The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your opinion of what constitutes science and essays may be deficient. but here's a bit more data for you:
Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
by Andrew A. Snelling
March 26, 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model

Not that Snelling paper again Wolfsbane... I thought we'd been through the flaws and problems in that with you at a level that a scientifically lay person could understand.

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Since the error was based on evolutionary presupposition and the remedy fits the creationist model, I win.
No, you don't.

Since the error, you claim, was based on evolution you have to show how the creationist model actively rectified the error.

No, all I have to show is that the remedy is in line with creationism and contrary to evolutionary supposition. Which I did. The correct prescription could be arrived at by chance, or by any other presupposition in line with the creationist concept of the human anatomy. Or by sheer practicality - it works. Practical evolutionists can do wonders when they ignore the theory.

If you can't, then you have shown, what has been stated here before many times, which is that evolution isn't afraid to correct itself and allows science to advance without hindrance.

Has evolutionism recanted its position on the 'flaw' in the human spine?

Ask yourself WB how many times has science being held up by this creationist model : If geologist and paleontologists used the creationist model of the 10,000 year earth then they'd have a big problem at explaining the various fossils found at the various strata now, wouldn't they?

Not really. At least, they would share in the difficulties evolutionists have in accounting for some of the strata by their model:
Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group
http://creation.com/chinese-fossil-layers-and-the-uniformitarian-re-dating-of-the-jehol-group

Even before 1859 it was well established that the earth was several million years old.

It was not established as fact; it was presumed. It was established in society, and has remained the establishment view.

wolfsbane

kiffer wrote: »

Not that Snelling paper again Wolfsbane... I thought we'd been through the flaws and problems in that with you at a level that a scientifically lay person could understand.

You may question the article, as evolutionists do their fellow-evolutionist's work when they disagree, but that does not make it non-science. If we believed all you guys said about one another's work, none of you are scientists.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Please WB in your OWN words explain how evolution contradicts entropy.

Evolution requires the increase of information, of specified complexity, to continue over billions of years. We do not observe this in real life. The highly complex becomes less so over time.

A layman's attempt, but it convey's my meaning.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Though contrary to the known laws of science - of Entropy, for instance [...]
Like, seriously wolfie, ideology, religion and everything else aside, which of these two options do you think is the more likely:
that the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who spend their lives examining this stuff down to molecular level in one way or another are clueless enough to be unable to explain why this might appear, to the untrained eye, to be so. Or,
That you don't understand what you've just written.

The former. The explanation I hear from them is: entropy has nothing to do with biology. That is just a fingers-in-ears laa-laaing to avoid the unpleasant reality.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

AA blast from the past updated with a few edits. I'm still waiting on J C to address with this stuff...

...how many times do I have to answer these questions ???

...we have been over these questions ... and Evolutionist answers ... and Creation Science rebuttals ad nauseum

...here, for example, are my responses to Whiskey Priest/Robin's responses to my original questions on these issues in Postings 383, 385 and 386 way back in January 2006!!!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50637500&postcount=383

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50637597&postcount=385

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50637645&postcount=386

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

You may question the article, as evolutionists do their fellow-evolutionist's work when they disagree, but that does not make it non-science. If we believed all you guys said about one another's work, none of you are scientists.

... I thought I made my objections clear the last time (that I noticed) this paper came up... I'm not basing my objections on the fact that Snelling is locked into the biblical timescale from the start but rather on large logical internal inconsistencies within his own work, on his almost total disregard for the heat requirements of his model, and a few other issues (some major, some minor)... before I even reach the creationism problem...
The weirdest part of the problem is that Snelling was trained as a geologist and so should be able to anticipate the objections and questions that this work would generate in the mind of a geologist and take them into account...
and again, to reiterate, at risk of repeating myself, I don't mean the use biblical timescale here but rather his disregard and failure to account for a number of obvious and major problems with his model... he doesn't do this... but rather just rolls on by them...

Leaving us in this position where you a scientifically lay person are judging my criticism of a paper not on any understanding of the content of the paper or even of the criticism itself... but purely because it agrees with your religious agenda. It is enough for you that there is some one that agrees with you ... you do not require that their work make any sort of concrete argument.
A dissenting voice is enough...

