The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

...while lying by attempting to make out that Darwin was brilliant but misguided in his conclusions because they were based on faulty work of people like Lyell

As if all we have in support for Darwinian evolution is what Darwin thought about the matter. More Creationist anti-science nonsense :rolleyes:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/07/voyage-that-shook-world.html

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

It does what it says on the tin

A tin pot presumably.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...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

As you say, that was close to four years ago now. I've since made my own responses. Are they that troubling or do you consider them to be beneath your attention?

There's also a list of questions that I put to you guys, which you responded to with waffle. I refuted that and we've heard nothing about it since.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I have often pointed out, my position involves both religion and science. Your problem is in not distinguishing between them.

Actually I think that's where you're running into difficulties. I reject religion because I can tell the difference quite well. For the same reason I suspect you reject science and make no mistake that this is what you have done.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would be only religion if we did not present scientific argument as to why the evidence to the contrary is false.

It is not science if any part of it is put beyond question.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We do however, and of course it is not the evidence that is false, but your interpretation of it.

You don't think that "interpretation" of dozens of kinds of radiometric data, countless geological samples, thousands of corroborating fossils, and an incredible number of bioninformatic analyses which all independently say the world is greater than 3 billion years old so that they all change to exactly 6000... is a bit fishy? That's not interpretation, it's saying black is white.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not at all. Unless you mean we all must regard known facts as falsifiable. For example, water vapourises given sufficient heat. Is that falsifiable?

Yes. You can directly test it, so long as you specify the temperature.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If so, then so too is the creation bit. It is a truth known to all to whom it has been revealed.

And who validated it? Boiling water can be validated by anyone with a pot and a thermometer. Not comparable at all. Revelation is not knowing, because it cannot be distinguished from delusion. That's one of the reasons why we have science.

If I try to sell you a car and tell you that it was revealed to me by God that the car is safe, will you buy the car and drive it? Or would you prefer actual, reproducible and objectively verifiable safety data? If we reject revelation as useful information in risky situations, why is it suddenly okay to accept it elsewhere?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Several points:
1. Variation does come about via mutation, descent with modification and selection. Flies, dogs, horses,etc. all vary in this manner. My claim is that they do not vary beyond their kind - dogs do not vary to become non-dogs, etc.

On this we sort-of agree. Consider this. Simplifying and skipping parts of course.

At some point a species of animal varied and resulted in two varieties. One had a backbone and the other did not. Neither became a non-animal. The vertebrate animal later varied to produce two varieties. One had fins and one had legs. Neither became a non-vertebrate. The land vertebrate varied to produce two varieties, cats and dogs. Neither became a non land vertebrate. The dog varied to produce two breeds, and some time in the future one of those became reproductively isolated. Neither became a non-land vertebrate dog, or non-dog as you put it. But despite still being "dog", nothing prevents the progeny from varying by the same extent as the progeny at any previous step. So in some distant future, we could certainly end up with, say a hairy land dog and a hairless pseudo-finned water dog. Both still dogs.

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. Some of the nesting would cover variation within kinds.

Yes, but unfortunately you don't have to go far in the tree building to cross the boundaries of the baramin.

wolfsbane wrote: »

3. Some of the nesting would be covered by design similiarity - no need to design a new way of doing it for every organism.

So why do it? There are at least three totally independent kinds of eye, three kinds of wings, two kinds of fins, two kinds of body insulation, two kinds of terrestrial limbs. Given that the owners of these parts often compete in exactly the same niche, we can't say that these are merely varieties designed for subtly different jobs.

And design similarity wouldn't result in a nested similarity relationship, that would be really unlikely. It would result in similarity, as we see between makes of car. That's not a nested tree, it's a web. I've tried to explain this to you before but you just don't seem to get the difference.

wolfsbane wrote: »

4. The nesting model is not the straight-forward tree commonly presented. It has many non-fits that descent does not account for.

Yes it does have exceptions. But does it have any exceptions that defy horizontal gene transfer? HGT is a very limited process, you can't throw whole multi genetic traits around with it. Instead you get random bits of genes and non-coding sequences.

So can you give me an example of a species which violates the tree without using HGT?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rapid speciation, the ability for which was part of the original kind. And who was to comment on such changes?

The people who wrote Genesis, for starters.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Was it an issue back then? How much of what was written has survived?

I don't know, but even one reference would back you up.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That rapid speciation can occur even today is evident:
Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists
http://creation.com/brisk-biters

Got any evidence that it can produce thousands of species per year, or more importantly that it works for non-insect species? Has this ever been observed in a mammal?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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

You would have established at least that your turtle had evidence that supported it and contradicted deep time. You would have shown the deep time v turtle theory was open to debate, not the closed case deep timers allege.

