The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

John Doe said:

Variation within species is now sufficient to improve each generation's chance of surviving to procreate.

Yes, Creationists agree with that.

Surely you're not suggesting that scientists risk killing millions of plants/animals/whatever just to see a couple from one species change in a way that you Creationists could accept as major?

No, I'm asking if one organism with a very short life span - a bug, a fly, whatever - could not be encouraged to mutate so that a new organism, something definately not a bug, a fly or whatever the original was, would evolve. Just as the theory of evolution alleges has happened for every organism. Millions, billions of them could be used so as to speed up the process, using many different enviroments.

I gather all we have seen so far in mutations are the wingless fly sort - the genetic problems all organisms suffer, while still remaining the same basic organism.

wolfsbane

Whiskey Priest said:

How is this allowed to happen? Is it tacitly accepted by other scientists outside these fields?

Yes, except for the creationists and a few others who are brave enough to question the received truth. To question evolution today is to open oneself to ridicule as a religious nutter, even if one has no decided religious views.

How did it get to this stage? Evolution provided a respectable alternative to those who disliked/detested the then accepted creationist explanation. Society jumped at the chance to rid itself of its shackles of moral accountability.

How does one tell the good science from the bad, given there's clearly good science going on (oil is being found, genetic therapies are being used, etc)?

By checking for alternative explanations, watching for attempts at suppression of arguments - that indicates who feels a chill wind on the back-side of their cherished theory.:)

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote:

Whiskey Priest said:

Yes, except for the creationists and a few others who are brave enough to question the received truth. To question evolution today is to open oneself to ridicule as a religious nutter, even if one has no decided religious views.

How did it get to this stage? Evolution provided a respectable alternative to those who disliked/detested the then accepted creationist explanation. Society jumped at the chance to rid itself of its shackles of moral accountability.


By checking for alternative explanations, watching for attempts at suppression of arguments - that indicates who feels a chill wind on the back-side of their cherished theory.:)

Anyone who denies the Evolution argument would do well to watch David Attenborough's nature documentaries, especially the one currently running on BBC, 'Planet Earth'. He goes to some of the most unique habitats on earth and shows us specific evolutionary paths for creatures that have adapted to deal with some extremely harsh environments.

Watching a few of these episodes is more convincing and entertaining and inspiring, than plodding through hours of Bible references, or academic texts.

Son Goku

How did it get to this stage? Evolution provided a respectable alternative to those who disliked/detested the then accepted creationist explanation. Society jumped at the chance to rid itself of its shackles of moral accountability.

Or it explained various fossil findings which up until then had been anomalous.

Of course this couldn't be true, it must be that there was a mass urge to become hedonistic unaccountable deviants and suppress the truth.

Let's review:
Some global femi-nazi-lesbian-darwinisitc-secular-athiest-scientific conspiracy with ties to the the Smithsonian Institute is intent on suppressing Christianity.
They do this because of a mix of guilt and influence from supernatural forces bent on warping mankind (as no mere guilt would be enough for something of this magnitude).
This stretches back to the mid 19th century.
Luckily humanity has a few brave Creationist scientists to present the truth.

Do you actually believe this wolfsbane, because it's just ridiculous and moronic.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Well, the claim that all things lived within the Biblical timeframe is certainly a testable prediction of YEC.

Thank you, my friend, for acknowledging that.

On the other hand, Creationists certainly did NOT offer as a prediction that unfossilised dinosaur bone would be found before it was. It is being done backwards, as all Creationist 'science' is done.

Any reasonable person would agree that such a prediction is implied by the very idea of a 6000 year old creation. Here's another I'm sure someone has thought of, but is new to me: increasing DNA knowledge will lead us to a bottleneck of three brothers and their wives (Shem, Ham and Japheth).

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

wolfsbane, are you deaf?
For the millionth time entropy isn't even applicable to evolution.

No, I heard what you said. I just don't agree.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:

No, I heard what you said. I just don't agree.

On what basis?
Explain how it applies.

wolfsbane

Akrasia said:

He goes to some of the most unique habitats on earth and shows us specific evolutionary paths for creatures that have adapted to deal with some extremely harsh environments.

Marvellous photography. But did he show adaption of an organism that still remained a fish/bird/cat? or did he show them change into something different than they were?

Yes, only the former, which creationists also agree on.

