the data, when it is actually present, is not peer reviewed and published. I'm no chemist or physicist, but if the other articles follow the same model as the biology ones, they can't be much better.0 -
Like Thomas, you won't believe unless you see. Maybe God will show you a sign. But a bad heart won't be changed even by sight:
How nice of you to label me as having a bad heart just because I don't believe in the literal account of Genesis.Really? I haven't seen any such dismissals of fossil finds - at least from the creationist side. Refs?
It was either yourself or J C who send me a Creationist 'rebuttal' on the creature Tiktaalik's pkace in evolution. Unfortunately the author in question was a chemist (not a palaeontologist) and had little clue what he was writing about.
A quick google search reveals similar Creationist articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/07/story-walking-fish
The article rants on about the coelacanth being some kind of a stumbling block to evolution, which has been shown to present no problem whatsoever.
Same old rubbish.0 -
AtomicHorror said:Quote:Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Ok, then please indentify the location where the first replicating cell occurred.
Its location is unknown, but under investigation as a part of abiogenesis research. This will of course have relevance to evolution. Its existence, location unknown, is already proven by genetic analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Two reasons:
1. I was once one of you.
2. The Bible tells me so.
1. Whether you subjectively believe yourself to have been acting in defiance of God has no bearing on anyone else.
2. Your interpretation of that source is disputed by the vast majority of Christians. The source itself has never been fully verified.
1. My experience is supported by the witness of many Christians. I know what the sinful heart can do. That is not absolute proof it is so in your case, but point 2 covers that.
2. My interpretation of the Bible on creation is the historic position of the Church - that many today have abandoned it is a comment on their ability to hold two conflicting propositions at once.And an added point:
3. You cite delusion as a tool that Satan uses to make us wicked types act in defiance of God. Assuming this delusion is powerful enough to make us discard rationality entirely, as it would have to be, how can you establish firmly that you are not deluded?
Of course, one could say the Bible is mistaken and my belief in it therefore mistaken or delusional. To that I can only say that my inward spiritual assurance has been confirmed many times by outward circumstances - God answering prayer, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The atheist disobeys God because he believes He does not exist. The religious hypocrite disobeys God because he believes in a god totally unlike the God of the Bible. His idea of God is one that condones his sin. The hypocrite is a practical atheist.
Not an answer to my question. You stated that atheist seek to destroy the belief in God so that we may act imorally without guilt. I asked you to demonstrate how atheists are acting less morally than theists. If the "hypocritical" theists are no more moral than we, then why do we need to abandon God in order to be immoral?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What, and humble themselves to confess the God of the Bible is real? That His word about origins has been confirmed? I doubt it. But if they brought strong evidence to support any other theory - panspermia, whatever - that would bring them great cudos and inflate their pride even further.
I didn't say that they would prove God real if the opportunity arose. I said that they would happily prove evolution false. Your equation of these two things is part of the problem. Evolution does not disprove God. Disproving evolution does not prove God. The dichotomy is false.So the question remains. Given that scientists will not accept the existence of God in either case, why have they not disproven evolution?So essentially, if it were written in the bible that the world were flat, you would at this moment be disputing its roundness in the face of all evidence.Or if there were an ambiguous meaning to that line, one literal and the other metaphorical, you would still choose the literal.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The different disciplines seek to fit in with one another - always in the billion year scenario. Uniformitarianism was there before Darwin, but evolution and the long ages scenario reinforce one another. If a dating doesn't fit, it is cast aside as anomalous. All is made to fit or is discounted.
Utterly untrue. Anomaly is one of the triggers of scientific revolution. For example, when evidence began to emerge in opposition of Newton's laws, some scientists did indeed dismiss the measurements as erroneous. But the measurements were reproducible and so modifications to the existing framework were made to explain them. It didn't work. The physics community were thrown into crisis, and this was not resolved fully until Einstein published General Relativity.A wee essay on the structure of scientific revolution, for your consideration:
It's Revolution, BabyQuote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said, any date that suited their theory.