In a scientific sense, any evidence that contradicts a theory surely has meaning. It may not invalidate the theory, but it shows it is open to debate.

That, I think, is the great value of the radio-halo research. It ought to open impartial minds to look again at all the evidence and see if its support for the current consensus is as 'rock-solid' as it claims.

wolfsbane

kiffer wrote: »

... 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...

But Snelling and the other creationist scientists DO acknowledge the heating problem for their model. It is one they are working on. Both sides have difficulties with their models. That only invalidates them when a model without difficulties arises.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

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

I can't remember the posters here who made the case - perhaps they will 'fess up?

Anyway, I appreciate your link to a more detailed explanation. From that I see where I may have been confused by the less detailed claims.

The evolutionists there incorporate entropy into evolution. However, they do this on the basis that An increase in organized complexity is not the same as a decrease in entropy. The second law applies only to entropy; it says nothing at all about organized complexity as such. This is a different understanding of entropy than I am used to: in my mind an increase of organized complexity IS a decrease in entropy.

But maybe it is their definition of organized complexity that stumbles me. I understand by it the simplest self-replication molecule/life-form increasing in complexity to man, over time. Maybe they are thinking of crystalization and equating that with the organised complexity of life-forms?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

No, I had it revealed to me. I'm glad you acknowledge evolution slime-to-biologist has not been observed. That leaves you deduced it from the evidence or it was revealed to you. I'll assume the former.

All I'm saying here is that the evidence is open to more than one interpretation, so your deduction is open to debate. The creationists offer their interpretation, which is based on both revelation and deduction - but they only require you to debate the scientifically deduced part.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Think about what you have said here. Entropy is a natural process, and the law describes what natural processes do. You introduced Intelligent intervention - a man making a book, building a house or building a car engine.

If life can increase in specified complexity by natural processes that continue for billions of years, then you are right - entropy does not disprove evolution.

That means I have wasted a lot of money upgrading my computer and car. If I had left them in the garden - or under any chemical conditions of your choice - there was a chance they would have upgraded themselves.

In the real world, they would just disintegrate. Entropy.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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).

See my last to Wickie. Intelligent input does not contradict entropy. But evolution requires a constant increase in complexity over billions of years, without intelligent input.

Maybe you think computers or cars naturally evolve? Should I wait for my 10 year old Peugeot 106 to evolve into the latest model, or should I keep saving?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

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

...you are confusing a Creation Science conclusion ... that the radiohalo data is against deep time and in line with a young earth....

...with a Creationist Belief ... that the God of the Bible exists...and He Created all that exists!!!:D

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

...I told you that Creationists have great respect for Charles Darwin ... but they have no respect for the twisting of Darwin's insightful ideas by others to produce the invalid ideas of 'Darwinism'!!!:eek::)

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

If life can increase in specified complexity by natural processes that continue for billions of years, then you are right - entropy does not disprove evolution.

That means I have wasted a lot of money upgrading my computer and car. If I had left them in the garden - or under any chemical conditions of your choice - there was a chance they would have upgraded themselves. .....

.....Intelligent input does not contradict entropy. But evolution requires a constant increase in complexity over billions of years, without intelligent input.

Maybe you think computers or cars naturally evolve? Should I wait for my 10 year old Peugeot 106 to evolve into the latest model, or should I keep saving?

....no evolutionary 'progress' can be made without 'mutation' ...

...so, according to 'Evolutionary Theory' you will be able to EVOLVE a new improved model by 'mutating' your old car!!!
....so you should whack your car randomly with a hammer every few days ... and hit the odd telegraph pole with your car occasionally!!!!:eek::D:):rolleyes:

...I don't think you will end up with an improved model ... but you will have learned a valuable lesson about the invalidity of Spontaneous Evolution!!!:D:)

..on second thoughts ... ignore the Evolutionists and keep saving for a new car, Wolfsbane ... and continue to avoid 'close encounters' with telegraph poles ... and hammers!!!:D

...and all other mutagenic agents!!!!:D

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

The evolutionists there incorporate entropy into evolution. However, they do this on the basis that An increase in organized complexity is not the same as a decrease in entropy. The second law applies only to entropy; it says nothing at all about organized complexity as such.This is a different understanding of entropy than I am used to: in my mind an increase of organized complexity IS a decrease in entropy.

Right, well then at least we can take it that you have just misunderstood this then.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...so, according to 'Evolutionary Theory' you will be able to EVOLVE a new improved model by 'mutating' your old car!!!

Yes, methinks that is true in principle...

....so you should whack your car randomly with a hammer every few days

Since when does randomness come into play?