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Like, seriously wolfie, ideology, religion and everything else aside, which of these two options do you think is the more likely:
(a) that the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who spend their lives examining this stuff down to molecular level in one way or another are clueless enough to be unable to explain why this might appear, to the untrained eye, to be so. Or,
(b) That you don't understand what you've just written.

The former. The explanation I hear from them is: entropy has nothing to do with biology. That is just a fingers-in-ears laa-laaing to avo/id the unpleasant reality.

What non-creationist biologist told you that piece of nonsense?

In the spirit of replying by link, try this -- it's quite easy to follow and may help to put you right on at least one of your misconceptions concerning what real biologists actually think, rather than the silly nonsense that creationists claim they think:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution requires the increase of information, of specified complexity, to continue over billions of years. We do not observe this in real life.

We do not observe billions of years in real life .... well, yes you have us there Wolfie?:rolleyes:

Did you observe the garden of Eden?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

robindch said:

The former. The explanation I hear from them is: entropy has nothing to do with biology. That is just a fingers-in-ears laa-laaing to avoid the unpleasant reality.

Who told you entropy has nothing to do with biology?

Anyway, what you have actually been told many times is that the move from low to high entropy (the 2nd law of thermodynamics) does not stop evolution, any more than it stops me building a car engine.

the entropy law doesn't say at the end "unless you are intelligent". If the law of entropy actually did say that something cannot become more ordered than it was to begin with then humans would have broken the universe the first time we made a book, or a house.

Shockingly, we didn't. Placing the pages of a book together in a certain order does not break the universe.

This should be a hint to you that what Creationists claim the 2nd law says isn't actually what it says.

Putting a book together or building a car engine does turn usable energy into unusable energy, which is what the 2nd law is actually talking about.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you delude yourself.

Please explain that.

You are happy to change anything that does not threaten your materialist world-view. If Einstein's corrections made evolution incompatible, you bet he would have been fought tooth & nail.

Lets just please get one thing straight first.

You do realise that evolution has nothing to do with the big bang or abiogenesis don't you ? I'm sorry I have to ask.

At the very least I would be forced to admit all the evidence appears to contradict my position, and appeal to time to bring new light. Such is the strength Truth gives to its holder.

And don't you understand thats my point exactly ? I trust the evidence, if tomorrow all the evidence for evolution pointed to creation then I would trust in creation. I have no personal or religious reason to support evolution, I support the evidence as do all scientists. They don't have 'positions' based on belief.

Your lot however seem incapable of acknowledging apparently contrary evidence (with a few honourable exceptions) - showing how insecure your position really is.

There is no contrary evidence, there is absolutely nothing of any scientific value coming from the creationist side. The only argument creationism has is trying to pick holes in evolution, not making their own case for creation.

This thread is huge and the creationist side has given absolutely no evidence for creation, they have made some anti-evolution points but absolutely no evidence supporting creation whatsoever.

Creationists are trying to prove evolution wrong, they are not trying to prove creation right.

Please, tell me about this evidence. I really want to know. Give me some evidence for creation.

That's a good example of your insecurity. Creationists are happy to acknowledge evolutionary science as science, albeit mistaken.

A fundamentalist religious group acknowledges that the worlds scientific community support evolution, and you think that shows their ... what exactly ?

Unless you are a theistic evolutionist, evolution entails abiogenesis. Are you a theistic evolutionist?

This is exactly what I am talking about, you don't even know what your arguing against. Have you ever studied evolution ?

Evolution explains the diversity of life, it has nothing to say about where life came from.

wikipedia wrote:

Evolution is usually defined simply as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next

wikipedia wrote:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.

Your embarrassment over abiogenesis is a further indicator of the insecurity of your position.

Why do you think I'm embarrassed over abiogenesis ? I support abiogenesis, I also know that evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with eachother.

There is no contradiction by supporting one and not supporting the other.

Evolution is a fact* and a theory, abiogenesis is just a hypothesis.

