The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

The Mad Hatter

Motherflies - love it! That's going on The List.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Motherflies - love it! That's going on The List.

Excellent. Let's update that mother (ho ho) right now.

1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.

2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.

3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.

4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.

5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.

6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.

7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.

8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".

9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.

10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Excellent. Let's update that mother (ho ho) right now.

Ah, I forgot about that The List. I was actually referring to my The List - vis. the list of created kinds.

Can't remember it all off hand, but it did include the sort-of-looks-like-a-snake kind (snakes, worms, eels) and the rhinocerops kind. I'm happy to add motherflies to that.

robindch

marco_polo wrote: »

the sad tale of the elephant kind who after disembarking the ark 'degenerated' into aproximately 160 different species, 158 of which promptly became extinct.

That'll be "Intelligent Design" for you. Bummer if you're an elephant, I suppose.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ah, I forgot about that The List. I was actually referring to my The List - vis. the list of created kinds.

You should maintain such a list and drop it into conversation every now and again. 2 motherflies--> 148,000 species is a doozie.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You should maintain such a list and drop it into conversation every now and again. 2 motherflies--> 148,000 species is a doozie.

Actually, I forgot how funny all that was. Go back to page 792 if you want a laugh.

As you requested, so shall it be:

1) The 'sort-of-looks-like-a-horse' kind (which wolfsbane soberly titled the 'equine' kind) - horses, zebras and donkeys.

2) The 'Small-furry-brown-things-living-in-water' kind - beavers and otters

3) The noble rhinocerops - rhino and triceratops

4) The 'long-wet-legless' kind - eels and sea-snakes

5) Fish kind (note - doesn't have to be actual fish) - Dolphins, whales and sharks

6) The Motherfly kind - moths and butterflies

7) The fly/fishing fly kind.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Actually, I forgot how funny all that was. Go back to page 792 if you want a laugh.

As you requested, so shall it be:

1) The 'sort-of-looks-like-a-horse' kind (which wolfsbane soberly titled the 'equine' kind) - horses, zebras and donkeys.

2) The 'Small-furry-brown-things-living-in-water' kind - beavers and otters

3) The noble rhinocerops - rhino and triceratops

4) The 'long-wet-legless' kind - eels and sea-snakes

5) Fish kind (note - doesn't have to be actual fish) - Dolphins, whales and sharks

6) The Motherfly kind - moths and butterflies

7) The fly/fishing fly kind.

You should keep a running total of the species derived from each Created Pair or Ark Pair or whatever.

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You should keep a running total of the species derived from each Created Pair or Ark Pair or whatever.

Ohh, all that counting...?

Ok, so there's 148,000 motherflies, 160 elephants...how many fish?

Ah, forget it - I'll come back later.

Also, if all these 'kinds' were one-of-a-kind on the Ark, and they all evolved afterwords, then what did the animals on the Ark actually look like? Maybe there's a place in history for the crocoduck after all.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ohh, all that counting...?

Ok, so there's 148,000 motherflies, 160 elephants...how many fish?

Ah, forget it - I'll come back later.

It just serves to hammer home that the "microevolution" required to create modern diversity would have to proceed at an astounding rate never observed and curiously, never recorded in 4000 years of written history. Including the Bible itself.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Also, if all these 'kinds' were one-of-a-kind on the Ark, and they all evolved afterwords, then what did the animals on the Ark actually look like? Maybe there's a place in history for the crocoduck after all.

Certainly, since we have no test for what the original kinds actually were. No way to tell two real Kinds from from a single kind broken by extinctions.

Mark Hamill

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

5) Fish kind (note - doesn't have to be actual fish) - Dolphins, whales and sharks

Wait, didn't JC say something like "the test for a Kind is that the two creatures can interbreed". Does JC believe that dolphins and sharks can interbreed? Or whales and sharks? Or whales and dolphins?

AtomicHorror

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wait, didn't JC say something like "the test for a Kind is that the two creatures can interbreed". Does JC believe that dolphins and sharks can interbreed? Or whales and sharks? Or whales and dolphins?

I'd say he'd be quick to claim that whales and dolphins are in one kind (Wholphins), whereas the fish are in another. In terms of Noah's ark, he'll claim they needed no rescuing from the flood, though I'd imagine the sudden dilution of the oceans would kill pretty much every fish species.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Now that the facts are known, we will be happy to accept your apologies anytime. We know you said it honestly, but had been lied to.
Hovind is in prison. Correct.

Correct.

AIG are engaged in a legal dispute and are accused of dishonesty. Correct.

Correct.

AIG presented a piece of video of Richard Dawkins pausing for an ambiguous reason that cannot now be verified and claimed it was due to his inability to answer a question. Correct.