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

In a scientific sense, any evidence that contradicts a theory surely has meaning. It may not invalidate the theory, but it shows it is open to debate.
.

Hmm, couple of of issues with astronomy today, should it be open to..

A Debate from astrology???

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I had it revealed to me.

You appreciate I hope that that means nothing from a scientific sense. You could (and probably are) be just imagining it

It is a bit ridiculous to attack a empirical deduction from collection of evidence that can be used to form a scientific model that can be tested while being perfectly happy to accept personal revelation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm glad you acknowledge evolution slime-to-biologist has not been observed.

By definition it cannot be directly observed, it takes billions of years.

I'm glad you acknowledge that you do not need to directly observe something to know that it is or has happened.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That leaves you deduced it from the evidence or it was revealed to you. I'll assume the former.

Well yes, revelation is meaningless.

wolfsbane wrote: »

All I'm saying here is that the evidence is open to more than one interpretation

interpretations must lead to testable models, models that must make predications that can then be compared to what scientists actually discover and observe

Evolutionary biologists and geologists do this every way, but when it was put to you and JC what tests Creationists had made based on their models that had lead to successful predictions you couldn't give even one example.

That is quite telling.

Anyone can "Interpret" the evidence. Flat Earthers interpret the evidence and conclude the Earth is flat. What matters is that you structure your interpretation in a scientific way so that it can be tested to see how accurate it is, how good it is at explaining the observable world around us.

Creationists don't do this. They attempt to bend the evidence to find their model after the fact rather than showing that their models successful predict the evidence.

This should be screaming to anyone with even a basic understanding of science and what a scientific theory is that Creationists are not doing proper science, they are not attempting to explain the world around them, they are simply interested in ideology.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Think about what you have said here. Entropy is a natural process, and the law describes what natural processes do. You introduced Intelligent intervention - a man making a book, building a house or building a car engine.

I did but explain to me how you think that matters. If how you describe entropy was a law of nature how could I break the law of entropy? I'm not God. I can't change the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Simply by being intelligent I cannot reshape the way the universe works.

If the law actually said that things cannot change from a state of disorder to a state of higher order, as misguided Creationists claim, I would break the universe by simply arranging the pages of a book in sequence.

Obviously I don't break the universe when ever I do this, so obviously that isn't what the law states. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

In the real world, they would just disintegrate. Entropy.

And how do they do this Wolfsbane? Through chemical reactions. Chemical reactions that created more ordered and structured results that are the combination of less complex molecule structures. For example the metal in your car rusts, which creates ordered chains of molecules more complex than the original modules themselves. The iron and oxyen combine to form ironoxides.

BUT HOW CAN THAT HAPPEN!!! Surely the more complex rust molecules cannot form because entropy says that things can only get more disordered.

Except that isn't what it says. :rolleyes:

What is happening is that the energy used in this chemical reaction is being converted from useful energy to non-useful energy. The universe, and your car, is getting colder because the energy is being used up in these reactions.

But obviously the energy can be used to create more complex structures than were originally present, in fact that stands to reason given the way chemistry works. That happens when the iron and oxygen in your car combine, and it is what happens when life happens on Earth. Complexity arises while using energy, converting the universe from a hot high energy state to a slightly less hot, low energy state.

At what point, after you have been feed lie after lie after lie about science from Creationists do you stop believing them Wolfsbane?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

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

A question which is as meaningless as your answer because of what you believe.

The problem is JC, that no matter how good the evidence is, you are incapable of accepting it. Its not because your stupid, because I've actually discovered that while people like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are as uneducated and stupid as they come, there are some genuinely intelligent people in Creationism.

Kurt Wise, probably the most well educated and intelligent creationist today said it better then anyone.

You see JC, Kurt said literally that even if all the evidence in the world flatly contradicted scripture, even so much that he had to admit to himself scripture must be wrong, he would still stand his ground and deny the evidence.

Basically saying that no matter what the evidence is, it makes no difference because scripture is right and thats the end of it.

This is the same rubbish I have heard from Ken Ham and Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

Its just pathetic. There is no other way to describe it, I feel sorry for people like that.

...as there is NO evidence unambiguously pointing towards Evolution

Of course not JC. Thats why 99% of scientists in every scientific discipline in the world says there is.

The fact is JC, that there is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity.

And now your simply denying facts to stand by your scripture, just like the above individuals.

.... and plenty of evidence pointing unambiguously towards Creation ... I am still a Creation Scientist!!!!

And in over 1000 pages on this forum you haven't given a single example of it. Not 1 single example JC.

...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!!!

I have two things to say to that.

From your comments JC I can only conclude that your real view is the same as Kurt Wise, that you will deny evidence against scripture no matter what. And because of that I feel sorry.