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote:

Akrasia said:

Marvellous photography. But did he show adaption of an organism that still remained a fish/bird/cat? or did he show them change into something different than they were?

Yes, only the former, which creationists also agree on.

well, In yesterdays program which concentrated on underground life, he showed a fish with primitive legs, and birds with bat like sonar. He showed animals that had adapted over thousands of generations to lose their Eyes completely, and animals that still had eyes the remains of eyes that didn't work anymore.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Or it explained various fossil findings which up until then had been anomalous.

Please explain.

Let's review:
Some global femi-nazi-lesbian-darwinisitc-secular-athiest-scientific conspiracy with ties to the the Smithsonian Institute is intent on suppressing Christianity.
They do this because of a mix of guilt and influence from supernatural forces bent on warping mankind (as no mere guilt would be enough for something of this magnitude).
This stretches back to the mid 19th century.
Luckily humanity has a few brave Creationist scientists to present the truth.

Humourously put - but basically accurate.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

On what basis?
Explain how it applies.

I haven't time to rehearse my previous posts on this, but here is a much better explanation: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

That entropy is a problem for evolution may be guessed at from these quotes from the article:
'The following statements—complete with metaphors(!)—from respected (evolutionist) scientists don’t seem to reflect Steiger’s perspective, effectively indicating that it is he who has resorted to distorting and perverting the true nature of thermodynamics in order to convince his readers that his naturalistic religious views have scientific validity:
“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

“We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.”
[G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

“Closely related to the apparent ‘paradox’ of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent ‘paradox’ of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.”
[J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]'

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

Humourously put - but basically accurate.

You can't be serious :eek:

wolfsbane

Akrasia said:

well, In yesterdays program which concentrated on underground life, he showed a fish with primitive legs, and birds with bat like sonar. He showed animals that had adapted over thousands of generations to lose their Eyes completely, and animals that still had eyes the remains of eyes that didn't work anymore.

Yes, adaption of an organism. But 'primitive legs' is an interpretation of the evidence. Here's something from a creationist course:

'Fish to Amphibian evolution
Textbooks claim that lobed-finned fish evolved into amphibians.

“Because of these similarities, scientists think the first amphibians were descendants of the lobe-finned fishes, a group whose modern members include the coelacanth and the lungfishes.” Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1998, p. 461.

Note the words “scientists think.” This is an admission there is not evidence to support the claim of fish to amphibian evolution. Evolutionists in the past used the Coelacanth as evidence fish were evolving into amphibians. The claim was that the front fins were “evolving” into legs. The Coelacanth was supposed to be extinct for 70 million years. In 1938 living coelacanths were found still living. The front fins were not legs, but fins. This is another misinterpretation of the fossil record by evolutionists.'

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

You can't be serious

Well, I did say basically.

Most evolutionists would not be conscious of the conspiracy - I hope! - but rather are deluded/intimidated into acceptance of evolution. The antagonism of many may also not be consciously grounded in anti-Christianity, just a natural response of sinful human nature.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:


I haven't time to rehearse my previous posts on this, but here is a much better explanation: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

That entropy is a problem for evolution may be guessed at from these quotes from the article:

<snip>

Has that article undergone scientific scrutiny and peer review?

Of course it hasn't because even I, a physics undergrad, can see holes in it.

Evolution does not violate thermodynamics... If it did, there would be peer reviewed articles.

wolfsbane wrote:

Most evolutionists would not be conscious of the conspiracy - I hope! - but rather are deluded/intimidated into acceptance of evolution. The antagonism of many may also not be consciously grounded in anti-Christianity, just a natural response of sinful human nature.

Can you please back this up.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, adaption of an organism. But 'primitive legs' is an interpretation of the evidence. Here's something from a creationist course:

'Fish to Amphibian evolution
Textbooks claim that lobed-finned fish evolved into amphibians.

“Because of these similarities, scientists think the first amphibians were descendants of the lobe-finned fishes, a group whose modern members include the coelacanth and the lungfishes.” Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1998, p. 461.

Note the words “scientists think.” This is an admission there is not evidence to support the claim of fish to amphibian evolution. Evolutionists in the past used the Coelacanth as evidence fish were evolving into amphibians. The claim was that the front fins were “evolving” into legs. The Coelacanth was supposed to be extinct for 70 million years. In 1938 living coelacanths were found still living. The front fins were not legs, but fins. This is another misinterpretation of the fossil record by evolutionists.'