Correct. He may indeed have had various reasons for pausing so long - a vision of angels, a fine cigar, where had he parked his car? But the context strongly suggested it was the question that stumped him - and the non-answer that he eventually came up with just goes to support that conclusion.

Let me repeat the question they asked: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome? You say that this is a question that makes no sense in evolutionary biology or biology in general. So evolution does not involve an increase of information from one generation to the next? We have the same amount of information in our genomes as did our supposed slime ancestors? I'm trying to understand what you mean here, so this is not a rhetorical question.

What would you like us to apologise for?

For this:
Originally Posted by Flamed Diving
Wolfsbane and JC. Thou shalt not ignore the 9th commandment. For thou shalt be cast into the fires of hell for all eternity. Listen not, to the lies of the serpant. Repent, and join us in the bliss of heaven.

In case you have any trouble interpreting what Flamed Diving was saying, he was accusing JC and myself of breaking the ninth commandment, ie. bearing false witness against our neighbour - lying.

The posted article, which includes the testimony of an anti-creationist in support of the AIG case, confirms that if any lying was done, it was Dawkins who did it.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Originally Posted by Flamed Diving
Wolfsbane and JC. Thou shalt not ignore the 9th commandment. For thou shalt be cast into the fires of hell for all eternity. Listen not, to the lies of the serpant. Repent, and join us in the bliss of heaven.

In case you have any trouble interpreting what Flamed Diving was saying, he was accusing JC and myself of breaking the ninth commandment, ie. bearing false witness against our neighbour - lying.

The posted article, which includes the testimony of an anti-creationist in support of the AIG case, confirms that if any lying was done, it was Dawkins who did it.

Confirms? I fail to see how. Because he said so?

Once again we have seen creationists misrepresenting/manipulating the evidence. To me, misrepresenting is just another word for lies. You claim that we are all going to hell on a daily basis, I don't see why you should even be considered for an apology. If you have such a problem with this, go to the mods.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Confirms? I fail to see how. Because he said so?

Once again we have seen creationists misrepresenting/manipulating the evidence. To me, misrepresenting is just another word for lies. You claim that we are all going to hell on a daily basis, I don't see why you should even be considered for an apology. If you have such a problem with this, go to the mods.

Confirmed because the anti-creationist originally took the same stance as yourself, but when he investigated the matter with Dawkins and AIG, he found that Dawkins was the one without a credible case.

As to an apology, I don't insist on one. I don't expect much morality of unbelievers and am content to bear with their insults. I know what it's like to be an unbeliever: Titus 3:3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me repeat the question they asked: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome? You say that this is a question that makes no sense in evolutionary biology or biology in general. So evolution does not involve an increase of information from one generation to the next? We have the same amount of information in our genomes as did our supposed slime ancestors? I'm trying to understand what you mean here, so this is not a rhetorical question.

What creationists mean by "information" or "increase" is ambiguous. That sounds pedantic, but were I to give the response "gene duplication", by which a whole gene is replicated within a genome at a new location, thus increasing the amount of genetic information present in the genome, the reply would certainly be rejected. The basis for the rejection will be semantic arguments relating to "information" and what it means to see an increase. Usually a demand for "new information".

Dawkins has been through that argument so many times that he no longer engages with creationists in debate, and as I understand it had ceased to do so long before this interview was conducted. So when that question was asked (about as subtle as pulling out a placard saying "I am a Creationist"), Dawkins was shocked and probably pretty angry too.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

Correct.


Correct.


Correct. He may indeed have had various reasons for pausing so long - a vision of angels, a fine cigar, where had he parked his car? But the context strongly suggested it was the question that stumped him - and the non-answer that he eventually came up with just goes to support that conclusion.

Let me repeat the question they asked: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome? You say that this is a question that makes no sense in evolutionary biology or biology in general. So evolution does not involve an increase of information from one generation to the next? We have the same amount of information in our genomes as did our supposed slime ancestors? I'm trying to understand what you mean here, so this is not a rhetorical question.

Since humans have aproximately 3bn base pairs of DNA and some species of Ameoba have in excess of 600 Bn, it seems the 'slime' wins. There does not seem to be any discernable link between genome size and the complexity of a organism so it is difficult to address the question of an increase in genetic information, especially when the person asking the question has no idea what they mean by it either.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.800-recipes-for-life-how-genes-evolve.html?full=true

A team at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland has found evidence that at least six new human genes have arisen from non-coding DNA in the 6 million years or so since humans and chimps diverged. The work is ongoing but the preliminary findings were presented at a meeting in Barcelona, Spain, in June.

While this paper is still awaiting publication, perhaps new genes emerging from existing non function dna does not count as an increase in genetic information either?

An information increase either has to be the due to an increase in the size of the genome as a result of gene duplications etc.

