The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not really, for death is portrayed by the rest of Scripture as something not good, a consequence of sin:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Doesn't that passage refer to death of man, and spiritual death at that (obliteration in hell?)

wolfsbane wrote: »

Death is to be overthrown in the Last Day:
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

Again isn't this referencing spiritual death? After all everyone physically dies. But through Christ Christians live for ever, despite physically dying.

Would this not imply that this is what God always planned, that Adam and Eve would have children and eventually physically die, yet live eternally spiritually? Otherwise surely salvation through Christ would involve physically living for ever? Jesus does not save you from physically dying, but from spiritual death.

wolfsbane wrote: »

To include plant-life/bacteria used in digestion in the same position as animals and man is to make the Bible a nonsense from the first chapter, for it expressly gives the plants as food for man and beast:

Well yes, that is the point. Your assertion that death, physically death, is not part of God's good plan would make little sense in the context of the first passages of the Bible that describe food (food in nearly ever shape involves death of some kind).

God created a world where life forms physically die. Why would a plant dying being any different to an animal dying? I don't see where this issue with that is because the thing that God offers is spiritual eternal life. I doubt many Christians, including yourself, worry about physical death as they know they will not actually die in the sense of cease to exist. Do Christians then think physically death is bad? If so then surely Jesus would offer salvation from that instead?

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How is it harsh for me to make it clear that I'm an atheist? I figured I'd been mistaken for some sorta religious type.

No AH - that could never happen:eek:

Its like science -guys who are believers will share a belief in their scientific proof without sharing a belief in God with you. You promote research standards and Im sure you have a lot of believers of all faiths there.

Its the same with Doctors and medical ethics. I am not a doctor but I posted on a thread where a doctor who is a non believer had the same views as me.

As Christians(those of us who take read it in the Judeo-Greek tradition) we accept that God made the world universe etc and the Bible is the word of God. I accept the Bible contains abbreviations that point the way. Others dont.So how can I reject scientific reality.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the scientists on both sides disagree on the interpretation of the evidence.

You will always find people who disagree with something and probably everything. You can find people who still, even in this modern age, disagree with the assessment that the world is round. You can find people who disagree with the assessment that the Earth goes around the Sun.

The fact that people disagree with something isn't, or shouldn't be, the important bit. What you should be looking at is their arguments for this disagreement, how they back it up.

And this is where Creationists fall down miserably (bit like the Flat Earthers)

But a lot of Creationists don't care to evaluate the arguments for disagreement, they are happy simply that the disagreement exists because it allows them to say things much like yourself, that there is disagreement at the moment and use this as a justification for still holding on to their beliefs.

Very few people would take something who came on here and said that there is on going disagreement over the roundness of the Earth seriously, even though that statement is perfectly correct. There is disagreement over that because some small group of people simply do not agree that the world is round. No one takes that position seriously though because they are educated as to the arguments for a round Earth and educated for the arguments for a flat earth and no one thinks the arguments for a flat Earth are more convincing.

Therefore the fact that there is disagreement over this becomes somewhat irrelevant. Few care, because like I said there wil always be people who disagree with something, it doesn't mean anything.

This is an issue for neo-Darwinian evolution, the lack of education as to what evolution is and the support for it. You hear and awful lot of misinformation about evolution, particularly coming from religious groups. And it can, at times, be a tricky theory to understand.

If few people understood the arguments for a round Earth they very well may think that both the round Earth and the flat Earth groups had valid and interesting points. But a brief time educating ones self as to the arguments on either side would irradicate that.

Unfortunately their seems to be a tendency for some to wallow in ignorance when it comes to evolution, people content in not trying to learn and understand it.

PDN

OK, since nobody wants to keep on topic we'll merge this thread into the existing Creationism thread.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

OK, since nobody wants to keep on topic we'll merge this thread into the existing Creationism thread.

To be fair PDN, it was always going to be tough to keep them distinct.

"Can you believe in God and Evolution?"

If no, you get the creationist view or some distinct evolutionist views. If yes, you get the accommodating evolutionist view.

That's followed by "but why?" and here we are. I actually thought we were doing an okay job of focusing on the nature of the conflict by discussing the approaches to the evidence rather than the evidence itself. But it's a flimsy distinction I guess.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The only thing one sees is the evidence. The evidence is not disputed.

But the scientists on both sides disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. We see the sun rise and set - are we denying what we see if we suggest it is not the sun that moves? So too there is more than one possible explanation for the evidence evolutionists claim as their own.
Not really true. The creationists deny that evidence such as radioisotope dating is usable.

No, the evidence is the observed rate of decay of the elements. The interpretation involves the presumption that those rates have been constant with time - and indeed other assumptions about the original amount of parent isotope (if I correctly read the articles).

This is on the basis of experiments in which they, for example, did carbon 14 dating on objects containing no carbon and on the basis of things like the reservoir effect (which of course was pointed out by mainstream scientists). That second one serves as a great example of how creationists approach the evidence. And it's nothing to do with "interpretation". It goes like this.