There's plenty of evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

Would the scientific establishment publish them? Look at what happened in the Smithsonian. So creationists are left to publish and peer-review among themselves. Check the sites for the research and articles. See the TJ archive for articles and links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/

If the science was sound, yes, they would be published.

And the smithsonian incident has not been resolved, and is now looking nowhere near as bad as you made it out to be.

Do you have any other examples? Any evidence? Or are you just making stuff up.

wolsfsbane wrote:

Yes, except for the creationists and a few others who are brave enough to question the received truth. To question evolution today is to open oneself to ridicule as a religious nutter, even if one has no decided religious views.

How did it get to this stage? Evolution provided a respectable alternative to those who disliked/detested the then accepted creationist explanation. Society jumped at the chance to rid itself of its shackles of moral accountability.

please provide evidence for this claim.

In your opinion. And of course, it does constitute a a 'paper on creationism' in that it disproves evolution as a mechanism for biological life.

Behe accepts 99% of evolution. And it is the opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community.

Now... Why should I take the side of the majority? Well... Science isn't about the majority. But the hours of research, the vast amount of papers publishes in peer reviewed journals, the sheer weight of informed theorising and testing of hypotheses adds up to far far more than could be performed by any list of creationist scientists you could produce. So I must therefore conclude that the work of the scientific community has the integrity and rigour needed when addressing and investigating such matters.

Now.. If you want to claim a conspiracy is going on, then you're just ignorant.

Unless you'd like to provide evidence of course.

Really? You'll need to remind me of the proof

Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.

Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf

Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.

Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.

Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.

Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.

Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.

Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000.

Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.

Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.

Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.

Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2002/Feb02/r022802b.html


And that's just a tiny fraction.... There are thousands of examples.

Can you provide any peer reviewed examples of how information cannot increase through mutation and natural selection?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

wolfsbane wrote:

[G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

One thing I have to say for wolfsbane - he's not afraid of the fact that a lot of his science is 40 years old.

wolfsbane wrote:

“Closely related to the apparent ‘paradox’ of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent ‘paradox’ of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.”
[J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110][/B]'

This one is a mere stripling, at 23 years old. However, I will do for wolfsbane what Steiger does for Wallace, and finish the paragraph:

Steiger wrote:

As before, creationist exhortations about violations of the second law need not confuse the issue because local decreases in entropy during self-organization do not imply any such contradiction. Overcompensating increases in entropy elsewhere need only be coupled with the self-organization process. Again, the paradox is only illusory and has only to do with how self-organization occurs, not whether it does. But again we must leave the realm of classical thermodynamics to seek explanation. [J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L. R. Godfrey, Ed., W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]

You may read the discussion here.

Wolfsbane, you need to increase your veracity.

Also, any comments on the mummies?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, except for the creationists and a few others who are brave enough to question the received truth. To question evolution today is to open oneself to ridicule as a religious nutter, even if one has no decided religious views.

How did it get to this stage? Evolution provided a respectable alternative to those who disliked/detested the then accepted creationist explanation. Society jumped at the chance to rid itself of its shackles of moral accountability.


By checking for alternative explanations, watching for attempts at suppression of arguments - that indicates who feels a chill wind on the back-side of their cherished theory.:)

So, petroleum geologists, who use standard dating techniques (erroneous according to you) to establish relations between rock formations, and who use theories of oil formation that involve millions of years (erroneous according to you) - when they find oil it's really an accident, then? I mean, their theories can't be right, given that they contradict the Bible...

Scofflaw

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote:

Akrasia said:

Yes, adaption of an organism. But 'primitive legs' is an interpretation of the evidence. Here's something from a creationist course:

'Fish to Amphibian evolution
Textbooks claim that lobed-finned fish evolved into amphibians.

“Because of these similarities, scientists think the first amphibians were descendants of the lobe-finned fishes, a group whose modern members include the coelacanth and the lungfishes.” Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1998, p. 461.

Note the words “scientists think.” This is an admission there is not evidence to support the claim of fish to amphibian evolution. Evolutionists in the past used the Coelacanth as evidence fish were evolving into amphibians. The claim was that the front fins were “evolving” into legs. The Coelacanth was supposed to be extinct for 70 million years. In 1938 living coelacanths were found still living. The front fins were not legs, but fins. This is another misinterpretation of the fossil record by evolutionists.'

