Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
bluewolf wrote:Ok, look, that's it.
Stop insulting physics, and for goodness' sakes stop confusing it with biology.
Evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICS.
The world of science is NOT OUT TO GET YOU.
Hey Bluewolf
The thread is about 'The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy', not biology and evolution.
ALL science is open for discussion and so is the Bible.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Hey Bluewolf
The thread is about 'The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy', not biology and evolution.
ALL science is open for discussion and so is the Bible.
Hey brian
that's nice, but physics still has nothing to do with evolution
if JC would like to discuss physics, we would all appreciate if he discusses it in context of physics alone0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:ALL science is open for discussion and so is the Bible.
Granted, but JC was suggesting "evolutionists" invented the huge size of the universe and the methods used to prove this size just so they can prove evolution and old earth theories.
Which is nonsense, biologists have very little to do with the field of astro-physics and astromony and vice-versa. The two fields act largely independently of each other. Just because they come up with the same answers it is silly to assume one is being influenced by the other (unless you are trying to show they are all out to distort the truth according to the literal Bible)
As bluewolf said, the entire field of science isn't out to get JC
0 -
-
Wicknight wrote:Granted, but JC was suggesting "evolutionists" invented the huge size of the universe and the methods used to prove this size just so they can prove evolution and old earth theories.
"Evolutionist" is used to describe a scientific world-view - the "reality-based community" as opposed to the "faith-based community", in US terms. It means anyone, from whatever field, who finds things in apparent conflict with Genesis. It does not specifically mean evolutionary biologists, and can be expanded or modified as desired by the YEC - this is why its meaning has not been made explicit by JC.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't it double standards to question the veracity of evolution, while using M-eve (incorrectly) as evidence for the bibical view? Being so skeptical of the proof for evoltion, shouldn't similar standards require that you have every single family (without exception) to be tested for a lineage with M-eve before you accept that as true?0
-
Wicknight said:
For the folk who believe man once swung in the trees (a long time after he crawled on the ground), his present condition is thought to be an advance: the reasoning abilities, reflection, etc. To further 'advance', why not suppress all that is backward in learning, culture, or the ability to compete against the rest of us? A rigorous eugenics program seems rational.One, I can't really imagine any way of testing someone is better or worse adapted to the "modern world". I'm not even sure what that means? The modern world is made up of millions of seperate environments, each with thousands of different variables that effect life. Would you test them all? And if you did, how would you generalise that out to one defintion of the "modern world"?
That is only your supposition. The Bible tells us we all fell when Adam did, being his offspring and so born with his sinful nature.Well the logic behind original sin came after the Bible, so it is arguable if it is correct or not. THough the logic does make a lot of sense (if you are a Christian of course)
It would be very illogical to do so.No, but it means that if you can convince others that it is the truth of God it is very hard to argue against that assumption. As I asked before, can you argue God is wrong?
Sure. But if you have, you have.Just because there is a "truth" doesn't mean you have actually found it, even if you believe you have.
That is a view expressed by those who have little knowledge of the Bible. When you get an overview of it, the laws are not contradictory. The Highway Code has 'Stop' signs and 'No Stopping' signs: doesn't mean it is self-contradictory.No, actually its not. For all the hundred "you should not kill" passages there are another hundred "eye for an eye" passages. It may appear clear if you have choosen a particular interpritation of the Bible, but then that is just one of many possible interpritations.
I'm not talking about any system, but about the beliefs in the heart of the potential perpetrator (you and me). It is the actual beliefs that influence the behaviour.Beyond the law, no there isn't. But then under a Christian moral system there would be no reason for this man not to oppress her either if he didn't follow Christian morals. So whats the difference? Either way this imaginary person (me maybe) is going to end up oppressing this woman unless he has the compassion not to.