I am not taking an anti-religion stance here, because the vast majority of religious people have no problem accepting facts and not having them clash with their beliefs.

I'm taking an anti-fundamentalist ignorance stance.

And lastly, the world should genuinely be afraid if people with attitudes like Mr Wise's ever get any real power. It would be the end of education and civilisation as we know it.

Its a national holiday here in Korea for thanksgiving to your ancestors.

Why don't you take a page from the Koreans and thank your ancestors for learning and science which has contributed so much to humanity and is the reason either of us is alive today to discuss this.

추석 잘 보내세요

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...so, according to 'Evolutionary Theory' you will be able to EVOLVE a new improved model by 'mutating' your old car!!!

Malty_T
Yes, methinks that is true in principle...


Originally Posted by J C
....so you should whack your car randomly with a hammer every few days

Malty_T
Since when does randomness come into play?

....mutations ARE random events ... it is NS that is supposed to 'direct' the process ... but the useless 'combinatorial space' is effecively infinite ... and therefore no useful product will ever be produced by the combined process ...
....just like 'wrapping a car around a pole' has never been observed to produced an improved model ... and unfortunately, this has occurred millions of times since cars were first manufactured ... and NOT EVEN ONCE has it 'improved' any car!!!!:eek:

J C

wrote:

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

monosharp
A question which is as meaningless as your answer because of what you believe.

...it was a meaningless hypothertical question because of the reality of the evidence from the REAL WORLD ... because all of the evidence denies (even the theoretical possibility) of Spontaneous Evolution while pointing simultaneously towards an absolute requirement for an intelligent involvement in the original production of life!!!!

...the evidence is objectively there for everyone (other than those in total denial) to see!!!!

wrote:

monosharp
The problem is JC, that no matter how good the evidence is, you are incapable of accepting it. Its not because your stupid, because I've actually discovered that while people like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are as uneducated and stupid as they come, there are some genuinely intelligent people in Creationism.

Kurt Wise, probably the most well educated and intelligent creationist today said it better then anyone.

You see JC, Kurt said literally that even if all the evidence in the world flatly contradicted scripture, even so much that he had to admit to himself scripture must be wrong, he would still stand his ground and deny the evidence.

Basically saying that no matter what the evidence is, it makes no difference because scripture is right and thats the end of it.

This is the same rubbish I have heard from Ken Ham and Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

Its just pathetic. There is no other way to describe it, I feel sorry for people like that.

...yes, some Creationists do say that .... but I DON'T... say that.

I always differentiate between my Christian Faith (which I hold by faith alone) and my position on the 'Origins Issue', which I hold as a Scientist from studying the objective evidence for Creation (and against Spontaneous Evolution).

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...as there is NO evidence unambiguously pointing towards Evolution...

monosharp
Of course not JC. Thats why 99% of scientists in every scientific discipline in the world says there is.

The fact is JC, that there is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity.

And now your simply denying facts to stand by your scripture, just like the above individuals.

....amazing as it may seem, Spontaneous Evolution is held by all of these scientists by faith alone!!!

....there are copious writings about Spontaneous Evolution by Evolutionists ... but still NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for it's existence ...
Indeed some Evolutionists freely admit that this is the case ... for example, Prof Dawkins, on page one of the Preface to his latest book explicitly confirms this to be a FACT (emphasis mine "Looking back at those books (i.e. all of his previous books), I realised that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close." Prof Dawkins then proceeded to write a further 460 pages ... but still didn't succeed in explicitly setting out any unambiguous evidence for Spontaneous Evolution!!!!

...and ditto with every other book on evolution that I have ever read!!!

wrote:

monosharp
And in over 1000 pages on this forum you haven't given a single example of it. Not 1 single example JC.

Evolutionist Science has not come up with a plausible hypothesis never mind a proper scientific theory on the origins of life – even though some evolution books would have you believe otherwise.

My ‘argument’ is based on BOTH mathematics AND “cutting edge” bio-science. My discovery of the mathematical impossibility of Spontaneous Evolution was certainly a personal “Eureka” moment that gave me great pleasure. However, more importantly, the figures are absolutely devastating to both the spontaneous generation of life and the evolutionary hypotheses.

The Theory of Natural Selection IS a valid scientific theory as it is precisely defined and is testable by repeatable observation and/or experimentation. Having said that, Natural Selection itself certainly doesn’t produce variation – and tends to produce stability / mediocrity rather than novel / improved types of creatures. For example, an “improved” (and therefore different) specimen is almost always sexually selected AGAINST in environmentally stable wild populations of animals!!! The theory does provide an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments. However, the adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity already within the population and in extremis a highly adapted population can end up in an inbred genetic cul-de-sac unable to adapt to any new environmental changes due to it’s loss of genetic diversity during the initial adaptation process.