*The fact of evolution-> Changes in trait prevalence from generation to generation is called evolution. This is a fact. Its observable.

The theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution.

Really? Any of the anti-creationist articles I have read on origins present abiogenesis as the prime candidate. Indeed, it has been defended here by many.

And I support it and would defend it too. But it is not a part of evolution. Its completely separate.

I'm happy to acknowledge that the last sentence is theology, not science. But the previous sentences were the scientific argument.

How are they scientific ? molecules-to-man ? That is not evolution. I think they are trying to attack abiogenesis and they don't give any examples whatsoever. Please give me proof that genetic information doesn't increase.

That's one interpretation of the evidence before us. The other is that the design was fine, but the client's behaviour brought degradation and death (the Fall).

You are trying to fit evidence around a religious belief, don't you even understand what your doing ?

Scientologists could use that evidence and suggest its because a giant space monkey designed us and he was a little drunk at the time. Thats fitting belief around the evidence, i.e > completely unscientific.

Evolutionary theory was the foundation of how he viewed our anatomy.

You did read the fact the people still use his techniques don't you ? And yet again, he didn't develop the techniques because of evolution, he developed his techniques because of observations in his patients.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...how many times do I have to answer these questions ???

JC, is this some of your 'evidence' ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

God created bananas to fit the human hand. :pac:

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, all I have to show is that the remedy is in line with creationism and contrary to evolutionary supposition. Which I did. The correct prescription could be arrived at by chance, or by any other presupposition in line with the creationist concept of the human anatomy. Or by sheer practicality - it works. Practical evolutionists can do wonders when they ignore the theory.

Williams' treatment for back pain was not based on evolutionary theory. It was based on observations of normal people and people with back pain. Part of his rationale was that people from African and Asian cultures who sat on the floor had less back pain than Westerners with their chairs.

As someone living in Asia I can personally attest to this. Back pain is at much lower levels here than in the west.

Furthermore, Williams did not recommend decreasing lordosis all the time, but only in cases of posterior disc bulging. It was already well known that anything which interfered with the spine's normal curvature, increasing or decreasing it, tended to cause pain. As even Bergman acknowledges, the Williams flexion exercises are beneficial in cases of spinal stenosis.

Mackenzie's exercises were more effective because they were simple and required no special equipment, so patient compliance was much greater.

Has evolutionism recanted its position on the 'flaw' in the human spine?

What position exactly ?

We used to walk on all fours, now we walk upright. The spine was not created from scratch, it evolved and has changed. Its not a great design.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution requires the increase of information, of specified complexity, to continue over billions of years. We do not observe this in real life. The highly complex becomes less so over time.

A layman's attempt, but it convey's my meaning.

By that argument, the improvement of computers really contradicts entropy as it requires the increase of information, of specified complexity, to continue over a matter of years (not billions, not millions, barey even hundreds, if you start with Charles Babbage).

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your opinion of what constitutes science and essays may be deficient. but here's a bit more data for you:
Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
by Andrew A. Snelling
March 26, 2008
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model

Radiohalos again :rolleyes: We've been over this several times.

Can you explain how the presence of radiohalos supports YEC? Dr. Snelling certainly can't...

J C

...is somebody trying to tell Evolutionists something about Darwinian Evolution ... when they call a film about Darwin's life ... CREATION ???:D:eek:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/25/creation-in-the-making

The actor Paul Bettany (who plays Darwin in the film Creation) visited the AIG Creation Museum last June ... I wonder was he trying to 'brush up' on his Creation Science ... like Charles Darwin would probably do ... if he were alive today???

... is this a case of art imitating life ... or life imitating art????:):D

....and in another irony, Newmarket, the distributor of The Passion of the Christ, will carry the Creation Film in America!!!:D

...I used to think that Darwin would have become a Creation Scientist, if he was alive today ... now I know that he would have become one!!!:D:eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...is somebody trying to tell Evolutionists something about Darwinian Evolution ... when they call a film about Darwin's life ... CREATION ???:D:eek:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/25/creation-in-the-making

The actor Paul Bettany (who plays Darwin in the film Creation) visited the AIG Creation Museum last June ... I wonder was he trying to 'brush up' on his Creation Science ... like Charles Darwin would probably do ... if he were alive today???