My point is that an atheist has no logical reason for felling bad about doing evil.Except you will probably feel very very bad about doing it, be you a Christian or an Atheist. I'm an atheist and I feel bad about picking up a lost €5 note of the ground (I gave it to charity in the end)
Sure, a Christian can misunderstand what the Bible teaches about his ethical duty - but that will be an exception rather than the rule. The Biblical principles governing our behaviour are pretty clear and it takes some creativity to accommodate them to whatever trends society adopts from time to time.That maybe true, but at the time he will probably believe he is following the actual teachings of the Bible (as you do now) and saying that he will be punished in the after-life doesn't really help the people he is hurting in this life.
Not for the Jew - but it was for the Nazi. So where does the moral standard come from that applies to both? From your 'feelings'? From mine? Why will the Nazi not ask why we think ours is superior to his?No. Ask a Jew was it moral behaviour.
OK, then the Nazi might suggest that his view is different from ours, but that his is the more advanced, more in tune with the materialist 'truth' we know of the universe than the traditional morality we suggest.It isn't supposed to end up with a definiative conclusion. It is only supposed to try to continue to get better and better, on a infinate march of progress.
Perfection can't be improved on. That's a given.That is the problem with God's conclusions. They can't get any better, they are fixed as they are.
An argument, but not a logical one, if all we are is complex chemicals.It might be, but then if no one is suffering then whats the harm? If someone, even just one person, is suffering then there is always an argument to be made that this morality is wrong.
Not unless I knew his heart.wolfsbane would you believe someone if he said he never lied? How do you know that wasn't a lie?
Not if He is God.God says he cannot make mistakes. Maybe that was a mistake?0 -
wolfsbane wrote:For the folk who believe man once swung in the trees (a long time after he crawled on the ground), his present condition is thought to be an advance: the reasoning abilities, reflection, etc. To further 'advance', why not suppress all that is backward in learning, culture, or the ability to compete against the rest of us? A rigorous eugenics program seems rational.
Hmm. So, because we are subject to evolution over the course of millions of years, we should decide who is "fit" and who is not and speed the whole process up. Er, no. Evolution does not imply, require, support, condone, or otherwise lend credence to this ridiculous idea - any more than Judgment Day requires us to start killing sinners now, at once.
Seriously, wolfsbane, it's obvious you're trying to attach eugenics and Social Darwinism to evolution in the hopes of discrediting it. Unfortunately, the eugenics movement and the Social Darwinists understood evolution about as poorly as JC does. It won't wash.wolfsbane wrote:I'm not talking about any system, but about the beliefs in the heart of the potential perpetrator (you and me). It is the actual beliefs that influence the behaviour.
My point is that an atheist has no logical reason for felling bad about doing evil.
Belief in compassion or belief in God. Either will do.wolfsbane wrote:Not for the Jew - but it was for the Nazi. So where does the moral standard come from that applies to both? From your 'feelings'? From mine? Why will the Nazi not ask why we think ours is superior to his?
Well, you would say Christianity, and we would say compassion. Either is superior to the Nazi ideology, whether the Nazi believes that or not.wolfsbane wrote:OK, then the Nazi might suggest that his view is different from ours, but that his is the more advanced, more in tune with the materialist 'truth' we know of the universe than the traditional morality we suggest.
He might. He'd be wrong.
There is simply no requirement for a system of morality to be logically tenable from first principles, any more than there is a requirement that Christianity be logically tenable from first principles. You are knocking the former, but accept the latter.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Originally Assyrian said
So how do supernovas work? A supernova they called SN1987A was seen in 1987, now this particular supernova happened 164,000 light years away (measured by triangulation). For God to create it with its light shining in the earth's sky, he would have to create a star that blew up 160,000 years before it was created.
Then J C said
I don’t believe that a distance of 164,000 light years can be established by triangulation or indeed by any other method.
The diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the sun is only 186,000,000 miles or about 17 light minutes. Triangulation can therefore only measure distances of approximately 186,000,000,000,000 miles or about 32 light years due to the limitations of physics and instrumentation.