Well the fish i saw on tv on sunday, had hundreds of little microhooks that pulled the fish along the rock the same way a leg works. it is easy to see how those microhooks could grow bigger and reduce in numbers to become legs and the first amphibians. And in regards to the coelcanth that was recently found. If creationists accept that animals can adapt to become different animals, why can't you accept the possibility that the version of the Coelacanth that was discovered alive, was an early adaptation where the front fins had not yet turned into a kind of a leg? What is the difference between a leg and a fin?

robindch

> So, petroleum geologists, who use standard dating techniques (erroneous
> according to you) to establish relations between rock formations, and who
> use theories of oil formation that involve millions of years - when they find
> oil it's really an accident, then? I mean, their theories can't be right, given
> that they contradict the Bible...

Using creationist geology, it could only be a lucky accident, given that the bible's only excursion into petrochemical exploration is a brief Deuteronomic reference to edible oil extracts which can be had from flinty crags, of all places.

Though Proverbs 21:17 goes on to suggest it may not be worthwhile in the long run, since "whoever loves wine and oil will never be rich" which must be sad, if slightly puzzling, news to the wealthy sophisticates of Dallas, Houston and elsewhere.

Asiaprod

Just could not resist posting this, amazing what some people get upto in their spare time, enjoy.

Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark

Dutchman Johan Huibers is building a working replica of Noah's Ark as a testament to his Christian faith.

The 47-year-old from Schagen, 45km (30 miles) north of Amsterdam, plans to set sail in September through the interior waters of the Netherlands. Johan's Ark is a fifth of the size of Noah's and will carry farmyard animals. Mr Huibers, who plans to open the vessel as a religious monument and zoo, hopes the project will renew interest in Christianity in the Netherlands. Although Mr Huibers has tried to remain true to the ark described in the Bible, Johan's Ark is constructed with American cedar and Norwegian pine, rather than "gopher wood".

According to Genesis, Noah kept seven pairs of most domesticated animals, and one breeding pair of all other creatures. Noah's wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law lived together on the boat for almost a year while the world was flooded. Mr Huibers' vision is more modest - he said he plans to stock his ark with horses, lambs, chickens and rabbits - mostly baby animals to save space. "This will speak very much to children, because it will give them something tangible to see that Noah's Ark really existed," Mr Huibers told the Associated Press news agency. The total cost of the project is estimated to be just under 1m euros (£0.7m; US$1.2m) and was funded with bank loans.

Mr Huibers plans to charge people to tour the boat and said a drink and religious pamphlet will be included in the admission price. At least 100,000 people will need to visit for the project to break-even financially. Mr Huibers said his wife was not very keen on the idea. "She always says: 'Why don't you go dig wells in Ethiopia?'," he said. "I've been involved in projects there before but she understands this is my dream."

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Using creationist geology, it could only be a lucky accident, given that the bible's only excursion into petrochemical exploration is a brief Deuteronomic reference to edible oil extracts which can be had from flinty crags, of all places.

Though Proverbs 21:17 goes on to suggest it may not be worthwhile in the long run, since "whoever loves wine and oil will never be rich" which must be sad, if slightly puzzling, news to the wealthy sophisticates of Dallas, Houston and elsewhere.

I must say, I love the alternate Bible translations feature. I must say that Corinthians seems to vary a lot. I'm sure wolfsbane explained how the translations didn't change anything, but can't find the reference...


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Has that article undergone scientific scrutiny and peer review?

I assume not - just like the pro-evolution talk.orgin articles.

Evolution does not violate thermodynamics... If it did, there would be peer reviewed articles.

It would of course then be proving evolution false, and that is not going to get peer-reviewed, for all the reasons already mentioned.

Can you please back this up.

Yes, my own experience shows me I was naturally opposed to God. You should recognise that in your heart also - but depends how honestly you examine yourself.

Do you have any other examples? Any evidence? Or are you just making stuff up.

Yes, I have the testimonies of other scientists who attest the fact that they suppressed anything that opposed evolution - and when they came to reject evolution themselves, experienced that from their colleagues.

please provide evidence for this claim.

See for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i4/religion.asp
For an interesting background:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/darwin.asp

Can you provide any peer reviewed examples

You mean peer-reviewed by evolutionists. I can provide those peer-reviewed by creationists. We have gone over why unbiased peer-review is not presently open to creationists.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

One thing I have to say for wolfsbane - he's not afraid of the fact that a lot of his science is 40 years old.