The Evolution Hypothesis, on the other hand, is totally defunct, lacking as it does any plausible mechanism for creating genetic diversity. The only mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in genetic information evident at all points between “muck and man”.
The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage. Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST. Irreducible complexity also means that it is mathematically impossible to produce a complex useful organ through random or gradual means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.

You validly ask what my argument is – As a true sceptic, and a professional scientist, I will start with what I have observed / haven’t observed:-

I have never observed any plausible mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life.
I have never observed the spontaneous or assisted restoration of life to any dead organism or cell.
I have observed millions of different species which are distinctly different and whose cells are packed with organised information of amazing density and unimaginable complexity.
I have observed biochemical systems operating at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind.
I have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems.
I have observed missing links between ALL species, both living and fossil.
I have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species.
I have observed evidence that all populations are degenerating over time with accumulated mutations – and many extinctions of species are due to this degeneration.
I have observed the fossil record to actually be a record of instantaneous death and catastrophic burial – and NOT a record of the gradual development of life over time.
I have observed the production of USEFUL biochemical polymers by gradual random means to be a mathematical (and physical) impossibility.
I have observed that all living systems use PRE-EXISTING SOPHISTICATED COMPLEX biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and the production of DNA itself requires the PRE-EXISTENCE of DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”.
I have observed that geological formations, such as the Grand Canyon and new canyons formed during the Mount St. Helens eruption, to be evidentially formed through the action of large amounts of water acting over a small amount of time.
I have never observed any "higher species" to actually increase genetic information over time.

ALL of the above observations are contrary to the predictions of "The Evolutionary Hypothesis" and that is why I maintain, as a professional scientist that evolution is invalid i.e. dead - but it has forgotten to lie down. It’s failure to lie down, i.e. to be rejected by the generality of the scientific community, is as big a ‘stumbling block’ to modern scientific progress as the Geocentric Hypothesis was to progress in medieval astronomy. Another good example of “trained experts” getting it totally wrong – ironically, BECAUSE OF their “training”!!!

My message is to abandon the dead hypothesis of evolution and stop trying to resuscitate it. Go back to what science does best – objective observation – and frame a new hypotheses that fits all of the REALITY that we observe – and NOT what some people would like to continue to BELIEVE, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it.

My challenge still remains to all you supposed skeptics out there - to point out ANY aspect of the so-called "Theory of Evolution" that doesn't involve a complete suspension of MY common sense and YOUR grip on reality!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...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!!!

monosharp
I have two things to say to that.

From your comments JC I can only conclude that your real view is the same as Kurt Wise, that you will deny evidence against scripture no matter what. And because of that I feel sorry.

I am not taking an anti-religion stance here, because the vast majority of religious people have no problem accepting facts and not having them clash with their beliefs.

I'm taking an anti-fundamentalist ignorance stance.

And lastly, the world should genuinely be afraid if people with attitudes like Mr Wise's ever get any real power. It would be the end of education and civilisation as we know it.

Its a national holiday here in Korea for thanksgiving to your ancestors.

Why don't you take a page from the Koreans and thank your ancestors for learning and science which has contributed so much to humanity and is the reason either of us is alive today to discuss this.

...I am not into 'Ancestor Worship' myself!!!!!

... I have found that worshipping the One True God is more fruitful!!!!

..anyway, the 'fundamentalist ignorance' seems to be all on the Evolutionist side of the house ... because they hold their 'origins position' by faith alone!!!!

...I used to do so as well ... until I found out that ALL of the objective evidence pointed towards Intelligent Design and Creation!!!!:D:)

DublinWriter

J C wrote: »

...so, according to 'Evolutionary Theory' you will be able to EVOLVE a new improved model by 'mutating' your old car!!!

No...I think you'll find that the theory is only applicable to organic living reproducing organisms and not lumps of man-made inanimate metal.

But if I pray to your God, will he grant me better MPG?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Think about what you have said here. Entropy is a natural process, and the law describes what natural processes do. You introduced Intelligent intervention - a man making a book, building a house or building a car engine.
I did but explain to me how you think that matters. If how you describe entropy was a law of nature how could I break the law of entropy? I'm not God. I can't change the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Simply by being intelligent I cannot reshape the way the universe works.

I see what you are getting at - but you ignore the fact that the vast increase in complexity between non-life and today's biosphere requires entropy on earth to be opposite from that we see in operation in nature today. Where specified complexity increases, it is caused by intelligence acting upon it.

But there was no intelligence in your universe until long after it formed into galaxies, planets, plants and animals. There was no-one to arrange the pages, or even to put the information on the pages.