Then Wicknight said
Stars under a distance of about 100 light years are measured using parallax shift. And no JC the tranglisation doesn't take place on two places on Earth, it takes place on two different places of the Earths orbit (or is CS now teaching the Earth doesn't move after all, everything goes around it)
Stars over a distance of about 100 light years are measured using Cepheid variable stars for nearly a century
Then (on reflection) Wicknight said
(on Earth measurements based on triangulation can reach as far as 100 light years and the Hippacros satellite can measure distances of 1,600 light years using triangulation)
But as I already told you, stars over a distance of 1,500 light years are not measured using triangulation.
Could I say that that 100 light years is the absolute limit for measurement of distances to stars by DIRECT triangulation .
TheDuckIsback
So, I have a question. What about the MHC-1 protein? The MHC-1 (Major Histocompatibility Complex 1) is a protein that holds lysed snippets of various proteins found within the cell for inspection by passing t-cells. If the protein belongs to a pathogen, the t-cell triggers the infected cell to commit apoptosis and die, therefore preventing the spread of the pathogen. MHC-2 is similar, except that it presents proteins found outside the cell.
Now, let's examine the structures of these two proteins. MHC-2 is basically symmetrical, with its }{ cup shape in two neat halves. The MHC-1 protein, however, is shaped peculiarly - it contains three-quarters or the cup shape but is missing its second leg. For this reason, the protein ins unstable unless complimented by another, independently-made beta protein.
What you are describing is one great intelligently designed information rich gizmo indeed – and there is not the slightest chance that it arose spontaneously. You might as well claim that the ‘Big Blue’ Super Computer is the result of undirected processes.
The MHC-1 protein actually seems to work perfectly well once it is “complimented by another, independently-made beta protein.”
Sounds like a perfectly designed system to me – even in spite the deleterious effects of The Fall!!!
TheDuckIsback
just examine the human knee. Why is it so fragile and easy to permanently damage, when it's so important? Just to punish the arthritic elderly and football players?
The Human Knee is the most complex joint in the Human Body and it is also an amazing information rich, perfectly designed gizmo. It is weight for weight stronger than steel and has amazing abilities to cope with the enormous stresses that it undergoes.
The reason that the knee can give trouble is due to the decline caused by the introduction of death and disease after The Fall.
Bluewolf
Stop insulting physics, and for goodness' sakes stop confusing it with biology.
Evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICS
I’m not the guy claiming that a star can be measured at 164,000 light years distance using triangulation.
Wicknight
It seems rather strange to believe in micro-evolution, but believe that this process somehow stops dead in its tracks just before it makes enough changes to seperate one species from another. What stops it, how does micro-evolution know to stop at a certain point and make no more changes to a species?
Micro-evolution is limited by the pre-existing genetic information upon which it must select. This phenomenon is known as the selection wall and it is quite rapidly encountered when artificially selecting for specific traits.
Equally Creation Science accepts that speciation does occur - usually very rapidly, and always using pre-existing genetic information.
Wicknight
The Bible has been wrong about so many things to do with science
Science has NEVER proven any aspect of the Bible to be incorrect.
Scofflaw
Kind of makes Christian "morality" rather suspect! You should be good, but there's a "get out of jail free card" there.
This is the Good News of Salvation - that ALL people can potentially be saved if they repent and believe on Jesus Christ.
It also shows that the God who expects Christians to ‘love their enemies’ also does so Himself i.e. He loves Humanity and wants to save us, even though we are in rebellion against Him.
Scofflaw
as a matter of interest, what exactly makes it impossible to measure angles of less than one second? Lack of measuring units, do you think? Wasn't a metre originally defined as 0.00054 of an angular second on the surface of the earth (1/10,000,000 of the distance between the pole and equator)?
I think that it was actually 0.0324 angular seconds. In any event, a metre was measured in practice on the surface of the Earth and NOT by measuring 0.0324 angular seconds out from the centre of the Earth.
Modern theodolites have angular resolutions of about 1 second (which is amazingly small).
However, measuring the angular distances of stars is somewhat more difficult and less precise than ‘ordinary triangulation’ because the target star isn’t a prism and measurements are also complicated by the rotation of the Earth and atmospheric conditions on the Earth.