Hmm. 40 years from now your arguments will be likewise. Does that make them necessarily false?

This one is a mere stripling, at 23 years old. However, I will do for wolfsbane what Steiger does for Wallace, and finish the paragraph:

All I could get from that and the link is that evolutionists won't allow the necessary mechanism to be discussed - but then go on to offer
The overwhelming majority of biochemists and molecular evolutionists who have looked into this matter realize that Prigogine's dissipative structures provide a very viable, perfectly natural mechanism for self-organization, perhaps even for the genesis of life from nonliving matter (abiogenesis). These structures can be induced merely by imposing strong temperature, pressure, or composition gradients. Indeed, those formed in certain laboratory-simulated, prebiotic broths have caused a rat deal of excitement because of their remarkable similarity to the simplest know forms of life.
- the great white hope of abiogenesis. I think it has already been refuted by the article on abiogenesis.

Also, any comments on the mummies?

I wasn't going to comment, to spare your blushes. You asked why no mummified dinosaur remains have been found, whilst those of creatures less than 6000 years old have. You made the point that the mummies are found in the desert where many of the fossilized dinosaurs are found also.

Think about it. You cannot get both processes going on at once in the same area. Mummification must be the more recent. Mummification is rare and found in arid conditions only. Such conditions mean sparse popultions. But fossilization is extensive, covering vast areas of the world. It requires water (lots of it) and sediment - and catastrophy. The deserts where there is fossil-bearing sedimentary rock were once underwater.

So we will not find many mummies of dinosaurs - some may turn up, but it would require a sort of desert-living type to die in just the right sheltered spot and that will be rare indeed. Where there any/many desert types?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

So, petroleum geologists, who use standard dating techniques (erroneous according to you) to establish relations between rock formations, and who use theories of oil formation that involve millions of years (erroneous according to you) - when they find oil it's really an accident, then? I mean, their theories can't be right, given that they contradict the Bible...

So they would not know what rocks to look for if they didn't believe them to be millions of years old

What about just knowing what sort of rocks are associated with oil? That might make it simplier. No need of speculation as to how old they might be. I know where to go for my petrol, with out having to find out when the station was first built. If I developed a theory that it was built to supply our needs in WW2, or that it was built last year to cash in on a niche market, what has that to do with knowing what the pumps look like?

And creationist geologists can't find oil???

wolfsbane

Akrasia said:

Well the fish i saw on tv on sunday, had hundreds of little microhooks that pulled the fish along the rock the same way a leg works. it is easy to see how those microhooks could grow bigger and reduce in numbers to become legs and the first amphibians. And in regards to the coelcanth that was recently found. If creationists accept that animals can adapt to become different animals, why can't you accept the possibility that the version of the Coelacanth that was discovered alive, was an early adaptation where the front fins had not yet turned into a kind of a leg? What is the difference between a leg and a fin?

The problem seems to me to be to account for why an organism remains basically the same over millions of years and yet it is calimed others like it evolve into fish, birds, reptiles, mammals. And a leg of an ant-eater and that of a man are both legs, but the organism is not.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I'm sure wolfsbane explained how the translations didn't change anything, but can't find the reference...

I doubt I said that. Translations depend on the skill of the translator and on his interpretation in places. They only offer at best a close approximation of the original language. That usually is enough for God's message to be conveyed accurately, but at times it is distorted. So for detailed accuracy,it is better to check by comparing various translations and commentators.

wolfsbane

Just to give a bit of Christian perspective on the creation/evolution debate:

It was foretold:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:1-9;&version=50;49;47;31;

Christianity will continue to be rejected by most until the Last Day:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2024:3-14;&version=50;49;47;31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20thessalonians%202:1-12;&version=50;49;47;31;

BrianCalgary

I like this one:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&verse=17&end_verse=19&version=31&context=context

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

Just to give a bit of Christian perspective on the creation/evolution debate:

It was foretold:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:1-9;&version=50;49;47;31;

Christianity will continue to be rejected by most until the Last Day:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2024:3-14;&version=50;49;47;31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20thessalonians%202:1-12;&version=50;49;47;31;

Well of course they claim it will - that would be the authors dealing with why it's not popular. "I'll show you all in the end just for spiting me", that kind of thing.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

I like this one:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&verse=17&end_verse=19&version=31&context=context

Yes indeed. What I particularly like about it is that Christ didn't send Paul at all, of course.

regards,
Scofflaw