1. A piece of evidence contradicts creation (eg. c14 dating)
2. It is assumed that the evidence is a mistake
3. The evidence is scrutinised closely for any weaknesses (eg. "aha, c14 dating is inaccurate for marine organisms")
4. Use point 3 to dismiss any all evidence of this type whilst calling into question any evidence that resembles it. (eg. using the reservoir effect to dismiss all c14 data and undermine the credibility of all radiometric dating)

This is not re-interpretation. It's cherry picking and confirmation bias.

If that was all they did, you would have a point. But they offer not only many examples that contradict the consensus model, they offer evidence that supports alternative models. None of the models has all the answers, but it does not mean either the evolutionist or creationist models are not scientific possibilities.

The evidence is that the world is over 4 billion years old. That measurement is no more open to "interpretation" than the distance between two objects.

That statement is no more correct than one which asserts The evidence is that the world is about 6 thousand years old. The evidence is really a great number of evidences, some of which appear to support a very old or a very young earth. Both sides offer models to incorporate as much of the evidence as possible - but both sides appeal to as yet undiscovered evidence to explain those items that seem to contradict the model.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But the scientists on both sides disagree on the interpretation of the evidence.
You will always find people who disagree with something and probably everything. You can find people who still, even in this modern age, disagree with the assessment that the world is round. You can find people who disagree with the assessment that the Earth goes around the Sun.

The fact that people disagree with something isn't, or shouldn't be, the important bit. What you should be looking at is their arguments for this disagreement, how they back it up.

And this is where Creationists fall down miserably (bit like the Flat Earthers)

But a lot of Creationists don't care to evaluate the arguments for disagreement, they are happy simply that the disagreement exists because it allows them to say things much like yourself, that there is disagreement at the moment and use this as a justification for still holding on to their beliefs.

You are ignoring the many scientific arguments put by well-qualified scientists for the creationist case. Lumping them in with Flat-earthers is just a tactic to avoid facing their case.

Very few people would take something who came on here and said that there is on going disagreement over the roundness of the Earth seriously, even though that statement is perfectly correct. There is disagreement over that because some small group of people simply do not agree that the world is round. No one takes that position seriously though because they are educated as to the arguments for a round Earth and educated for the arguments for a flat earth and no one thinks the arguments for a flat Earth are more convincing.

Therefore the fact that there is disagreement over this becomes somewhat irrelevant. Few care, because like I said there wil always be people who disagree with something, it doesn't mean anything.

I agree with you. But again, what has that got to do with the scientific case well-qualified scientists make for creationism?

This is an issue for neo-Darwinian evolution, the lack of education as to what evolution is and the support for it. You hear and awful lot of misinformation about evolution, particularly coming from religious groups. And it can, at times, be a tricky theory to understand.

If few people understood the arguments for a round Earth they very well may think that both the round Earth and the flat Earth groups had valid and interesting points. But a brief time educating ones self as to the arguments on either side would irradicate that.

Unfortunately their seems to be a tendency for some to wallow in ignorance when it comes to evolution, people content in not trying to learn and understand it.

That may well be so. But it does not apply to the scientists qualified in the relevant sciences who make a scientifc case for creationism.

The pretence that it does is strong circumstantial evidence for me that it is the evolutionists who have something to hide.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not really, for death is portrayed by the rest of Scripture as something not good, a consequence of sin:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— Doesn't that passage refer to death of man, and spiritual death at that (obliteration in hell?)

No, it refers to both physical and spiritual death.

Death is to be overthrown in the Last Day:
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
Again isn't this referencing spiritual death? After all everyone physically dies. But through Christ Christians live for ever, despite physically dying.

Again, No. Indeed this time it refers solely to physical death. It is the resurrection of the physical body that is being referred to:
Christ's resurrection: Physical. Adam brings death, Christ brings the resurrection - so the death here discussed is physical death. And physical death is called the last enemy - not something 'very good', which theistic evolution demands.

Would this not imply that this is what God always planned, that Adam and Eve would have children and eventually physically die, yet live eternally spiritually? Otherwise surely salvation through Christ would involve physically living for ever? Jesus does not save you from physically dying, but from spiritual death.

Physical death is the just punishment for sinners. God could have kept every Christian from death, but He has chosen that most of us will follow Christ's experience of death. But death cannot be the victor, so God will resurrect us all as He did Christ - physically. So we shall then live forever, both physically and spiritually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
To include plant-life/bacteria used in digestion in the same position as animals and man is to make the Bible a nonsense from the first chapter, for it expressly gives the plants as food for man and beast:
Well yes, that is the point. Your assertion that death, physically death, is not part of God's good plan would make little sense in the context of the first passages of the Bible that describe food (food in nearly ever shape involves death of some kind).

God created a world where life forms physically die. Why would a plant dying being any different to an animal dying? I don't see where this issue with that is because the thing that God offers is spiritual eternal life. I doubt many Christians, including yourself, worry about physical death as they know they will not actually die in the sense of cease to exist. Do Christians then think physically death is bad? If so then surely Jesus would offer salvation from that instead?