... is this a case of art imitating life ... or life imitating art????:):D

I think it's called creation just to appease you guys, seriously, the film has very little to do with evolution. It's more got to do with Darwin, the person, you know the one that some creationists make out to be some sort of brutish force for bad kinda guy.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I think it's called creation just to appease you guys, seriously, the film has very little to do with evolution. It's more got to do with Darwin, the person, you know the one that some creationists make out to be some sort of brutish force for bad kinda guy.

...I have always been an admirer of Darwin ... and I have found his writngs to be very insightful and balanced ... unlike much of the hyperbole and 'hot air' turned out by his latter-day Evolutionist supposed 'followers' today.

Most Creation Scientists also admire Darwin, both as a person and as a scientist!!!

...and I don't think it is beyond the bounds of possibility that a Darwin Prize in Baraminology might eventually be funded by Creation Science!!!!:D:eek:

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...is somebody trying to tell Evolutionists something about Darwinian Evolution ... when they call a film about Darwin's life ... CREATION ???:D:eek:

Are you going to answer any of the points put to you in the last page before you went on a break ?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Are you going to answer any of the points put to you in the last page before you went on a break ?

...are you in a huff, monosharp???

...is the 'white heat' of Creation Science logic getting to you???

..I have already answered the points put to me here ... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62283920&postcount=17917

:eek::cool::pac::):D;):p

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...are you in a huff, monosharp???

...is the 'white heat' of Creation Science logic getting to you???

..I have already answered the points put to me here ... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62283920&postcount=17917

Not at all.

I don't know whose questions you were answering but they weren't mine.

And they are pathetic excuses for scientific answers regardless of what the question was. :pac:

Are you going to answer my questions or not ?

How about one question then.

If ALL of the evidence in the Universe pointed to evolution, would you turn away from creationism ?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Not at all.

I don't know whose questions you were answering but they weren't mine.

And they are pathetic excuses for scientific answers regardless of what the question was. :pac:

Are you going to answer my questions or not ?

How about one question then.

If ALL of the evidence in the Universe pointed to evolution, would you turn away from creationism ?

...YES

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Radiohalos again :rolleyes: We've been over this several times.

Can you explain how the presence of radiohalos supports YEC? Dr. Snelling certainly can't...

The highlighted section seems pretty clear to me:

Radiohalos produced by the 238U and 232Th decay chains are thus easily explained. However, there are also radiohalos found that only exhibit rings produced by the three Po (polonium) radionuclides of the 238U decay chain (Figure 1), and it is these Po radiohalos that are enigmatic.3 Examination of the tiny central mineral inclusions (or radiocenters) in these Po radiohalos reveals that only the respective Po radionuclides were present at the time the Po radiohalos formed, but their half-lives are very short—218Po (3.1 minutes), 214Po (164 micro-seconds) and 210Po (138 days). After 10 half-lives of decay the original quantities of radionuclides are essentially exhausted, so these Po radiohalos rings would seem to have formed very quickly, in approximately 31 minutes (218Po), 1.64 milli-seconds (214Po) and 1,380 days (210Po).

Now these Po radiohalos have been found primarily in the mineral biotite, a mica—at 20 out of 22 reported localities.4 The rocks hosting these Po-radiohalo-bearing biotites at 17 of the 20 localities are probably granites or granitic pegmatites. According to conventional uniformitarian geology, such granitic rocks formed over millions of years by cooling from hot magmas intruded into the upper levels of the earth's crust.5 However, the radiohalos could only have formed after the biotites had crystallized around the tiny Po-bearing inclusions and cooled. Thus, assuming the Po was in the tiny inclusions when they first crystallized, it can be concluded that the biotites, and therefore the granites, had to crystallize and cool in less time than it would have taken for the Po radiohalo rings to form6—1.64 milli-seconds for the 214Po radiohalo rings! If this implies that these granitic rocks were instantly created, then it is no wonder that the conventional geologist Dalrymple relegated Po radiohalos to being "a very tiny mystery"!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