Did you read what I said? The old Earth came first. This gave the biologists far more time than they thought they needed. It wasn't until later that they realised that the geologists had pre-empted their need.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Does it fit in with what is known of the decay in the magnetic field, or the salinity of the oceans, or the rate of recession of the moon, for example? And why do some geologists dispute your claims on scientific grounds?
Creationists do, geologists do not.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3481/
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3522
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3491
They are both creationists and geologists.They certainly revise those radiometric techniques whenever a new parameter can be shown to be influencing the results. Old dating results are cited and adjusted constantly.The salinity of the oceans speaks of an old Earth, not a young one.
The Austin and Humphreys calculation assumes the lowest plausible input rates and fastest plausible output rates. Another assumption is that there was no dissolved salt to start with. If we assume more realistic conditions in the past, the calculated maximum age is much less. from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/578
So even with the max., 62 million years rules out all the dating methods that contradict it, and the evolutionary scenario.As to the rate of recession of the moon, what of it?
Over the approximately 6,000 years since the creation of the universe, the lunar recession rate has been essentially constant at the present value. However, assuming a multi-billion year age, lunar recession rates would have been much higher in the distant past than now. The currently accepted parameters indicate that the moon would have required 1.3 Ga to move from its origin at the Roche limit to its present position. This is the moon’s upper-limit age and shows that the conventional chronology is incorrect. If the solar system were actually 4.6 Ga old, the moon would have receded to a distance from earth approximately 20% beyond its present position. There is a widespread belief that the impact theory of lunar origin has neutralized these dilemmas for conventional chronology. However, this is not true. Lunar scientist Irwin Shapiro used to joke that ‘the best explanation [of lunar formation conundrums] was observational error—the moon does not exist’. The situation has not fundamentally changed, for lunar scientist Jack Lissauer recalled this anecdote as continuing to apply in a post-impact theory paper.11 from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5728/Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They have that as a theological standard. It does not form a part of their scientific model.
Then if they were presented with evidence that refuted their "hypothesis", they would abandon the literal interpretation of genesis?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed it encompasses all that. But in its dispute with evolution, it accepts whatever starting point the evolutionists limit themselves to. In this case, the first life, not how that life came to be.
Why then, do we continue to debate abiogenesis as if it were a part of evolution? Why does J C insist on bringing up "combinatorial spaces" with reference to nucleic acids and proteins when these are elements of abiogenesis and not evolution?Science requires no external body to challenge it's current understanding. It is self challenging. Anyone who wishes to use science as a method becomes part of that self challenging system. Creationists are excluded because they're not using science. I've already mentioned the nature of scientific revolution and change above. To use J C's patented argument by analogy, what you are suggesting is rather like claiming that a rugby team can win Wimbledon. It's not just that we aren't playing by the same rules, we're not even playing the same game.
We're playing "Prove it" and you guys are playing "God did it".
We are not appealing to an external body regarding the general process. That is testable by the laws of science. Even the catastrophe of the Flood is not being dealt with as to why it arose, but only as to the physics/biology of what actually happened then and since. Whether an asteroid caused it or God directly, etc., makes no difference to the assessment of the evidence and the modelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That point only happens when science can go no further. Or are you saying science asks what brought the universe into being, and what brought that into being, etc?
Yes. At this time we cannot see an end to questioning. If we happened to find God in there somewhere, we'd carry on questioning even then.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes - I'm not sure if the evolutionist debaters also issued copies of the debates - but these give the full debate, not just the creationist part.
If any of you would like a FREE copy of this:
https://store.creationontheweb.com/u...bc99145569d854
just email your address to:
http://www.icmbooks.co.uk/ and say wolfsbane said to sent you a copy of 'Facing the Fire'. No need to give your forum/thread details - this should keep your anonymity safe.
Interesting, I may actually take you up on that Wolfie. Thank you.0 -
Gaviscon said:How nice of you to label me as having a bad heart just because I don't believe in the literal account of Genesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Really? I haven't seen any such dismissals of fossil finds - at least from the creationist side. Refs?
It was either yourself or J C who send me a Creationist 'rebuttal' on the creature Tiktaalik's pkace in evolution. Unfortunately the author in question was a chemist (not a palaeontologist) and had little clue what he was writing about.
Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom,3 but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming.A quick google search reveals similar Creationist articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...y-walking-fish
The article rants on about the coelacanth being some kind of a stumbling block to evolution, which has been shown to present no problem whatsoever.
Same old rubbish.
So all you can point ot is dismissal of an interpretation of evidence, not the evidence itself.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Wolfie, you have several times admitted your inability to assess the "science" in these articles. To be honest I'd say you could easily read them critically if you wanted, and quite easily read conventional science in the same matter. But it seems you are resigned to being a "non-scientist". So take it from a biologist, the ones that cover biology are just as Robin says, crap. There's a reason the data, when it is actually present, is not peer reviewed and published. I'm no chemist or physicist, but if the other articles follow the same model as the biology ones, they can't be much better.
Noting as I do that even evolutionists dispute among themselves with similar certainty, it remains a possibility that prejudice - secular or religious - led to your conclusions.0 -
Advertisement
-
They are to science what The Onion is to current affairs.
EDIT: very fitting article.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
MrP0 -
AtomicHorror said:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My Ark is not up for dispute in my mind - its existence and purpose is a fixed truth on theological grounds. It is anyone who has not that knowledge whom I expect to be sceptical, rather than closed-minded about the possibility. So you ask reasonable scepticism of us, but not of yourself? It's hard to see how it is possible to engage in reasonable debate with such a mind set.
But it is about the possibility of an ark. I can be certain it existed, but have to show that it could. You cannot be certain it did not exist, but even if you were, you still need to show why.0 -
[
Did they claim the fossil did not exist? No, and they merely point out the problems of making it to be a missing link:
Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom,3 but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming.
I didn't say they dismissed the fossil outright. They dismissed it's place in evolutionary theory by comparing it to the coelocanth which is not a valid comparison as the two creatures were very different in build.
Tiktaalik:
Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae):
As you can see from above images the front fins of the two creatures are very different. The coelacanth's are used for swimming while Tiktaalik's are somewhere between swimming fins and walking legs allowing it to do a bith of both. Although walking is perhaps a strong word as Tiktaalic's would probably drag itself about rather than walking as we are used to.
While we're talking about Tiktaalik I saw this and taught some of us might find it amusng:
http://gregtaff.com/blog/media/tiktaalik.jpg0 -
... the max. [lunar] age destroys the current dating methods.
Over the approximately 6,000 years since the creation of the universe, the lunar recession rate has been essentially constant at the present value. However, assuming a multi-billion year age, lunar recession rates would have been much higher in the distant past than now. The currently accepted parameters indicate that the moon would have required 1.3 Ga to move from its origin at the Roche limit to its present position. This is the moon’s upper-limit age and shows that the conventional chronology is incorrect. If the solar system were actually 4.6 Ga old, the moon would have receded to a distance from earth approximately 20% beyond its present position. There is a widespread belief that the impact theory of lunar origin has neutralized these dilemmas for conventional chronology. However, this is not true. Lunar scientist Irwin Shapiro used to joke that ‘the best explanation [of lunar formation conundrums] was observational error—the moon does not exist’. The situation has not fundamentally changed, for lunar scientist Jack Lissauer recalled this anecdote as continuing to apply in a post-impact theory paper.11 from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5728/
This, at least, makes a better attempt than other creationist material at reviewing the current literature relating to the subject - in this case, lunar age. However, the headline claim 'Tidal parameter adjustments fail to save a long lunar chronology' is not supported by any reading of the subsequent text.
The idea is that, had the moon always been receding from the Earth at the present rate, it should currently be significantly further away if the moon is as old as science indicates. The rate of recession, though, is predicted to vary according to the prevailing conformation of terrestrial continents. Lump the continents together - as in Pangaea, etc - and the oceans are freer to slosh about the globe, creating less land-water frictional force and slowing lunar recession. All the article offers to counter this is the weak statement that, "From a creationist perspective, doubts exist about whether plate tectonics has occurred in the conventional sense."
I'm no physicist, but it's still obvious to me that this article fails to prove what it claims.0 -
I appreciate your assessment as a qualified biologist. I bear it in mind, while doing the same with the qualified biologists who differ with you.