Using a triangulation base of the diameter of the Earth’s orbit of 186,000,000 miles or about 17 light minutes and triangulating out to 2 million light years would require an angular resolution of one degree second – going out to 100 million light years would require an angular resolution of 0.07 degree seconds - and going out to 164,000 Light Years would require an angular resolution of 0.00004 degree seconds.
To put this level of accuracy into perspective it is like attempting to measure a distance of 1,000 Km by measuring the angular distance of moving the theodolite 0.05 millimetres.
Wicknight
biologists have very little to do with the field of astro-physics and astromony and vice-versa.
It is indeed true that most Evolutionary Science disciplines rarely communicate with other disciplines – and this is a major disadvantage. Breakthroughs in one area of Science with relevance to other areas may never be picked up by the other areas.
As this thread has proven, all science disciplines are interlinked.
Wicknight
The two fields act largely independently of each other. Just because they come up with the same answers it is silly to assume one is being influenced by the other
I agree that the various disciplines AREN'T being influences by EACH OTHER – but they ARE being influenced by the ‘Evolutionary World View’ that took hold across all of the science disciplines during the 20th Century.
The idea of Evolution is to be found across all areas of conventional science – and this includes Astro-Physics and Astronomy.
Fallen Seraph
Isn't it double standards to question the veracity of evolution, while using M-eve (incorrectly) as evidence for the bibical view? Being so skeptical of the proof for evoltion, shouldn't similar standards require that you have every single family (without exception) to be tested for a lineage with M-eve before you accept that as true?
It is actually standard scientific procedure to accept the validity of a scientific theory based on significant amounts of repeatedly observed data.
If however, an observation is made that contradicts the theory, then it should be revised in the light of that observation.
The problem for Evolution is that many observations contradict the hypothesis – but it hasn’t been revised in the light of these observations (such as those made by Intelligent Design Scientists, for example).0 -
Wicknight said:
It negates and perverts His purpose in making us male and female. It is a rebellion against His purposes and therefore He Himself.It does still seems strange though. How does it "dishonour" God?
Because He is holy.And why does God care?
No, God is the perfectly moral One. Anything that makes Him unhappy is therefore immoral.And why is that morality? Is there not a difference between "right and wrong" and making God happy?
No, God being the absolute of morality, our doing right must be pleasing to Him.Is it possible to do the right thing that displeases God?
Because He is the only perfect, holy, moral Creator of all things. Who else is qualified to determine what is right or wrong?Why does God decide what is right?
First, there are no 'innocent' people in the absolute sense. All are sinners. Second, being sinners we can expect to suffer in this fallen world. The consequencies of Adam's fall brought suffering and death to all on the earth (though Theistic Evolutionists believe suffering and death are 'very good' and the way things were meant to be from the moment of CreationIf God decided something that made people on Earth suffer why is God automatically in the right with regard to this even though innocent people are suffering?
). Third, God allows even those He loves to suffer in this life, but only so as to help them on their 'narrow way that leads to life'. Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
And your morals are not so based? They may be wrong and the Nazi's right?Oh I agree, but the common thread is a belief in an "absolute" that isn't actually absolute at all, but based on an interpretation, an interpritation in which everyone believes their interpretation of the absolute is the correct one.
And logically he should have no problem doing that for any course of action. The atheist is able logically to say there is no right or wrong.Not if you believe your religion justifies what you want to do (as explained above). An atheists has nothing external to justify his actions, he has to justify them himself.
Leaving aside mental illnesses, the ordinary criminal is capable of being reached by conscience.If someone is incapable of feeling these emotions (psychotics for example) explaining that God wants not do something isn't really going to make much of a difference is it?
You seemed to expect him to moderate his behaviour according to the advantages compassion has had for his evolution. But he being able to think outside that box, is able to use or not use compassion as he thinks best suits him.Who expected him to?0 -
Advertisement
-
Yep the first humans came in male and female, but saying that Jesus listeners were familiar with the story tells us nothing about how Jesus interpreted the passage. All we have from Jesus' words are allegorical interpretations of the Genesis creation accounts. You would need evidence to support you view the the Jews would have interpreted Genesis literally, in fact a Galilean Jew from that time called Josephus tells us that Moses was writing 'philosophically' in those chapters. Besides, your argument relies on Jesus agreeing with every Jewish tradition and traditional interpretation of scripture, not a safe assumption. If we want to see what Jesus believed about Genesis, lets stick to what he actually said.J C wrote:Assyrian
Jesus didn't however say "AKA Adam and Eve", just male and female.