As I've shown above, death entered the world by man's sin. Adam brought death not only to himself and his seed, but to all he was in charge of. Since God tells us both that death was not part of His perfect creation, and yet plants were for food - then plant death is not counted as death by God. We don't know enough about the bacteria to say if they died in that sense or not, just that if they died then they too were not in the animal/fish/bird category.

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

No, the evidence is the observed rate of decay of the elements. The interpretation involves the presumption that those rates have been constant with time - and indeed other assumptions about the original amount of parent isotope (if I correctly read the articles).

Right... we've been through this before as far as I'm concerned I put forth a pretty simple non-blinding-with-science answer (*)... but very quickly, as far as I'm concerned the RATE group have had to push the idea that the rate of decay was higher in the past because they know that the amounts of parent and daughter products contained in a sample at time of formation/cooling below closure temperature are a non-problem... instead they have suggested that the rate of decay was higher during the Creation and Flood periods... and fell off towards modern levels over time...

There are huge problems with this idea... not the least of which is the heat problem, which should be obvious to anyone that has done even Leaving Cert level physics, this problem can't be hand waved away...


* EDIT: actually in retrospect I may have written it gotten ticked and given up... much like I'm doing now.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, the evidence is the observed rate of decay of the elements. The interpretation involves the presumption that those rates have been constant with time - and indeed other assumptions about the original amount of parent isotope (if I correctly read the articles).

But we're talking about the decay rates of multiple elements, which are not each open to rate changes by any known common mechanism and which all agree with one another within acceptable margins of error that do not allow for re-interpretation on the billion year order of magnitude. And no such common rate-altering mechanism has been hypothesised nor tested by creationists. So there's no credible challenge to the data, nor the interpretation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If that was all they did, you would have a point. But they offer not only many examples that contradict the consensus model, they offer evidence that supports alternative models.

Whether they present new hypotheses or not does not make their tactic of undermining the credibility of the evidence acceptable or valid. Contradictory evidence is acceptable. But calling into question entire swathes of data based on the error bars is a rhetorical tactic, it is not science.

As it is, I cannot recall a creationist positing a testable hypothesis, let alone offering a means to test it or performing the required research. Their focus is very much skewed in favour of the above rhetorical attacks.

wolfsbane wrote: »

None of the models has all the answers, but it does not mean either the evolutionist or creationist models are not scientific possibilities.

Oh come on. The theory of evolution as it currently stands does explain the available evidence regarding life on Earth. Whether it is actually valid, the fact is that it is consistent with observations and has predicted countless new observations.

Give me an example of an observation predicted by some creation model.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That statement is no more correct than one which asserts The evidence is that the world is about 6 thousand years old.

But the 4 billion year assertion does not require that all of the radiometric results be somehow variable in perfect unison nor does it require strange new laws of physics that negate the issues mentioned by kiffer.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The evidence is really a great number of evidences, some of which appear to support a very old or a very young earth. Both sides offer models to incorporate as much of the evidence as possible - but both sides appeal to as yet undiscovered evidence to explain those items that seem to contradict the model.

What are you talking about? Neither the geological explanation for the age of the Earth nor the theory of Evolution appeal to unknowns.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

New Scientist really dropped the ball with that "Darwin Was Wrong" cover. We'll be hearing about that one for years to come.

....the truth will set you free!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....the truth will set you free!!!!:pac::):D

The article doesn't claim Darwin was wrong, it was just an attention-grabbing cover. And loads of creationists seem to have taken that cover, on a pop science magazine, as if it were some cutting edge piece of research. It would be laughable, if it weren't such a depressing example of how credulously dense people can be.

J C

Lovethinking wrote: »

I started trying to read that (Evolution) thread last week but it seems that it had descended into Star Trek territory at it's early stages.

.......and the reason is that Evolution IS scientific 'Star Trek' !!!!!:D

Lovethinking wrote: »

I prefer to stick to the scientifically established facts rather than speculate.
I am also aware of the move towards redefining the word "proof" within the scientific community to something more like "agreed upon" so as to ease the "burden of proof".

....somebody (besides myself and Wolfie) speaking some sense at last!!!

Lovethinking wrote: »

While there have been great advances in the establishment of a progressively more accurate fossil record both physically and temporally as well as a much better understanding of genetics, sometimes while on the quest for the missing links, we have not found those missing links yet.

...you are correct about the advances in establishing the extent of the fossil record with millions of new fossil species now identified...but unfortunately NO 'missing links'!!!!

Lovethinking wrote: »

Certainly, it is fascinating to see "survival of the fittest" in action and keeping the gene pool of the animal kingdom strong, as well as other scientifically verifiable facts which are used in the building of the evolutionary argument.... but the evolutionary argument is far from being at it's conclusive stage.
It is important not to confuse "consensus" with "fact".

agree 100%!!
...Creation Scientists are right there with you...
we too accept that Natural Selection occurs....but we know that while NS may explain the SURVIVAL of Species it is UNABLE to explain the ARRIVAL of species!!!!
....Darwin had the exact same difficulty ... and that is why I believe that Creation Scientists should award an annual prize in Baraminology and they should call it the Darwin Prize in Baraminolgy!!!