Noting as I do that even evolutionists dispute among themselves with similar certainty, it remains a possibility that prejudice - secular or religious - led to your conclusions.
Atomic doesn't have to conclude that the Creationists papers are wrong. They don't demonstrate that they are correct. Not that they are true, but that they are correct. That has nothing to do with Atomic personal assessment on the matter.
Even science that turns out to be wrong has to demonstrate itself correct based on its own model. The model can be wrong at representing reality, but you still need a scientific model and the model still has to work.
You don't have to conclude that it does this, it either does it or it doesn't. It isn't a matter of opinion or personal assessment.0 -
I commend you for your extensive reading, and expertise in all the disciplines.A pity you find them all crap. I leave that to the other readers to assess for themselves.
The reason really being quite straightforward -- that COTW and AIG both say that anything that they disagree with is automatically false. With such an attitude, it should not surprise you that they're viewed with little respect.0 -
Does this analysis show that life is all from that first replicating cell, or that more than one such incident occurred? I'd be glad of refs. for the analysis in any case. Thanks.
What we can trace back to is the "last universal ancestor" (LUA). Imagine the "tree of life" being a structure that branches in two every time a new species comes into being. If we only knew of two species in the world, humans and chimps, we could only conclude that the last universal ancestor was a primate. We would not assume this to have been the first life. The minimum traits of that ancestor, assuming we cannot obtain its DNA from a fossil, would be determined by the shared traits of the two descendant species. The more species we can show to be related, the further back our last universal ancestor goes. The process is helped along by our finding some of the species involved still alive, with others having DNA available to us in fossils. At a certain point, neither process can be used and we can no longer know the identity of the common ancestor, only that there was one. At this time, all currently known species that have been genetically analysed are related, and we can construct a tree diagram based on the extent of relationship that leaves us with one origin species for which the basic characteristics are known.
However, so long as there are species we have not genetically analyzed we cannot assert that this is the life that gave rise to all life on Earth. If and when we finally do find a common ancestor of all species (though we will never have it's exact genome), there is the possibility (it's pretty certain in fact) that it had other "cousins" which did not leave their DNA for us to analyze nor enough generations of descendants. So the universal ancestor species will likely never represent the "original cell". It would almost certainly have had ancestors the nature of which we will only be able to estimate. Similarly there were probably many independent abiogenesis events which did not give rise to species which survived. I would speculate that abiogenesis events occurred frequently and proceeded to varying stages several times, with each progressive stage being more and more improbable. But based on what we know now, it appears that only one of these gave rise to the life we see. This is probably because the likelihood that abiogenesis would occur, and then become stable, is very low indeed. 1 in 4 billion on early Earth apparently. If we find more Earths, we may be able to refine that probability further.
Indeed, were we to find life from an alternate abiogenesis event, it is likely that it would differ more on a fundamental level (different genetic code to DNA) rather than superficial (different genes).1. My experience is supported by the witness of many Christians. I know what the sinful heart can do. That is not absolute proof it is so in your case, but point 2 covers that.
2. My interpretation of the Bible on creation is the historic position of the Church - that many today have abandoned it is a comment on their ability to hold two conflicting propositions at once.
1. I can look at millions of scientists and see what we have in common. This does not make us right.
2. The historic position of the church was an interpretation made in ignorance of most of modern science. Indeed, modern science (performed primarily by Christians and Muslims until the last century) was a major influence on reform in the Church.I have the Bible to test my ideas.
But how do you verify the truth of the Bible?I can appeal to any reasonable critic to give a coherent interpretation of its teaching on origins, and be certain to have mine confirmed. Even the liberal scholar who does not regard the Bible as the word of God is able to honestly state what it says.
I imagine many of them would quibble over what parts were intended as literal.Of course, one could say the Bible is mistaken and my belief in it therefore mistaken or delusional. To that I can only say that my inward spiritual assurance has been confirmed many times by outward circumstances - God answering prayer, for example.