Jesus didn’t NEED to say “AKA Adam and Eve” – all his listeners were familiar with the Genesis account of the Creation of Adam and Eve – and in Mt 19:4 Jesus emphasised the Genesis basis of His statement by saying “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” (NIV).
Certainly reaffirming an allegorical lesson Genesis itself draws out of the story of Eve being created from Adam's rib. Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. The 'therefore' in the verse reads an allegorical meaning into Eve being from Adam's rib, his 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'. The therefore is not any sort of logical conclusion or consequence of the literal account.Jesus was reminding his audience that God directly created a man and a woman – thereby making a statement about the equality and complimentarity of the sexes within marriage as well as re-confirming the Genesis Account of Direct Creation.
You keep ignoring the actual evidence, and didn't actually answer me when I asked:Assyrian
So if mankind was all living in one area then there is no problem with the flood being restricted to that area?
IF mankind was all living in one area they could indeed all be wiped out by a local flood.
However, the Geological evidence from ALL OVER THE WORLD indicates that a water-based catastrophe and sedimentation event of worldwide proportions occurred in the historic past.
Which geological strata are the flood sediments supposed to lie between anyway? Which strata are without animal tracks, burrows, raindrops, roots, river beds, soil formation or erosion?
Or a torrential downpour they could not fly through. It would have been pretty tough on the chickens too.Equally, Gen 6:7 indicates that God destroyed all life including the ‘fowls of the air’. Birds, would have dispersed away to safety from any local flood – to destroy them ALL would indeed require a worldwide Flood.
Except of course for the dinosaurs walking around, and building nests, the worms burrowing in the ground, termites building their mounds, rivers eroding their river beds, plants growing roots, in layer after layer of sediment that is supposed to have been laid down in the middle of a cataclysmic flood, all these organisms ignoring the kilometers of water overhead. How do you get raindrop marks under water?Assyrian
There is geological evidence for floods in different regions at different times, but no evidence of a global flood. Always when we have a flood at one location in the geological record, elsewhere in that stratum it is business as usual,
Firstly, could I point out that the presence of identifiable matching strata all over the world is indicative of a worldwide sedimentation event – and NOT localised floods.
Secondly, could I point out that every stratum is indicative of the sedimentation event which caused that particular stratum to be laid down – so no stratum can be describes a ‘business as usual’ – more like ‘flooding as usual’.
I believe God created heaven and earth. What is your point?Assyrian
the early church was open to a non literal interpretation of the days in Genesis
The Nicene Creed starts with the words “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible…….”
And to remove any ambiguity
The Apostle’s Creed begins “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth……”
Could I point out that the word “Maker” (in the Nicene Creed) and the word “Creator” (in the Apostles Creed) removes all doubt that the Early Churches believed in a literal Creation.
They also thought this belief to be so important that they placed it in the first sentence of their Professions of Faith.
These Creeds are STILL mandatory Articles of Faith for all Roman Catholics as well as within the the Anglican and Lutheran Churches – thereby making all of these Churches officially Creationist Churches.
Last time I checked, none of these Churches had modified or abandoned their Creeds.
Equally, non-conformist Reformed Churches largely believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis thereby also making these Churches Creationist as well.
The great historical theological divisions between Christian Churches WERE NOT about Creation – and I have actually never come across a Church Creed that stated a belief in “God the Evolver of Heaven and Earth”.