Or If that does not satisfy you, then the addition of new and novel functional genes as a result of changes to existing, non-functional dna via mutations, transpositions etc surely must suffice?

AtomicHorror

marco_polo wrote: »

Since humans have aproximately 3bn base pairs of DNA and some species of Ameoba have in excess of 600 Bn, it seems the 'slime' wins. There does not seem to be any discernable link between genome size and the complexity of a organism so it is difficult to address the question of an increase in genetic information, especially when the person asking the question has no idea what they mean by it either.

A good point. We can certainly demonstrate increases in information, but it doesn't have the meaning that creationists generally believe it does.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJKZPpH80A

Just to answer the question itself.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The posted article, which includes the testimony of an anti-creationist in support of the AIG case, confirms that if any lying was done, it was Dawkins who did it.

Surprisingly, shockingly even, no ...

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/4_response.pdf

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So evolution does not involve an increase of information from one generation to the next? We have the same amount of information in our genomes as did our supposed slime ancestors? I'm trying to understand what you mean here, so this is not a rhetorical question.

Any time this question has been answered (and it is has been answered SO many times), the response from Creationists (ie JC, who is normally making the charge that it doesn't happen) is that this new information that is produced isn't actually "information", and he then proceeds to list of some nonsense definition of information, which normally includes the characteristic that information must be produced by intelligence, thus pencilling in intelligent design by definition.

To a biologists information in the genome is simply DNA that can produce different types of proteins. A huge amount of mutations change the way the genome produces proteins. But again any time this is explained to a Creationist the debate turns to whether this is "new" information.

JC contends that any arrangement of DNA is simply information that is current present but "hidden" in the DNA. Which is like claiming that every word that can exist already does exist it is just hidden inside the alphabet already.

Produce a new word (eg "Googleplex") and you aren't producing something "new" because it contains letter that have just been rearranged.

Which makes the terms "new" and "information" almost impossible, which of course is exactly what the Creationist wants because their argument is that only God could do it.

JC knows this, we know this, you (one would assume) know this, and Dawkins knew this.

So the question is nonsense because Creationists first define information in a way that it cannot be produced by evolution, and then ask a biologists to explain how evolution can produce new information, knowing full well the question is unanswerable, but also that their definition of "information" doesn't apply.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Surprisingly, shockingly even, no ...

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/4_response.pdf

Interesting article. Where did that fit into the whole timeline?

Like this part:

Then came a critical moment - Richard Dawkins, having had it confirmed that he had been played for a sucker, lost his temper. Any balanced documentary maker, responsible journalist, or other genuine seeker after knowledge, would have paused at this point, sought to find out what had upset the subject and tried to find a way the interview could continue so that information could be imparted. But for a propagandist it must have seemed like a “gift from God”; a way to make the “enemy” look bad. Opportunism, pure and simple, and an opportunity that was not rejected.

AtomicHorror

Oh and this:

Ms Brown... makes no mention of her inexplicable failure to include the important information about her employers in her fax seeking an interview. One has to wonder why?

He even provides a transcript of Brown's faxed request for an interview. Where does she mention that she is in the employ of AIG? Where does she, as she has stated she did, make clear her affiliation? Where does she actually make clear what the video is intended to be used for?

Gillian Brown wrote:

Geoffrey Smith spoke with you this week regarding an interview
request. I spoke with Richard Dawkins last year by
phone, and he agreed to an interview, however we had difficulty
scheduling a date.
Keziah Video Production is producing a documentary series
on the question of origins. One of the programmes will
look at the biological issues, and in this programme we would
like to feature Dr Dawkins. In the interview we are interested
in the question of how Darwinian evolution can explain
the transformation of simple organisms into complex
ones, the role of natural selection and the way in which genetic
mutations passed from one generation to the next can
bring about evolutionary change.
The documentary series will be distributed by an independent
distributor, Discovery International (not associated with
the Discovery Channel), based in Melbourne, Australia. The
interview will be conducted by BBC producer Geoffrey
Smith, who is acting as an independent producer on our
behalf.
I do understand that Dr Dawkins has a very busy schedule,
so I hope the interview will be possible, and I look forward to
scheduling at your convenience.

Dawkins signed his release under the illusion that he was dealing with a documentary crew, not propagandists. That pause is looking more like shock and anger by the moment. And a lie of omission is still a lie.

Flamed Diving

Deuteronomy 5:20

'Liar, liar, your pants is on fire'

Flamed Diving

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mohandas Gandhi

The Mad Hatter

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJKZPpH80A

Just to answer the question itself.

With Beethoven, for some reason...