However, the radiohalos could only have formed after the biotites had crystallized around the tiny Po-bearing inclusions and cooled. Thus, assuming the Po was in the tiny inclusions when they first crystallized, it can be concluded that the biotites, and therefore the granites, had to crystallize and cool in less time than it would have taken for the Po radiohalo rings to form6—1.64 milli-seconds for the 214Po radiohalo rings! If this implies that these granitic rocks were instantly created, then it is no wonder that the conventional geologist Dalrymple relegated Po radiohalos to being "a very tiny mystery"!

Do you understand though why this isn't providing scientific support for YEC?

Again, like practically all YEC, he is just saying that traditional scientific theories can't explain this (it does actually, but that is a different matter). But then he isn't explaining it either. He has not put forward his own scientific theory, within the framework of YEC, that explains how these appeared. Simply saying "God did it" is not science. You can do that with anything.

It is more "I've demonstrated your theory is wrong thus proving my theory correct" nonsense, that Creationists do all the time.

To put it in a religious context that you might understand better, it would be like someone taking a mystery from Christianity and saying that because this issue exist that proves Hinduism is the correct religion. A Christian would retort that no it doesn't, it proves that there is a mystery in Christianity, and has nothing to do with Hinduism

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...YES

Oh good so thats all settled then, JC is now not a creationist. :pac:

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Oh good so thats all settled then, JC is now not a creationist. :pac:

....your hypothetical question was "If ALL of the evidence in the Universe pointed to evolution, would you turn away from creationism ?"

...as there is NO evidence unambiguously pointing towards Evolution .... and plenty of evidence pointing unambiguously towards Creation ... I am still a Creation Scientist!!!!

...indeed I once had a blind faith in Evolution myself ... and it took me 10 years to get over it .... and I've never looked back since!!!:D:):eek:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

It is more "I've demonstrated your theory (Evolution) is wrong thus proving my theory correct" nonsense, that Creationists do all the time

To put it in a religious context that you might understand better, it would be like someone taking a mystery from Christianity and saying that because this issue exist that proves Hinduism is the correct religion.

...there are no 'mysteries' for true Christians!!!
Mr 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

....and are you saying that Evolution is a part of a 'Mystery Religion'???

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you understand though why this isn't providing scientific support for YEC?

Again, like practically all YEC, he is just saying that traditional scientific theories can't explain this (it does actually, but that is a different matter). But then he isn't explaining it either. He has not put forward his own scientific theory, within the framework of YEC, that explains how these appeared. Simply saying "God did it" is not science. You can do that with anything.

It is more "I've demonstrated your theory is wrong thus proving my theory correct" nonsense, that Creationists do all the time.

To put it in a religious context that you might understand better, it would be like someone taking a mystery from Christianity and saying that because this issue exist that proves Hinduism is the correct religion. A Christian would retort that no it doesn't, it proves that there is a mystery in Christianity, and has nothing to do with Hinduism

Nonsense. His case is that the radiohalo data is against deep time and in line with a young earth. He was not saying it proves God did it 6000 years ago.

If the data contradicted deep time and a young earth, you would have a point.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Nonsense. His case is that the radiohalo data is against deep time and in line with a young earth.

And .. ?

Simply declaring that something is "in line" with an idea you have means absolutely nothing in a scientific sense.

I could say that radiohalo data is against deep time and in line with the world being on the back of a turtle.

There is no support here for YEC, let alone a successful prediction

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

I think it's called creation just to appease you guys, seriously, the film has very little to do with evolution. It's more got to do with Darwin, the person, you know the one that some creationists make out to be some sort of brutish force for bad kinda guy.

Let me point to a fine documentary I saw last week:
The Voyage that Shook the World
https://store.creation.com/uk/product_info.php?sku=30-9-543

It does what it says on the tin - dramatic period recreations and stunning nature cinematography interwoven with scholars sharing their perspectives on the man and the controversy.