I thought you believe in special creation, how does God changing a few bits and pieces to a chimp design he created earlier qualify? The chimp looked about right, so modify about 2% of the DNA and get rid of most of the hair. That does not qualify as a separate creation, certainly not one you claim was especially made in God image. Now it is evidence of of very special care in our creation if God took billions of years preparing it, but not if he knocked it together in a couple of hours from left over chimp DNA.Assyrian
Sharing about 98% of our DNA with chimps is pretty strong evidence (for Macro-Evolution).
I would dispute the basis for this 98% figure that is bandied about.
In any event, it provides no more evidence for Evolution than the fact that the Human Brain and a Melon both contain 98% water. It is the critical 2% that makes ALL the difference.
Similarities between different creatures is evidence of a Common Designer – and not a Common Ancestor.
You have an interesting concept of 'proof' JC. Incidentally you keep suggestion y-Adam and mt-Eve were the biblical Adam and Eve, from you literalist reading of the bible, who was our last common female ancestor? And who was the last common male ancestor?Our Mitochondrial DNA proves that our Common Ancestors were a Man and a Woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago.
It think I have pointed out the flaws in your interpretation here. Your argument simply doesn't fit A&E being created at the end of the six day creation.Jesus Christ also confirmed this fact in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).
Your Creation Scientists search desperately for any scraps of evidence they can make support their case and ignore all the rest. They don't go where the evidence leads.Creation Scientists, as scientists, ARE willing to go where the evidence leads – unlike Evolutionists who have refused to do so on the Intelligent Design Issue.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_tenets
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=discover&action=index&page=discover_faculty
You will find these 'scientists' are not willing to go where the evidence leads but as the website tells us, are 'firmly committed to the ICR Tenets'. The research tenets page says: More explicitly, the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism. It then goes on to give a long list of what this entails.0 -
Your cause and effect argument has no basis in science. It seems to be another variation on the totally discredited YEC second law of thermodynamics argument. the Law of Cause and Effect... states that the effect cannot be greater in size or in kind than the cause. So a forest fire can't start from a small spark? Come on JC you are making these laws up as you go along.J C wrote:Assyrian
All Christians believe God created heaven and earth and all of the life therein. We believe he made the lightning and formed us in our mothers womb. The modern paganism, the nature god Consolmagno warns against, is the one the believes God holds a bunch of lightening bolts in his hand and throws them down during a storm, instead of using the laws of electromagnetism and meteorology he designed, that he literally knits people together in their mothers womb instead or using biology and genetics, or molded all the different animal out of clay instead of using evolution.
Creationists give God His proper place as the Creator of the Universe and all life – and they therefore adore the Creator and not the creature.
Lightning Bolts and the Biogenesis of Humans obviously obey the Physical Laws of the Universe. However, you are CONFUSING this fact with the equally important fact that the ORIGINS of Humans and indeed the Universe itself is by definition OUTSIDE of the Laws of the Universe.
Evolutionists make the logical error of assuming that something can CREATE itself in contravention of the Law of Cause and Effect. This law states that the effect cannot be greater in size or in kind than the cause. No exception to the Law of Cause and Effect has ever been observed. This rules out the spontaneous Macro-Evolution of life into ever more information dense organisms i.e. it rules out Gradual Darwinian Evolution – and observed reality also supports this conclusion.
Even Darwin predicted large gaps in the fossil record because only established species will be around in large enough numbers to leave a lot of fossils. Even so loads of transitionals have already been found.A Theistic Evolutionist could postulate that God (being omnipotent and omniscient) used Evolution instead of Direct Creation to ‘produce’ all life. However, neither the Bible nor observed reality support this contention – we have a fossil record with enormous gaps between kinds, living creatures with enormous gaps between kinds and an array of useful proteins with enormous differences between each one of them!!!!
Create means make. It doesn't specify how it was made, neither do any of the creeds. Unless you claim to know how God actually did make everything, you are in no position to say science is wrong when it tells us what the evidence say happened.Equally, both Genesis and the Creeds of all of the main Christian Churches declare unambiguously that God CREATED the Heavens and the Earth as well as all things both visible and invisible. There isn’t a hint of any form of gradualism or Evolution in the Genesis Account or the plain statements in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.