Lovethinking wrote: »

So, in short, NO, I do not wish to take your redirection into the other thread.
Certainly, if anyone out there is aware of the missing links being filled and the theory being proven as true fact I welcome your input.... but not in the form of "just read this book or that one"... I recognise that there are some books out there which deliver some very intriguing and sometimes useful facts, but I am talking about real proof.

...quite right again.....
...in the context of this thread and the emotional outbursts often directed at Creation Scientists and indeed Intelligent Design Advocates by Materialistic Evolutionists I came across the following quote recently:-
"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident!!!"
I think that we are somewhere between stages 2 and 3 in relation to ID and somewhere between stages 1 and 2 with Creation Science....roll on Stage 3!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C, going back a couple of months, you repeated the assertion that there are no examples of "increasing genetic

information" apparently demanded by evolution. I asked for you to clarify the meaning of genetic information and to

define what would constitute a measurable increase in that.

You said:

J C wrote:

1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and

their organisation into organisms.

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological

component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional

protein.

....even a computer model of how either 1 or 2 above could occur will do.

To which I responded:

AtomicHorror wrote:

1. A full definition would require that you define what you mean by "information". That word has

several related but distinct meanings. I'm also not sure what you mean by "functional specific biological components", is

that "functional-specific" or "functional, specific"? I know you'll see this as pedantic, but science requires exact and

unambiguous meaning.

2. Again with the spontaneous, single-step majick. This doesn't happen in evolution and the only people suggesting

otherwise are creationists.

A new gene doesn't just pop into existence. New bases and chunks of DNA are frequently added to the genome, but these are

typically non-coding. A new gene can emerge either by one of these stretches of non-coding DNA becoming coding or by the

duplication of an existing gene to a new locus followed by its modification.

There are countless examples of this.

CCR5d32, a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as

a HIV-binding decoy. This confers AIDS resistance in homozygotes and delayed onset in heterozygotes. As the function of

CCRs are multiply redundant, the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes. This means there is a net gain in

function.

Can you address the above please? Finally, I'm very sad to see that after all my hard work you're still not willing to

address my rebuttals of your replies to

me or take the time to refute my answers to

your own questions. Now we're on to a new set of questions and those haven't been resolved. That two sets of questions

totaling about 35 major points and another two points regarding the genetic information question that you seem to be

ignoring entirely. Are you conceding these points, J C?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not exactly, I'm trying to explain that science does not work in terms of proof, but in terms of evidence and falsification. The misunderstanding is quite common but perhaps I can clear that up now.

When conducting new research, typically a scientist looks at the known facts and proposes an hypothesis. That is a position we assume is true as a starting point for investigation. That assumption of truth is very much temporary and contingent on evidence. A hypothesis must be testable by observation but cannot be "proven". Here is an analogy to explain why.

Imagine you sail to a new land and find sheep living there. All of the sheep you see on the first day are white. You can thus form the hypothesis "all sheep are white". This you assume to be true for the time being, whilst always remembering that your position can be falsified (that is disproven). You then set out across the land counting sheep (stay awake) and observing their colour. Every white sheep is evidence which supports your hypothesis, but it is not proof that it is true. Hypothetically, the discovery of just one black sheep will falsify your hypothesis and force you to change it. This could be as simple as saying "all sheep are white or black", though this too will not be assumed to be true in an absolute sense.

Thus an hypothesis may be supported by the evidence or it may be falsified by it. It can never be proven and thus there is no "proof" in science. We talk instead about evidence. When an hypothesis is supported by so much evidence that it allows prediction of new facts, when it has been rigorously attacked by its opponents but remains both explanatory and predictive, it becomes a rule or scientific law. Combinations of laws are themselves hypotheses until confirming evidence supports their use together in a framework. Then that framework becomes theory. Still hypothetically falsifiable, but increasingly less likely to be disproven with each new piece of evidence. At this time evolution is so well supported by evidence that it is irrefutable for all intents and purposes.

....and what would (normally) become of a hypothesis that stated that all sheep were spontaneously generated ... with NOTHING added ....but time???:pac::):D

....it would be rejected outright...yet that is precisely what Materialists expect us to believe is how sheep came to be!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident!!!"
I think that we are somewhere between stages 2 and 3 in relation to ID and somewhere between stages 1 and 2 with Creation Science....roll on Stage 3!!!!:pac::):D

Oh wow, argument from proverb. Very convincing.

Evolution went through these stages over 100 years ago, and it is now accepted as truth- though of course this is not a mark of truth. Thing is, sufficiently convincing rubbish will also go through stages 1 and 2. When it fails to pass stage 2, most of its more open-minded adherents will abandon it in favour of concepts better supported by the evidence. But there will always be diehards with such an investment in the idea that they will remain to struggle with stage two forever. When that idea is founded on the categorically untestable, that makes for notions that can never be dislodged by mere evidence.

J C

JimiTime wrote: »

Below is my deduction of the various stances from christians.