What percentage of times have your prayers been answered? I recall believing that prayers had been answered and not many times. Since I stopped praying, I notice no difference in the frequency of good and bad events in my life. This is not evidence at all. It's anecdotal. Just like your own comment. Unless your can show some proof that your version of the bible gives you some quantitative edge over people who take Genesis as metaphor, how do you objectively verify that you are not in fact mistaken?You don't, but I thought it would be obvious why you would pick atheism over hypocrisy. You both arrive at the same liberation from God, but at least you are not juggling with keeping up a pretence. Your personal liberation is more complete, in that they have to limit some of their sins if they are to maintain the show.
Can you show this to be the case? Or prove the motive at all?Because the only alternative model present that can account for the evidence is that of Biblical Creation.
False dichotomy. Prior to the Theory of Evolution, few could have imagined it as a process by which life arose. Should we assume no other way is possible because we cannot imagine it? That only covers conventional materialistic ideas. What about all the other creation myths?Could they point to evidence for panspermia, etc., they would feel free to do so.
Yet they don't. There's not enough evidence for it.They do not feel free to point to God.
They're scientists, which means they follow a method by which they contruct rules based on what they observe. Why would they specifically point to something they can't observe?No, if I saw something that obviously contradicted the Bible - like the flat-earth thing - I would have to question the Bible.
Well then here's one. All life on Earth can be shown to be genetically related using the same method that yourself and your cousin could be shown to be related.No, if metaphor better fitted, I would choose metaphor. That is not the case with the Bible's treatment of creation.
Well you can probably guess what I think about that assertion.I was not refering to science in general, but to that which supports evolution in particular. On that subject no dissent is allowed - modifications are OK, but not the rejection of evolution itself.
No dissent has been accepted. That does not mean it is not allowed. You are basing your assumption that we follow a dogma on the fact that evolution stands unsuccessfully challenged. The challenges have been allowed. They failed for a reason. The evidence is far too strong.Thanks for that. Very interesting. But if the anomalies that mounted all pointed to a recent mature creation, would they be received even by these brave souls who persevered against the status quo? I think not.
Were the evidence good enough, yes. It would be a bold claim and would thus require one hell of a body of evidence. This has yet to be provided. Very far from it in fact.Yes. And they could live with that. But not with 6000 years.
So then, the age of the Earth was not lead by evolutionist thinking, but by geologists.Geologists who do, for example:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3481/
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3522
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3491
They are both creationists and geologists.
Ex-geologists who gave into their fear of a materialist world and fled into the warm comfort of a self-imposed dark age.Only within the limits of the overall assumptions of ancient age.
Were that assertion true, they could still adjust the results by a billion years or more if the error suggested it, just to maintain the facade of flexibility. There has never been a suggestion by an actual non-creationist geologist of an adjustment of anything approaching that order of modification to radiometric dating results. It's not that they hit the line demanded by evolution and stop, they're shy of it by up to 2 billion years by conventional estimates.Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. It’s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is, this evidence is consistent with any age up to 62 million years, including the biblical age of about 6,000 years.
The Austin and Humphreys calculation assumes the lowest plausible input rates and fastest plausible output rates. Another assumption is that there was no dissolved salt to start with. If we assume more realistic conditions in the past, the calculated maximum age is much less. from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/578
So even with the max., 62 million years rules out all the dating methods that contradict it, and the evolutionary scenario.
Yes, except that firstly they omit over a dozen sodium output mechanisms and secondly make the assumption that the input and output rates are largely constant. Also, sodium levels are no better a measure of the ocean's age than any other dissolved mineral level, all of which suggest wildly differing ages. Essentially, they assume constant young earth and find it because of their assumptions. To use an analogy (sorry), this is a bit like estimating a person's age based on their height.Same again: the max. age destroys the current dating methods.