If the law actually said that things cannot change from a state of disorder to a state of higher order, as misguided Creationists claim, I would break the universe by simply arranging the pages of a book in sequence.

Obviously I don't break the universe when ever I do this, so obviously that isn't what the law states.

See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In the real world, they would just disintegrate. Entropy.
And how do they do this Wolfsbane? Through chemical reactions. Chemical reactions that created more ordered and structured results that are the combination of less complex molecule structures. For example the metal in your car rusts, which creates ordered chains of molecules more complex than the original modules themselves. The iron and oxyen combine to form ironoxides.

True - If a car is just a collection of iron atoms, then you are right - my car is becoming more complex by the minute. But if it is a complex structure that has thousands of inter-related functions, then rusting is an act of entropy, not a reversal of it.

BUT HOW CAN THAT HAPPEN!!! Surely the more complex rust molecules cannot form because entropy says that things can only get more disordered.

Except that isn't what it says.

What is happening is that the energy used in this chemical reaction is being converted from useful energy to non-useful energy. The universe, and your car, is getting colder because the energy is being used up in these reactions.

But obviously the energy can be used to create more complex structures than were originally present, in fact that stands to reason given the way chemistry works. That happens when the iron and oxygen in your car combine, and it is what happens when life happens on Earth. Complexity arises while using energy, converting the universe from a hot high energy state to a slightly less hot, low energy state.

So life in all its complexity happened in just the same way iron oxidises! Unfortunately for you, life is just like my car - a really complex structure, not just a collection of atoms. And it falls under the rule of entropy in heading to death and disintegration.

I repeat: Life is not a mere collection of atoms, each of which may breakdown/combine with others into a more stable structure. It is a vast complexity of information that could not have amounted if the 2 Law applied. The 2nd Law applies, so Life did not evolve.

At what point, after you have been feed lie after lie after lie about science from Creationists do you stop believing them Wolfsbane?

They are not lying, nor are many evolutionists. They both are advancing plausible explanations for all the evidence they face. Both sides have unresolved difficulties in their models - and entropy is a BIG one for your side.

Creationists have a strong model, but it is not strong enough to shut out all scientific debate. Only their knowledge by revelation gives them true certainty. If only evolutionists would be sober enough to admit the scientific uncertainty of their own position.

J C

DublinWriter wrote: »

No...I think you'll find that the theory is only applicable to organic living reproducing organisms and not lumps of man-made inanimate metal.

...so HOW do you think the 'organic living reproducing organisms' got here in the first place then???

DublinWriter wrote: »

But if I pray to your God, will he grant me better MPG?

....no ... but He might just 'save your ass' if you were 'running out of road' somewhere and you turned to Him in faith to save you!!!!:D:)

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...it was a meaningless hypothertical question because of the reality of the evidence from the REAL WORLD ... because all of the evidence denies (even the theoretical possibility) of Spontaneous Evolution while pointing simultaneously towards an absolute requirement for an intelligent involvement in the original production of life!!!!

Oh good the 'Ben Stein' argument.

First JC. Make up your mind, are we debating the origin of life or the theory of evolution ? Anyone with any scientific knowledge knows they are not the same thing.

The theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life anymore then it explains gravity or thermodynamics. Why ? Because it doesn't try to.

Evolution explains the diversity of life, how life changes over time.
Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

So please, make up your mind. I will debate you on either issue.

So you have just stated there is no evidence for abiogenesis, are you going to give any evidence for your position at all ?

...the evidence is objectively there for everyone (other than those in total denial) to see!!!!

So 99% of the worlds scientists are in denial ? And you still haven't given a single example. Not 1 single piece of evidence JC.

...yes, some Creationists do say that .... but I DON'T... say that.

And that wasn't my point at all. My point is that whether or not you say it, its how creationists think.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming JC, its everywhere around us, its in us. The Earth is not 6000 years old and that evidence is also everywhere for everyone to see.

You are incapable of accepting it because of your faith.

I always differentiate between my Christian Faith (which I hold by faith alone) and my position on the 'Origins Issue', which I hold as a Scientist from studying the objective evidence for Creation (and against Spontaneous Evolution).

Give 1 single example of evidence for creation. How many times have you been asked ?

....amazing as it may seem, Spontaneous Evolution is held by all of these scientists by faith alone!!!

Again JC. Make up your mind, what are we debating. Evolution or Abiogenesis ?

Are you attacking the formation of the first organic compounds on Earth or the formation of the first primitive cells ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Please explain your problems with the Miller Urey experiment

....there are copious writings about Spontaneous Evolution by Evolutionists ... but still NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for it's existence ...