1) I'm open to the idea of evolution, but I am bombarded with so much 'science' that I just ignore the topic.

2) Well, clever folk are sure about it, and I don't want to be seen as an idiot so I'll say, God made evolution so its win, win.

3) I don't know, I have faith, and don't really care about the topic.

4) It has nothing to do with salvation, so I'm not going to put any importance on the topic.

5) They are incompatible, insomuch as they contradict each other. Literal six days is what it says, and thats what I believe etc.

6) They are completely compatible. Genesis is metaphorical, and 'Adam and Eve' could just represent the first creatures with a 'soul' etc etc.

I personally am completely unconvinced by the theory of evolution. I'm just a simple layman though, so such an opinion may be discarded as coming from ignorance. It all seems a bit smoke and mirrors. To coin a phrase you used OP, a bit 'kings new clothes'. However, I am not stuck in a literal interpretation of Genesis, nor a young earth. I also at present do not rule out evolution, but I am unconvinced. I definately think that there are implications in the theory that effect aspects of Christian doctrine. Things like the geneologies, original sin etc need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, most of those who are opposed to evolution on a faith basis seem dishonest and deceptive in their ways. Knowingly or not I don't know. Funnily enough, as much as I'm unconvinced by the theory of evolution, I hear very little convincing arguement against it. I think its mainly due to the fact that most who try argue against it, get too involved in the intricicies of it, rather than deal with the elephants in the room.

So in summary, I don't believe in the theory, but i don't completely rule it out (yet!). I'm just not convinced. I don't see it as a hugely important topic, but an interesting one nonetheless. Certainly my view brings derision and accusations of idiocy from the self proclaiming 'logical intellectuals', but that rather adds weight to my position for me.

So what do you think OP? Are the two in conflict? Are there too many mental cartwheels to be performed in order to reconsile the two in your opinion? Or do you think the theistic evolution stance is credible?

....like I have said ... we are getting slooo-wwly to Stage 3 .... and the acceptance of ID and Creation Science as being 'self-evident'!!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C, going back a couple of months, you repeated the assertion that there are no examples of "increasing genetic

information" apparently demanded by evolution. I asked for you to clarify the meaning of genetic information and to

define what would constitute a measurable increase in that.

You said:


Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.

....even a computer model of how either 1 or 2 above could occur will do.

To which I responded:


Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
1. A full definition would require that you define what you mean by "information". That word has

several related but distinct meanings. I'm also not sure what you mean by "functional specific biological components", is

that "functional-specific" or "functional, specific"? I know you'll see this as pedantic, but science requires exact and

unambiguous meaning.

2. Again with the spontaneous, single-step majick. This doesn't happen in evolution and the only people suggesting otherwise are creationists.

A new gene doesn't just pop into existence. New bases and chunks of DNA are frequently added to the genome, but these are typically non-coding. A new gene can emerge either by one of these stretches of non-coding DNA becoming coding or by the duplication of an existing gene to a new locus followed by its modification.

There are countless examples of this.

CCR5d32, a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy. This confers AIDS resistance in homozygotes and delayed onset in heterozygotes. As the function of CCRs are multiply redundant, the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes. This means there is a net gain in
function.

Can you address the above please?

1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function were even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional - and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities. It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ... there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!!:pac::):D

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.
Your example of CCR5d32, where a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy indicates that multiple functionality is already built into this system. ... as you have confirmed yourself the function of CCRs are multiply redundant...and the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes.
Multiple redundancy is also a definitive indicator of Intelligent Design!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Oh wow, argument from proverb. Very convincing.

Evolution went through these stages over 100 years ago, and it is now accepted as truth- though of course this is not a mark of truth. Thing is, sufficiently convincing rubbish will also go through stages 1 and 2. When it fails to pass stage 2, most of its more open-minded adherents will abandon it in favour of concepts better supported by the evidence. But there will always be diehards with such an investment in the idea that they will remain to struggle with stage two forever. When that idea is founded on the categorically untestable, that makes for notions that can never be dislodged by mere evidence.

....Spontaneous Evolution is stuck at Stage 1....in a permanent state of ridicule....somewhere between 'the Flat Earthers' ... and the 'Spontaneous Generators'....and with even LESS evidence and logic for it's validity!!!!:pac::):D

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are ignoring the many scientific arguments put by well-qualified scientists for the creationist case.
...
But again, what has that got to do with the scientific case well-qualified scientists make for creationism?
...
But it does not apply to the scientists qualified in the relevant sciences who make a scientifc case for creationism.

Where is this scientific case for creationism of which you speak??

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....and what would (normally) become of a hypothesis that stated that all sheep were spontaneously generated ... with NOTHING added ....but time???:pac::):D

....it would be rejected outright...yet that is precisely what Materialists expect us to believe is how sheep came to be!!!!:pac::):D

Nonsense. You understand evolution better than this J C. If you have to be so very misleading in order to fight your corner, then what does that say for the strength of what truth you do possess?

Anyway, congratulations on missing the point completely. The subject of the hypothesis is irrelevant. Its falsifiability is the issue.