Over the approximately 6,000 years since the creation of the universe, the lunar recession rate has been essentially constant at the present value. However, assuming a multi-billion year age, lunar recession rates would have been much higher in the distant past than now. The currently accepted parameters indicate that the moon would have required 1.3 Ga to move from its origin at the Roche limit to its present position. This is the moon’s upper-limit age and shows that the conventional chronology is incorrect. If the solar system were actually 4.6 Ga old, the moon would have receded to a distance from earth approximately 20% beyond its present position. There is a widespread belief that the impact theory of lunar origin has neutralized these dilemmas for conventional chronology. However, this is not true. Lunar scientist Irwin Shapiro used to joke that ‘the best explanation [of lunar formation conundrums] was observational error—the moon does not exist’. The situation has not fundamentally changed, for lunar scientist Jack Lissauer recalled this anecdote as continuing to apply in a post-impact theory paper.11 from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5728/
Sdep rebuts this perfectly well. Once again, assumptions of a constant and unchanging universe. The mistake you're making is failing to ask "what if the bible is wrong" when testing your assumptions. But of course you can't do that.If it really was proof against it, then Yes. Like in proof against a flat Earth. But not as in a plausible interpretation that gives rise to a conflicting theory.
Look, rational and unbiased people keep offering you that very proof. You say they're misinterpreting the data. Yet they keep doing new experiments that confirm and reconfirm the data. You say they have a bias or a motive, either that they know about or don't. But you can't offer us a means to spot that bias other than beliefs based on your subjective interpretation of a book of indeterminate origins and veracity.It is the rationality of evolution that is under attack there, not the process itself. Evolution presupposes absurb events that led up to it.
No, it just supposes that a self-replicating cell existed. That's not absurd, because self-replicating cells are absolutely everywhere.No, as I've pointed out. Creationism, in its alternative to evolution is not dealing with how creation came into existence - it deals with the process from that. Just as evolution does not have to explain abiogenesis for it to be a theory of the process of life.
But creationism in dealing with just the origin of species, assumes things which are denied by other parts of science. So immediately, it does have to explain itself in full. And the ultimate answer, once you ask "why" enough times, is "God did it". That is unsatisfactory to science until God becomes conclusively observable. Evolution does not contradict any of the other sciences.We are not appealing to an external body regarding the general process. That is testable by the laws of science. Even the catastrophe of the Flood is not being dealt with as to why it arose, but only as to the physics/biology of what actually happened then and since. Whether an asteroid caused it or God directly, etc., makes no difference to the assessment of the evidence and the modelling.
I think you misunderstand. Creationism is the external body which seeks to overturn science. This is a battle that they can win only in the minds of the ignorant, which is perhaps why they spend such a disproportionate time writing popular level propaganda rather than technical papers.God, by definition, would end it by being the Self-Existent One.
Which will satisfy you, while the scientists continue to ask why.0 -
AtomicHorror said:
If the debate was on the certainty of the ark's existence, you would have a point.
But it is about the possibility of an ark. I can be certain it existed, but have to show that it could. You cannot be certain it did not exist, but even if you were, you still need to show why.
I don't believe I have stated the existence of the ark impossible. I consider it improbable based on the available information. Hence the need for strong and convincing evidence. I'm not sure how many more ways I can rephrase this for you.0 -
I've said this before on this thread (as have others) and I'll probably say it again...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you go around making claims that seem outlandish then be prepared to back them up, otherwise people wont believe you.
The burden of proof is always on the person making the claims, not the other way around. You can't use a phrase like 'Prove me wrong' as evidence for your claims. If that were the case I could say "While on the way to the shops today a magic crocodile gave me some free rice pudding. This is true unless you can prove me wrong." Then I would be right by default (despite my ridiculous claims) unless someone came out and found evidence to prove beyond doubt that it didn't happen. Which, of course is ridiculous.0 -
Advertisement
-
I've said this before on this thread (as have others) and I'll probably say it again...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you go around making claims that seem outlandish then be prepared to back them up, otherwise people wont believe you.
The burden of proof is always on the person making the claims, not the other way around. You can't use a phrase like 'Prove me wrong' as evidence for your claims. If that were the case I could say "While on the way to the shops today a magic crocodile gave me some free rice pudding. This is true unless you can prove me wrong." Then I would be right by default (despite my ridiculous claims) unless someone came out and found evidence to prove beyond doubt that it didn't happen. Which, of course is ridiculous.
So who gets to define whether a claim is extraordinary or not?
If the vast majority of the human race think something is self-evident, but a small minority want to argue otherwise, then who decides who is making the extraordinary claim?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement