The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

dlofnep

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

It's well documented that grass only came about 67 million years ago, and that prior to trees - simple plants existed long beforehand. Given that God apparently created grass & trees on the third day - This is quite frankly, an impossibility. The earth is a few billion years old, and I think only extremists would dispute this.

So are we to assume that the first seven days are not to be taken literally, and if so - why not? Or are we to assume that the earth is only 67 million years old?

I await your response.

Galvasean

Sorry man, there is a super thread for this kinda thing called The Bible, Creation & Prophecy.

dlofnep

Ah right - they can merge this with it so

The Mad Hatter

dlofnep wrote: »

Ah right - they can merge this with it so

You'll be disappointed in the response.

How come you got rid of the Penfold avatar?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Ok, I'll go through the quotes and see if I can figure out what point you're making through the medium of someone else's words. Awkward though, and not very fair given that you won't do me the favour of responding to some of my questions.

....stop whinging....I have answered your questions!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Interbreedability is not all that definitive and will not be practically testable in most cases. Far easier to take blood samples and do genetic analysis. You suggested that this may be happening. So I am asking for clarification. You didn't answer the question. How do we do that genetic test?

....I cannot think of anything MORE definitive than ability to inter-breed!!!!:pac::):D

It would indeed be far easier to take a blood sample and do genetic analysis...and that is what Creation Science is working towards!!!!:)

CiDeRmAn

What is the drive behind certain christians to push this creationist agenda?
Is there world model so dependant on the literal truth of the bible that there belief structure would come tumbling down If one aspect proved to be wrong?
Is this also true of all the other parts of the bible?

Why is it that mostly evangelical christians, protestants witha small "p", push this creationist agenda? Given that most Catholics and Anglicans would accept evolution as a natural law, akin to the laws of motion, or do you have a problem with Newton too?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, but surely in this debate what you mean matters more than what Grasse means. This is why I wanted your version. This isn't like the Dr. Gee incident, because it's pretty plausible that Grasse really is attacking evolution. So, if what you're saying doesn't match what Grasse is actually saying then I really don't care.

So I'll ask, what are the specific points you are trying to make by quoting Grasse?

...OK I will put them into nice easy to 'digest' points:-

1. Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. Why do Evolutionists (who want to prove evolution and discover its mechanisms) choose as a material for this study an organism which supposedly stabilized a billion years ago?

2. The mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.
What is the use of the unceasing mutations of Bacteria and viruses, if they do not change from Bacteria or Viruses?


3. Supposed relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations).
Cockroaches, which are supposedly one of the most venerable living relict groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the supposed Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, which is a supposed Tertiary insect?



4. How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable, some of them supposedly for hundreds of millions of years, have mutated as much as the others do?

5. Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), is it not impossible to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process?

6. Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....Discuss!!

7. This thought process is, unacceptable: first, because its major premise (that mutations are the only evolutionary variations) is neither obvious nor general
...and second, because its conclusion (that all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve) does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution....Discuss!!!

8. The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.....Discuss!!!

9. What do you think of the following advice to Evolutionists?...."There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it"...Discuss!!!:):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....stop whinging....I have answered your questions!!!!:D

Rubbish. You are lying, J C. And what is saddest of all is that this behaviour no longer surprises anyone.

J C wrote: »

....I cannot think of anything MORE definitive than ability to inter-breed!!!!:pac::):D

Genetic similarity is more definitive. Interbreeding capacity can be due to many factors.

J C wrote: »

It would indeed be far easier to take a blood sample and do genetic analysis...and that is what Creation Science is working towards!!!!:)

As you indicated before, hence my question. So you'd concede this would be more definitive than interbreeding? Confusing. Please point us in the direction of some publication on this. Or tell us who is doing that research and where. Basically, this would be the answer to question 1.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...OK I will put them into nice easy to 'digest' points:-

1. Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. Why do Evolutionists (who want to prove evolution and discover its mechanisms) choose as a material for this study an organism which supposedly stabilized a billion years ago?

2. The mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.
What is the use of the unceasing mutations of Bacteria and viruses, if they do not change from Bacteria or Viruses?


3. Supposed relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations).
Cockroaches, which are supposedly one of the most venerable living relict groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the supposed Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, which is a supposed Tertiary insect?



4. How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable, some of them supposedly for hundreds of millions of years, have mutated as much as the others do?

5. Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), is it not impossible to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process?

6. Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....Discuss!!

7. This thought process is, unacceptable: first, because its major premise (that mutations are the only evolutionary variations) is neither obvious nor general
...and second, because its conclusion (that all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve) does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution....Discuss!!!

8. The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.....Discuss!!!

9. What do you think of the following advice to Evolutionists?...."There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it"...Discuss!!!:):D

Cheers. I'll take a look at these a bit later.

robindch

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

What is the drive behind certain christians to push this creationist agenda?

Well, there are three main drivers:

1. A lot of people like to think that they're unique, specially loved, and unrelated to animals which frequently appear dirty and violent. Creationism feeds into this desire, and tells people what they want to hear about themselves.
2. It also fits in well with an strong anti-intellectual tendency that exists in much of America, and what more intellectual activity can you get than the university set up in which intellectuals are paid to produce and disseminate knowledge?
3. Finally, as AIG points out, if the first chunk of the bible can't be taken seriously, then what does that say about the rest of it?

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Is there world model so dependant on the literal truth of the bible that there belief structure would come tumbling down If one aspect proved to be wrong?

Yes, it seems that they do feel it could all come tumbling down -- hence their histrionic and endless defences of what must be some of the dumbest systematized groupthink in existence.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

1. Why do Evolutionists (who want to prove evolution and discover its mechanisms) choose as a material for this study an organism which supposedly stabilized a billion years ago?

The prokaryote kingdom is not "an organism" and to refer to its many countless species as "stabilized" is completely incorrect. Some species across many kingdoms appear to be morphologically and/or genetically stable over large periods of time, but this does not at all contradict evolution and to suggest otherwise is to reveal a misunderstanding of that model.

J C wrote: »

2. The mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

Demonstrably not true. We have observed speciation in bacteria in both nature and the laboratory.

J C wrote: »

What is the use of the unceasing mutations of Bacteria and viruses, if they do not change from Bacteria or Viruses?

We would be very lucky indeed to directly observe a change from say single-celled (or acellular) life to something more complex over the course of time we have been observing. We've only been looking for 150 years, after all.

The concept that mutations have utility highlights Grasse's (and your) misunderstanding of how mutation works. It is blind. It merely occurs. Utility, if we can call it such, is determined by selection.

J C wrote: »

3. Supposed relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations).
Cockroaches, which are supposedly one of the most venerable living relict groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the supposed Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, which is a supposed Tertiary insect?

This highlights a confusion between evolution, mutation and change. Mutation does not automatically confer change, advantage or disadvantage. We would expect all species to, on average, undergo mutation at roughly comparable rates (taking generation time into account). So it is not at all surprising that two insect species would have comparable mutation rates. Whether selection drives the acceptance or rejection of certain mutations is what will decide whether a species "changes". Change or no change, evolution is occurring, it's just that Grasse has decided that evolution is equal to change. It is not.

J C wrote: »

4. How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable, some of them supposedly for hundreds of millions of years, have mutated as much as the others do?

Explained above. Evolutionary "change" is the product of constant mutation and selection. Selection may confine or "stabilise" a species or it may drive change. The mutation rate will continue irrespective as it is not driven by selection.

J C wrote: »

5. Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), is it not impossible to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process?

Why would it be?

J C wrote: »

6. Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....Discuss!!

The syllogism is sound. All living things do evolve. But once again, evolution is not equal to change.

J C wrote: »

7. This thought process is, unacceptable: first, because its major premise (that mutations are the only evolutionary variations) is neither obvious nor general

Why not? Mutation is the only process observed to confer lasting changes to the inherited genome.

J C wrote: »

...and second, because its conclusion (that all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve) does not agree with the facts.

Again, this is due to Grasse's misinterpretation or incorrect definition of "evolution". He equates it with "change" and thus feels the conclusion of the syllogism to be falsified when he finds species that have remained unchanged.

However, all living things are undergoing one or more of the processes defined in the evolutionary model and are thus undergoing evolution. The syllogism holds.

J C wrote: »

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution....Discuss!!!

A statement falsified, at the very least, by numerous examples of speciation directly observed. There's plenty of other evidence, assuming direct observation of an event does not fit the bill.

J C wrote: »

8. The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events.

You have made an odd assertion here. Thus, you need to provide evidence that this is in fact the case.

J C wrote: »

Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.....Discuss!!!

You now assert that neutral or beneficial mutations have an infinitesimal probability of occurring. This also demands evidence.

J C wrote: »

9. What do you think of the following advice to Evolutionists?...."There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it"...Discuss!!!:):D

I think it is garbage. We don't publish daydreams, but daydreams may lead to a testable hypothesis. And many testable hypotheses, if rigorously assessed and independently confirmed, may become theory. Human imagination is the beginning, and scientific models are the end. Thankfully, science gives us the tools to tell one from the other. To know when to discard imagination, hypothesis or theory. To fit models to observation, rather than to crowbar observation into an unchangeable and dogmatic model.

MooseJam

Who wrote the old testament, is it a Jewish book from yonks ago ?

wolfsbane

MooseJam wrote: »

Who wrote the old testament, is it a Jewish book from yonks ago ?

Essentially, yes. Moses wrote a part of it, as did David and several prophets and scribes. All Jewish.

wolfsbane

CiDeRmAn said:

What is the drive behind certain christians to push this creationist agenda?

1. To defend the truth of the Bible, to honour God.
2. To defend the truth of the Bible, to strengthen believers who might be shaken by the end result of a belief in evolution.
3. To defend the truth of the Bible, to remove any logical objection to the faith an unbeliever would have regarding the creation account.

Is there world model so dependant on the literal truth of the bible that there belief structure would come tumbling down If one aspect proved to be wrong?
Is this also true of all the other parts of the bible?

Yes, if any literal part of the Bible were shown to be false, then it all would be discredited for what it claims to be - the inerrant Word of God.

Why is it that mostly evangelical christians, protestants witha small "p", push this creationist agenda?

Because it is mostly them who believe the Bible is God's inerrant word. They have therefore taken the trouble to think through all the implications of that belief.

Given that most Catholics and Anglicans would accept evolution as a natural law, akin to the laws of motion, or do you have a problem with Newton too?

No, we have no problem with any known law.

Most Catholics and Anglicans accept evolution without seeing all that it involves for their faith. And as far as I can see, the official Catholic line insists on an unfallen (in both physical and spiritual sense) human pair as the originators of mankind, something not compatible with standard evolutionary theory.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

And as far as I can see, the official Catholic line insists on an unfallen (in both physical and spiritual sense) human pair as the originators of mankind, something not compatible with standard evolutionary theory.

How so? The state of being fallen or non-fallen is not testable scientifically, so it does not enter into the evolutionary model either way.

Nodin

MooseJam wrote: »

Who wrote the old testament, is it a Jewish book from yonks ago ?

As good an explanation as you're going to get.....
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869128

Its very readable, isn't weighed down with an overtly political, religious or atheist agenda (they aren't atheists as far as I can gather).

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

CiDeRmAn said:

1. To defend the truth of the Bible, to honour God.
2. To defend the truth of the Bible, to strengthen believers who might be shaken by the end result of a belief in evolution.
3. To defend the truth of the Bible, to remove any logical objection to the faith an unbeliever would have regarding the creation account.

It could be argued (strongly) that you are in fact doing the exact opposite.

Assuming God exists (which I'm sure you do), and the vast overwhelming evidence is that evolution happens, the inescapable conclusion is that evolution is part of God's plan, some how.

This equally fits with how His book, including Genesis, should be interpreted.

By insisting on the false doctrine that evolution of life didn't happen, you are not only going against science, but going against the very Creator, and his book, that you claim to worship.

Christians down through the years, including Aquanas, have argued against this exact thing that Creationists do.

Denying the truth of reality that is all around you is ultimately denying God.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Rubbish. You are lying, J C. And what is saddest of all is that this behaviour no longer surprises anyone.

...you are the one making baseless allegations ... which are something like 'liar, liar pants on fire'....and just as childish!!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Genetic similarity is more definitive. Interbreeding capacity can be due to many factors.

......genetic similarity ISN'T definitive ...

.....inter-breeding ability is THE definitive test for Created Kinds!!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
It would indeed be far easier to take a blood sample and do genetic analysis...and that is what Creation Science is working towards!!!!


AtomicHorror
As you indicated before, hence my question. So you'd concede this would be more definitive than interbreeding? Confusing. Please point us in the direction of some publication on this. Or tell us who is doing that research and where. Basically, this would be the answer to question 1.

...I indicated that a blood test would be EASIER than testing inter-breeding ability....but there ISN'T a blood test available yet!!!!!:D

J C

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

What is the drive behind certain christians to push this creationist agenda?

...the drive is to establish the truth....and thereby remove one stumbling block to salvation...for many sinners!!!

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Is there world model so dependant on the literal truth of the bible that there belief structure would come tumbling down If one aspect proved to be wrong?
Is this also true of all the other parts of the bible?

....the point is that Creation CAN be scientifically proven....so why shouldn't Theists do so?????!!!

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Why is it that mostly evangelical christians, protestants witha small "p", push this creationist agenda? Given that most Catholics and Anglicans would accept evolution as a natural law, akin to the laws of motion, or do you have a problem with Newton too?

...most evangelical Christians aren't 'protestants' with any size of 'P'!!!!!:eek::)
....they're simply 'Christians'....with no interest in 'protesting' against any other churches!!!!

....and there are world class Creation Scientists who are members of ALL of the mainstream Christian Churches ... as well as the Monotheist Religions like Judaism and Islam.:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

It could be argued (strongly) that you are in fact doing the exact opposite.

Assuming God exists (which I'm sure you do), and the vast overwhelming evidence is that evolution happens, the inescapable conclusion is that evolution is part of God's plan, some how.

This equally fits with how His book, including Genesis, should be interpreted.

By insisting on the false doctrine that evolution of life didn't happen, you are not only going against science, but going against the very Creator, and his book, that you claim to worship.

Christians down through the years, including Aquanas, have argued against this exact thing that Creationists do.

Denying the truth of reality that is all around you is ultimately denying God.

.....Ge 3:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"

dlofnep

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You'll be disappointed in the response.

How come you got rid of the Penfold avatar?

Never had the penfold avatar? Have always used this one

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......genetic similarity ISN'T definitive ...

.....inter-breeding ability is THE definitive test for Created Kinds!!!!

Fair enough. But you've suggested that a genetic test is possible. You've also said it's being investigated. Further, you've claimed that Kinds are a fundamental taxon. All of this should mean that there's a way to make the distinction by genetics and I'm asking you how.

J C wrote: »

...I indicated that a blood test would be EASIER than testing inter-breeding ability....but there ISN'T a blood test available yet!!!!!:D

Testing blood for DNA is not an issue. Sequencing a genome, though time consuming, is also not an issue. There are no technical barriers at all. My question is what do we look for in the data?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...you are the one making baseless allegations ... which are something like 'liar, liar pants on fire'....and just as childish!!!!!

If you feel I have made a baseless accusation against you, I would invite you to report the incident to a moderator.

marco_polo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Testing blood for DNA is not an issue. Sequencing a genome, though time consuming, is also not an issue. There are no technical barriers at all. My question is what do we look for in the data?

I imagine it must be hard to interpret data that refuses to fit the answer.


Actually 30 minute genome sequencing is on the way so it not even that time consuming. No doubt the definitive list of Created Kinds inds is surely coming to a journal near you soon.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026846.800-molecular-fireworks-could-produce-30minute-genomes.html

AtomicHorror

marco_polo wrote: »

I imagine it must be hard to interpret data that refuses to fit the answer.

The creationists reckon that the margin of error in the fossil record data is sufficient for us to change our model from a gentle curve into a detailed picture of Jesus. Just move the data points that have any error rate at all and delete the rest.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

inter-breeding ability is THE definitive test for Created Kinds!!!!

I would be interested in your interpretation of these guys?

http://wwknapp.home.mindspring.com/docs/gray.tfrogs.html

Galvasean

marco_polo wrote: »

I would be interested in your interpretation of these guys?

http://wwknapp.home.mindspring.com/docs/gray.tfrogs.html

Frog kind?

The Mad Hatter

dlofnep wrote: »

Never had the penfold avatar? Have always used this one

Oh, right - thought you did, what with the username and all...

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

Frog kind?

Not by JCs definition of a kind as the ability to interbreed directly or with intermediates.

Hyla versicolor has twice the chromosome number of Hyla chrysoscelis therefore they cannot interbreed. And there is also no ancestor species of Hyla versicolor that it is possible for it to interbreed with. Therefore his defination is invalidated by counter example.

I await his revised definition of Kind with interest.

AtomicHorror

marco_polo wrote: »

Not by JCs definition of a kind as the ability to interbreed directly or with intermediates.

Hyla versicolor has twice the chromosome number of Hyla chrysoscelis therefore they cannot interbreed. And there is also no ancestor species of Hyla versicolor that it is possible for it to interbreed with. Therefore his defination is invalidated by counter example.

I await his revised definition of Kind with interest.

Wow. That's beautiful. If inter-breeding ability is indeed as definitive of Created Kinds as J C claims, then Hyla versicolor represents the first and sole member species of a new Created Kind. Indeed this would mean than any event which prevents a species from breeding within it's Kind would represent the beginning of a new Kind by J C's definition.

Mister Polo sir, you have my gratitude and respect. Ever since we finally managed to pin down a biological definition of Kinds from J C I've been intending to look for an example like this. And what an example. In fact, I think it makes The List. Take a bow sir