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillian Brown
Geoffrey Smith spoke with you this week regarding an interview
request. I spoke with Richard Dawkins last year by
phone, and he agreed to an interview, however we had difficulty
scheduling a date.
Keziah Video Production is producing a documentary series
on the question of origins. One of the programmes will
look at the biological issues, and in this programme we would
like to feature Dr Dawkins. In the interview we are interested
in the question of how Darwinian evolution can explain
the transformation of simple organisms into complex
ones, the role of natural selection and the way in which genetic
mutations passed from one generation to the next can
bring about evolutionary change.
The documentary series will be distributed by an independent
distributor, Discovery International (not associated with
the Discovery Channel), based in Melbourne, Australia. The
interview will be conducted by BBC producer Geoffrey
Smith, who is acting as an independent producer on our
behalf.
I do understand that Dr Dawkins has a very busy schedule,
so I hope the interview will be possible, and I look forward to
scheduling at your convenience.

Dawkins signed his release under the illusion that he was dealing with a documentary crew, not propagandists. That pause is looking more like shock and anger by the moment. And a lie of omission is still a lie.

So Creationists cannot be counted as a documentary crew, but must be classified as propagandists. What would you think if I objected to evolutionists making a documentary on origins that asked a leading creation scientist to answer questions on the creationist model? Would they be mere propagandists, or would such an accusation by me reveal my prejudices and intolerance of others? Are they not entitled to make a documentary supporting their case by putting creationists on the spot?

There is nothing deceitful in her letter to Dawkins. It was up to him to ensure they were not creationists if he was uncomfortable about doing interviews with them. Even the series distributor is listed, and enquiry could be make. In fact, the inclusion of the word Discovery in their title should have at least made him wonder if there was any link with the ID-promoting Discovery Institute.

So much for a lie of ommission. Try to be a bit more non-partisan in your assessment of the facts.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Surprisingly, shockingly even, no ...

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/4_response.pdf

Nothing in that article makes her the liar, nor refutes the conclusion of the anti-creationist TE that Dawkins is the one without support.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

So Creationists cannot be counted as a documentary crew, but must be classified as propagandists. What would you think if I objected to evolutionists making a documentary on origins that asked a leading creation scientist to answer questions on the creationist model?

If they were employees of an evolutionary theory advocacy group, I would consider them likely to be biased. I might call them propagandists. I would expect them to make their affiliation clear to the interviewee or be considered dishonest.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would they be mere propagandists, or would such an accusation by me reveal my prejudices and intolerance of others?

Again, if they were in the employ of an advocacy group for evolution, then that would indeed immediately suggest a bias in them. It would be fair for you to question that bias.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are they not entitled to make a documentary supporting their case by putting creationists on the spot?

Indeed. But we are entitled to frown upon that, especially if done under false pretences. I can think of similar cases I've seen in which I was in favour of the stated position of the interviewer but found the ambush tactic distasteful. Michael Moore's ambushing of Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine, for example.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is nothing deceitful in her letter to Dawkins.

There is the omission of a statement of affiliation to AiG and there is the name dropping of a BBC producer. There is a list of topics for discussion which make no mention of creationism, nor of any criticisms of evolution whatsoever. Misleading.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It was up to him to ensure they were not creationists if he was uncomfortable about doing interviews with them.

No, it was not. Dawkins is a leading spokesperson for evolution, so evolution is probably the topic of a considerable majority of interviews he would give. So the topic, vaguely stated as it was, would ring no alarm bells. Dawkins would have no reason to suspect he was being misled on that point.

Dawkins has made his decision not to engage directly with creationists clear and public. So an honest crew and honest journalists, in the interests of giving the interviewee a fair chance, would state any potentially contentious affiliations, conflicts of interest or any intended contentious issues. So once again, Dawkins had little reason to suppose that an openly-creationist group were approaching him for an interview.

Do you suggest that Dawkins should be reasonably expected to screen any and all interview requests for a hidden creationist connection? Are you suggesting that such deception should be expected of them?

I'd imagine Dawkins screens interview requests now. Live and learn.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even the series distributor is listed, and enquiry could be make.

Perhaps one was made. Can we be sure that they displayed any greater honesty? Besides, the interview was being accepted on the basis of a conversation that Dawkins and Brown had the year previous. In essence it was pre-approved.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In fact, the inclusion of the word Discovery in their title should have at least made him wonder if there was any link with the ID-promoting Discovery Institute.

Only if he was aware of that group in 1998. The Discovery Institute didn't really begin to impact on the public consciousness until Behe's book in 1996 and Dembski's various publications from 1998 onwards.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So much for a lie of ommission. Try to be a bit more non-partisan in your assessment of the facts.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that you just made a convincing case? Please point to where in the application Brown states her affiliation or the subject of the interview. Again, she was not technically nor legally obligated to make these things clear, but certainly was morally obliged. She ambushed Dawkins. AiG ambushed Dawkins.

Flamed Diving

Deuteronomy 5:20

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuZ1qIQlmIc