J C wrote: »

....Spontaneous Evolution is stuck at Stage 1....in a permanent state of ridicule....somewhere between 'the Flat Earthers' ... and the 'Spontaneous Generators'....and with even LESS evidence and logic for it's validity!!!!:pac::):D

What's spontaneous evolution? We're talking about evolution by natural selection. Your straw man theories may well be the target of ridicule, but the theory of evolution is accepted as a working theory by the vast majority of scientists. Whatever its veracity, it is certainly not at your proverbial stage one.

J C wrote: »

1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function were even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional -

Can you name me a specific gene which is rendered non functional by any minor change? By minor change I assume you mean a point mutation? Most proteins can tolerate significant modifications to their sequence without losing their current function entirely. Sure, many will have functional sites that must be conserved, but the likelihood of a mutation hitting that spot is comparatively low- and the existence of the gene in bulk in the pool ensures that when such mutations occur, lots of copies of the old version are still around in case the new mutation is detrimental.

J C wrote: »

and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....

We're not talking about a spontaneous reaction here, we're talking about mutation and selection.

J C wrote: »

the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities.

The functional configurations do indeed outnumber the non-functional for any given specified function. But functions are not specified, they come after the event, so to talk about these in terms of probability is not really meaningful.

J C wrote: »

It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ...

It's not analogous to that at all.

1. A car represents a teleological function goal with few conceivable functional intermediate stages between a lone car part and the finished product. Evolution has no goal. Whatever works is good enough.

2. The analogy does not allow for replication, which would create a pool of "backups" from which the most functional are selected. The many non functional (or merely less functional) variants will tend not to progress to the next round.

There's lots of other issues with the analogy, but I think you're clever enough to know it was never a good one in the first place.

J C wrote: »

there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!!:pac::):D

But we see in life that this rule does not hold. There isn't only one way to build a life form, nor only one way to build their parts, even when those parts have analogous functions. So we have at least three kinds of wings which seem not to be exchangeable. We have at least two kinds of fins. At least three kinds of eyes. Two kinds of articulated legs. At least four kinds of skeletal support (bone, chitin plating, chitin cell walls, cellulose). So your analogy is totally inapplicable.

Anyway, we've gone off the point. By defining genetic information as being that which produces "functional specific components", you are assuming that function is absolute and that evolution is teleological. So you're basically asking us to defend your re-definition of evolution.

J C wrote: »

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.

Your example of CCR5d32, where a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy indicates that multiple functionality is already built into this system.

Now you're moving the goal posts. You asked me for an example of a functional protein which underwent a mutation to give a protein with a new function. That is what I gave you, and there are many more such examples.

J C wrote: »

... as you have confirmed yourself the function of CCRs are multiply redundant...and the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes.

The receptor function is lost for that gene, and the redundancy provided by the other CCRs is imperfect. There's a cost:benefit trade off. CCR5d32 is only beneficial so long as HIV exists. Without that pressure, the mutation is undergoing mild negative selection due to the loss of the original function. Which itself would not matter under certain other conditions. What you're failing to grasp is the ephemeral and non pre-emptive nature of gene function. Function for a gene is just whatever allows it to exist to the next generation under the current circumstances.

J C wrote: »

Multiple redundancy is also a definitive indicator of Intelligent Design!!!:pac::):D

That's illogical. Multiple redundancy in cases where such redundancy is trivial (ie by gene replication followed by minor modification) would be an expected implication of evolution, albeit not a defining one. So it is not a feature defining of design, but a feature non exclusive to it. For design, the redundancies would be expected to correlate with the importance of the feature. So we'd expect a brain that mirrors memories in both hemispheres, a backup heart and so forth. But instead redundancies seem to correlate with how easily they would arise through natural selection. So simple genes may have dozens of partially redundant backups, but the most complex organs have only one, or none at all.

Whatever the explanation for this, it does not support design.

So, what about my list of questions and your list of questions? Ever going to address those? And what did you think of my explanation of the tree of life to Wolfie? Do you agree that the tree exists? Can you explain why the the eukaryotes fall into a nested tree distribution based upon their traits when the design hypothesis would expect a web-like distribution?

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

...detailed and interesting point-by-point response...

Where do you find the time to patiently deal with this stuff, AH? Maximum res'pect. :pac:

AtomicHorror

2Scoops wrote: »

Where do you find the time to patiently deal with this stuff, AH? Maximum res'pect. :pac:

Pure procrastination. I'm currently writing my thesis and trying to re-write a research paper. Amazing what we'd rather do when the alternative is a word document filled with tracked changes that you just know consist mostly of your PI snarking over what are (although he has forgotten it) actually additions he insisted upon four revisions ago.

It's this or add some comments of my own with some very bad words in them...

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

You are ignoring the many scientific arguments put by well-qualified scientists for the creationist case. Lumping them in with Flat-earthers is just a tactic to avoid facing their case.

I've faced their case and found it lacking. So has everyone else.

I lump them in with the flat-Earthers (another group who have tried to demonstrate their beliefs with nonsense science) because they apparently don't care that their science is lacking.

I see no difference between the Flat-Earthers and the Creationists. Both groups claim they have scientific support for their claims. Both groups have had their scientific claims debunked by the rest of science. Both groups ignore this and continue on promoting the idea that they have scientific support.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree with you. But again, what has that got to do with the scientific case well-qualified scientists make for creationism?

Well because you keep saying there is disagreement over evolution as if that demonstrates something.

The "well qualified" Creationists have put forward their case for Creationism, it is been rejected because it fails scientific standards, yet they ignore this and continue to argue that there is support for it and that there is disagreement over evolution while trying to get their ideas around science and into the main stream population without having to meet scientific standards (for example through schools with unsolicited "biology" books) and by trying to redefine the very standards themselves, lowering them until Creationism can be accepted.

Explain to me how this is different to the Flat Earthers clinging to the idea that the world is flat despite total rejection from the scientific community because their ideas fail even the most basic scientific standard?

wolfsbane wrote: »

That may well be so. But it does not apply to the scientists qualified in the relevant sciences who make a scientifc case for creationism.

Of course it does. What does a scientists qualifications got to do with stopping someone making or promoting bad or nonsensical science, or continue to support it for ideological reasons even after it has been debunked.

You think once a person has received a qualification in a field you can trust everything he does or says without examination? Surely by that logic you should be a die hard supporter of Evolution, since 99.9999% of qualified biologists accept evolutionary theory.

The Flat Earth Society has their "science" as well Wolfsbane. The leaders of the society have all been trained engineers and they have their models to demonstrate that the Earth is actually flat.

Since when did it become that case that simply because they claimed something that meant there was genuine disagreement taking place over the flatness of the Earth :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Physical death is the just punishment for sinners.

What is spiritual death then?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I've shown above, death entered the world by man's sin.

The Bible would appear to contradict that statement. You didn't really show any of this, you just said that that is what these passages mean. To me that contradicts the passages themselves, it makes on sense to say that physical death is a punishment.

Then I guess this demonstrates the futility of trying to argue interpretation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Adam brought death not only to himself and his seed, but to all he was in charge of.

That would again appear to contradict the Bible. You yourself need to introduce the idea that some living things were not in fact considered living in order to make that work. Otherwise the idea of no physical death in a garden of food and which is tended to because wholly impractical.

Genesis even talks of God expelling Adam from Eden in order to prevent him from eating from the Tree of Life and living forever. It would seem that it was never part of God's plan that Adam would physically live forever

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since God tells us both that death was not part of His perfect creation, and yet plants were for food - then plant death is not counted as death by God.

Or God is talking about spiritual death when he tells use that it was not part of his perfect creation. Given that planets and other animals are clearly alive this to me would seem a far more sensible interpretation.

Have you considered the biological ramifications for Creationism and abiogensis if you start supposing that things as complex as plants and bacteria are not in fact alive?

AtomicHorror

So, following on from my post about the existence of a distinct tree of life for eukaryotes and how that alllows us to predict future fossil finds... by looking at the traits shared by humans, other ape species and the monkey species, we can construct a tree which shows how the species are related. Regardless of whether we consider that relationship to be the result of evolution, it's quite clearly present. It predicts that we should be able to find fossils which share a subset of the features from human and other ape species, as well as fossils which share a subset of traits from both monkeys and apes. There's a bit of wriggle room as to what can permissibly fit into the gaps in the tree, but not much. There's a little room for horizontal variation in terms of traits, or vertical variation in terms of time. Finding a species sharing traits of apes and monkeys but possessing the fully prehensile opposable thumb that we see in the Homo genus would be a major problem. Finding a species that merely possess the traits common to monkeys and apes but located in the fossil record 120 million years ago, would be just as big a problem. Both cases would fundamentally break the tree of life for eukaryotes.

Finding fossils like this fella, on the other hand, is exactly what we can predict if the tree holds. As a possible common ancestor of humans, apes and monkeys, or perhaps an offshoot of that common ancestor, this lemur-like species fits into an uncertain area of the tree without any upset. In time and trait combination, it's well within the permissible. Is it a common ancestor of humans? We can't say for sure, but we can say that the tree holds and that more evidence will help to clarify the matter.

We're still waiting for all those tree-busting fossils and living species which would support the design concept. All you guys need is one.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Where is this scientific case for creationism of which you speak??

You will find many examples in these sites. You will also find theological discussion, but you can pass by that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://creationresearch.org/
http://www.bryancore.org/
http://www.biblicalcreationministries.org.uk/b/index.php/welcome-to-the-bcm-website

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I've faced their case and found it lacking. So has everyone else.

Yes, all the evolutionists. Just like if I said the Creationist scientists had faced the evolutionist case and found it lacking. Doesn't get us anywhere.

I lump them in with the flat-Earthers (another group who have tried to demonstrate their beliefs with nonsense science) because they apparently don't care that their science is lacking.

I see no difference between the Flat-Earthers and the Creationists. Both groups claim they have scientific support for their claims. Both groups have had their scientific claims debunked by the rest of science. Both groups ignore this and continue on promoting the idea that they have scientific support.