Thats because scientists make hypothesis about the origins of life. I and anyone else will tell you we don't know how life started but there are many hypothesis.

I realised that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close."[/I] Prof Dawkins then proceeded to write a further 460 pages ... but still didn't succeed in explicitly seting out any unambiguous evidence for Spontaneous Evolution!!!!

tut tut JC.

Dawkins said evidence for evolution and you said evidence for abiogenesis.

They are not the same thing.

...and ditto with every book on evolution that I have ever read!!!

Because you are incapable of accepting it like I already showed in my last post. Fundamentalists cannot accept anything which goes against their beliefs.

Evolutionist Science has not come up with a plausible hypothesis never mind a proper scientific theory on the origins of life – even though some evolution books would have you believe otherwise.

Thats just lazy and a bare faced lie and doesn't deserve a response. Won't your god be angry for you lying ?

My ‘argument’ is based on BOTH mathematics AND “cutting edge” bio-science.

Give me a single example of this cutting edge bioscience. Just 1.

My discovery of the mathematical impossibility of Spontaneous Evolution was certainly a personal “Eureka” moment that gave me great pleasure. However, more importantly, the figures are absolutely devastating to both the spontaneous generation of life and the evolutionary hypotheses.

Creationists have trouble with big numbers.

Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html for an example.

For example, an “improved” (and therefore different) specimen is almost always sexually selected AGAINST in environmentally stable wild populations of animals!!!

Evidence ? Example ? Link ? Anything ?

The Evolution Hypothesis, on the other hand, is totally defunct, lacking as it does any plausible mechanism for creating genetic diversity. The only mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in genetic information evident at all points between “muck and man”.

Big numbers.

The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage.

Of course there is no non-functioning stage except in the imagination of people like Michael Behe alongside talking snakes of course.

Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST.

This is of course the intermediate forms as you would define them, which is far away from reality. Might I suggest a simple google for fossils ? Or maybe a beginners biology book ?

Again this is a problem of big numbers. Every single organism alive is an intermediate between something and something else.

Are you identical to your parents ? Of course not.

Irreducible complexity also means that it is mathematically impossible to produce a complex useful organ through random or gradual means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.

Irreducible complexity which has been disproven and shown for the poor excuse for science that it was.

I have never observed any plausible mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life.

How nice. Again, that is not the same thing as evolution.

Scientists don't know how life started but there are many hypothesis.

Please check out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

For a possible explanation of how the first organic compounds formed.

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

for a simple overview of the current ideas floating around in the scientific community.

Warning: 'God did it', isn't one of them.

I have never observed the spontaneous or assisted restoration of life to any dead organism or cell.

What are you trying to disprove here ? Jesus' resurrection ? :pac:

I have observed missing links between ALL species, both living and fossil.

Of course you have. Fossilization is a very rare occurrence and has left us with billions of gaps.

I have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species.

Perfection ? Your talking as a scientist now are you ?

I have observed evidence that all populations are degenerating over time with accumulated mutations – and many extinctions of species are due to this degeneration.

Show me this evidence.

I have observed the fossil record to actually be a record of instantaneous death and catastrophic burial – and NOT a record of the gradual development of life over time.

Noahs Ark eh ? :rolleyes:

Show me this evidence.

I have observed the production of USEFUL biochemical polymers by gradual random means to be a mathematical (and physical) impossibility.

Evidence ?

I have observed that all living systems use PRE-EXISTING SOPHISTICATED COMPLEX biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and the production of DNA itself requires the PRE-EXISTENCE of DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”.
I have observed that geological formations, such as the Grand Canyon and new canyons formed during the Mount St. Helens eruption, to be evidentially formed through the action of large amounts of water acting over a small amount of time.

Evidence ?

I have never observed any "higher species" to actually increase genetic information over time.

Of course you haven't. The big number problem again. It takes millions of years JC. A million years is a very long time, I will try explain it to you.

Christianity is about 2000 years old. So if we have 500 times as long as Christianity existed, thats a million years.

Thats 1,000,000. People live for about 90 years. You see the difference there do you ?

ALL of the above observations are contrary to the predictions of "The Evolutionary Hypothesis" and that is why I maintain, as a professional scientist that evolution is invalid i.e. dead - but it has forgotten to lie down. It’s failure to lie down, i.e. to be rejected by the generality of the scientific community, is as big a ‘stumbling block’ to modern scientific progress as the Geocentric Hypothesis was to progress in medieval astronomy. Another good example of “trained experts” getting it totally wrong – ironically, BECAUSE OF their “training”!!!

Ironically because of their religion.

My message is to abandon the dead hypothesis of evolution and stop trying to resuscitate it. Go back to what science does best – objective observation – and frame a new hypotheses that fits all of the REALITY that we observe – and NOT what some people would like to continue to BELIEVE, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it.