The Flat-Earthers have hundreds of well-qualified scientists arguing their position? Please give the sites.

Well because you keep saying there is disagreement over evolution as if that demonstrates something.

It demonstates well-qualified scientists disagree on the issue.

The "well qualified" Creationists have put forward their case for Creationism, it is been rejected because it fails scientific standards, yet they ignore this and continue to argue that there is support for it and that there is disagreement over evolution while trying to get their ideas around science and into the main stream population without having to meet scientific standards (for example through schools with unsolicited "biology" books) and by trying to redefine the very standards themselves, lowering them until Creationism can be accepted.

You assert it fails scientific standards - but that is the issue. They claim it passes scientific standards. Both sides fail to agree on the scientific proof/weight the others offer.

Yes, we do seek to educate the public about the facts, to disabuse them of the lie that evolution has been proved. Both scientific integrity and religious premise demand that. We disagree that we adulterate the standards.

Explain to me how this is different to the Flat Earthers clinging to the idea that the world is flat despite total rejection from the scientific community because their ideas fail even the most basic scientific standard?

Because our ideas do not fail the scientific standards.

Of course it does. What does a scientists qualifications got to do with stopping someone making or promoting bad or nonsensical science, or continue to support it for ideological reasons even after it has been debunked.

I put that to you for the behaviour of evolutionists - it is nonsensical and held to for idealogical reasons. But let us be charitable and say most of the scientists on both sides are mostly convinced by their arguments and accept any contradictions will be resolved by further discoveries. Ideology provides the spur for uncertain evolutionists to stick with the consensus; religion does the same for the creationist.

You think once a person has received a qualification in a field you can trust everything he does or says without examination? Surely by that logic you should be a die hard supporter of Evolution, since 99.9999% of qualified biologists accept evolutionary theory.

No, being an expert does not prove you are right. Neither does being a majority of experts. It just gives you as much right of a hearing as the next expert.

The Flat Earth Society has their "science" as well Wolfsbane. The leaders of the society have all been trained engineers and they have their models to demonstrate that the Earth is actually flat.

Really? Care to give the sites?

Since when did it become that case that simply because they claimed something that meant there was genuine disagreement taking place over the flatness of the Earth :rolleyes:

Creation scientists do more than claim - they offer scientific argument to support their claims. That's why they so upset you. Just making religious claims could be dismissed - pointing to your lack of trousers is a real embarrassment.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Physical death is the just punishment for sinners.

What is spiritual death then?

The alienation of the human spirit from God - ultimately resulting in eternal separation from God in gehenna.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I've shown above, death entered the world by man's sin.
The Bible would appear to contradict that statement. You didn't really show any of this, you just said that that is what these passages mean. To me that contradicts the passages themselves, it makes on sense to say that physical death is a punishment.

The passages could mean nothing else. The resurrection of the physical body was the subject. If you care to offer an alternative exegesis?

Then I guess this demonstrates the futility of trying to argue interpretation.

Many arguments over interpretation can be resolved if one is forced to present the alternative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Adam brought death not only to himself and his seed, but to all he was in charge of.
That would again appear to contradict the Bible. You yourself need to introduce the idea that some living things were not in fact considered living in order to make that work. Otherwise the idea of no physical death in a garden of food and which is tended to because wholly impractical.

No, I pointed out where the Bible declares death came by man's sin. I pointed out that the Bible declares physical death is an enemy.

Genesis even talks of God expelling Adam from Eden in order to prevent him from eating from the Tree of Life and living forever. It would seem that it was never part of God's plan that Adam would physically live forever

Rather, that in a fallen state he should not be allowed to do something that would enable him to live forever. Had he continued in his innocency, the Tree of Life was his - only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Since God tells us both that death was not part of His perfect creation, and yet plants were for food - then plant death is not counted as death by God.
Or God is talking about spiritual death when he tells use that it was not part of his perfect creation. Given that planets and other animals are clearly alive this to me would seem a far more sensible interpretation.

Not when death is classed as an enemy.

Have you considered the biological ramifications for Creationism and abiogensis if you start supposing that things as complex as plants and bacteria are not in fact alive?

The question is, are they classed as having the breath of life like the rest of the biosphere?
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 6:17
And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.

Genesis 7:15
And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life.

wolfsbane

kiffer wrote: »

Right... we've been through this before as far as I'm concerned I put forth a pretty simple non-blinding-with-science answer (*)... but very quickly, as far as I'm concerned the RATE group have had to push the idea that the rate of decay was higher in the past because they know that the amounts of parent and daughter products contained in a sample at time of formation/cooling below closure temperature are a non-problem... instead they have suggested that the rate of decay was higher during the Creation and Flood periods... and fell off towards modern levels over time...

There are huge problems with this idea... not the least of which is the heat problem, which should be obvious to anyone that has done even Leaving Cert level physics, this problem can't be hand waved away...


* EDIT: actually in retrospect I may have written it gotten ticked and given up... much like I'm doing now.

Yes, and they deal with those issues. Objections exist in their models, just as in consensus ones.