Ok so lets decide on what happened and then fit the evidence around that shall we ? Do we all have to be Christians or can I propose the theory of aboriginal dream time creation ? I think you'll find theres far more evidence to support it then the Genesis account.

My challenge still remains to all you supposed skeptics out there - to point out ANY aspect of the so-called "Theory of Evolution" that doesn't involve a complete suspension of MY common sense and YOUR grip on reality!!!

Thats your limitation, not ours. Leave your fundamentalist beliefs aside and then you can join the rest of us in reality.

You still haven't given a single example or a single link to any evidence for creation whatsoever.

Are you going to ?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...I am not into 'Ancestor Worship' myself!!!!!

Never said worship, I said thanksgiving. Its remembrance, its not religious.

... I have found that worshipping the One True God is more fruitful!!!!

Thor ?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Never said worship, I said thanksgiving. Its remembrance, its not religious.

....we should respect and thank our parents / grand-parents while they are still alive!!!
...when they are dead, there is no point in thanking the dead!!!!

..it makes more sense to thank the living .... God .... and your parents while they are alive!!!

monosharp wrote: »

Thor ?

...I avoid any contact with Lucifer ... in any of his manifestations!!!

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, I had it revealed to me.
You appreciate I hope that that means nothing from a scientific sense.

Certainly.

You could (and probably are) be just imagining it

I could be, but I'm not.

It is a bit ridiculous to attack a empirical deduction from collection of evidence that can be used to form a scientific model that can be tested while being perfectly happy to accept personal revelation.

Nonsense. If you were the only witness to an event that others later tried to explain by scientific deduction, would it be ridiculous of you to tell them that their theory - however well constructed - was mistaken? Would your personal revelation mean nothing? Obviously they could not depend on it and ought to ask for a scientific model based on your claims. But they certainly would be foolish in saying you could not know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm glad you acknowledge evolution slime-to-biologist has not been observed.
By definition it cannot be directly observed, it takes billions of years.

I'm glad you acknowledge that you do not need to directly observe something to know that it is or has happened.

To know it has happened, you do need to directly observe it or be certain of the accuracy of the One who claims to have observed it.

Otherwise, one may only theorize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That leaves you deduced it from the evidence or it was revealed to you. I'll assume the former.
Well yes, revelation is meaningless.

Not to the one who receives it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All I'm saying here is that the evidence is open to more than one interpretation
interpretations must lead to testable models, models that must make predications that can then be compared to what scientists actually discover and observe

Agreed.

Evolutionary biologists and geologists do this every way, but when it was put to you and JC what tests Creationists had made based on their models that had lead to successful predictions you couldn't give even one example.

That is quite telling.

Anyone can "Interpret" the evidence. Flat Earthers interpret the evidence and conclude the Earth is flat. What matters is that you structure your interpretation in a scientific way so that it can be tested to see how accurate it is, how good it is at explaining the observable world around us.

Creationists don't do this. They attempt to bend the evidence to find their model after the fact rather than showing that their models successful predict the evidence.

I have showed you that our model successfully predicted the evidence. But you moved then to ask for creationists who had done so. I have been off-line since and am trying to catch-up. So here is a creationist who has made successful predictions:
Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/329/

This should be screaming to anyone with even a basic understanding of science and what a scientific theory is that Creationists are not doing proper science, they are not attempting to explain the world around them, they are simply interested in ideology.

Your comments are an example of ideological motivation.

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

But Snelling and the other creationist scientists DO acknowledge the heating problem for their model. It is one they are working on. Both sides have difficulties with their models. That only invalidates them when a model without difficulties arises.

They hand wave the heat problem with out any attempt to address it.
Can you give me one problem with standard geology that is in any way close to the problems with the creationists' rapid decay idea?

Let me see...
standard geology is incompatible with a literal seven day, <10,000 year old Earth interpretation of Genesis...
Snelling's 400,000,000 years worth of decay happening in one year during the flood (as per Snelling's paper) is incompatible with observed rates of decay, observed amounts of heat generated by decay, observed specific heat capacities of rocks, observed thermal conductivities of rocks... known melting points of rocks at various pressures (both with and with out the presence of water)
The list goes on like this...
In fact calling it the "heat problem" makes it sound like a minor issue...
To stick with the bad car analogues it would be like us saying a car with its airbags replaced with shards of rusty iron coated in mud, other dirt and some white phosphorous and thermite, it's break lines cut and the throttle jammed open has a "safety issue" rather than calling it an insane death trap which in the highly likely event of an accident would kill the driver, passengers and probably anyone coming to help them in the immediate aftermath of the crash.