They could be WRONG (although as a Christian I don’t believe that they are) – but it is completely illogical to argue that somehow the word CREATE means EVOLVE.
Creation and Evolution are completely separate concepts. A Perfect Creation is a reflection of God’s absolute perfection while Evolution is a supposed process of increasing perfection that still requires the power of God to execute it.
How about googling: SN1987A triangulationAssyrian
So how do supernovas work? A supernova they called SN1987A was seen in 1987, now this particular supernova happened 164,000 light years away (measured by triangulation). For God to create it with its light shining in the earth's sky, he would have to create a star that blew up 160,000 years before it was created.
You tell me how supernovas ‘work’ – if they are really so far away!!
Firstly, I don’t believe that a distance of 164,000 light years can be established by triangulation or indeed by any other method.
The diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the sun is only 186,000,000 miles or about 17 light minutes. Triangulation can therefore only measure distances of approximately 186,000,000,000,000 miles or about 32 light years due to the limitations of physics and instrumentation.
Secondly, if this supernova WAS 164,000 light years away, the star wouldn’t be visible at all to any light telescope on Earth. The apparent size of an average star with a diameter of our Sun would be less than 5,000-Angstrom Units (or the wavelength of light) at a distance of only 32 light years. In this regard, our Sun looks like another star when viewed from Pluto which is only 4,580,000,000 miles (or 7 light hours) away.
If a star beyond 32 Light Years went supernova then it could possibly be detected on Earth – but we wouldn’t know how much further away it was (if anything) beyond 32 Light Years.
Have a look there too Wicknight, you will find it fascinating. The distance measured to our neighbouring galaxy the Large Magellanic Cloud using this triangulation confirmed the distance calculations done with Cepheid variables.
Based on a lot of different methods of calculation that confirm each other, and the work is done by astronomers not evolutionists. Honestly!The reason that Evolutionists postulate that the Universe is 10 billion light years in diameter is that they believe that it all started in the Big Bang and it has been expanding for the past 20 billion years at about 0.25 C. The distance ISN’T based on any observable measurement (because such a measurement is physically impossible). The 10 billion light year figure is merely based on the reasoning of Evolutionists!!!
Assyrian0 -
J C wrote:Wicknight needs to talk to himself – and then possibly to Assyrian to agree EXACTLY how far triangulation can measure!!!
Could I say that that 100 light years is the absolute limit for measurement by triangulation of stars either on Earth or by satellites in Terrestrial orbit.
Could I also point out that the original figure of “164,000 light years away (measured by triangulation)” for the supernova SN1987A is quite incorrect – and the claim that this supernova disproves a young Universe is equally WRONG.
Unfortunately, your instrumentation errors are based on theodolites. Last time I looked, astronomers weren't using theodolites to triangulate stars, so your assumptions are effectively irrelevant.
Also, this is not the same kind of triangulation. It's a measurement of the angular size of an object as seen in Hubble, compared to its absolute size - this is not the same as a parallax measurement, which you are assuming it to be. Before we have any excitement about measuring the angular size of the circumstellar ring, it is easy to do so to very small fractions of arc-seconds, because the measurement is direct (1/1000th of a field of view covering 1 arc-second gives a thousandth of an arc second).
So, no, JC, you are attacking the wrong kind of measurement. It would also be worth our time if you read up on using large arrays of telescopes to give resolutions smaller than naively seems possible.J C wrote:What you are describing is one great intelligently designed information rich gizmo indeed – and there is not the slightest chance that it arose spontaneously. You might as well claim that the ‘Big Blue’ Super Computer is the result of undirected processes.
The MHC-1 protein actually seems to work perfectly well once it is “complimented by another, independently-made beta protein.”
Sounds like a perfectly designed system to me – even in spite the deleterious effects of The Fall!!!
I see. Imperfections in any object presumed designed by God were introduced by the Fall. How convenient.J C wrote:Bluewolf
Stop insulting physics, and for goodness' sakes stop confusing it with biology.
Evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICS
I’m not the guy claiming that a star can be measured at 164,000 light years distance using triangulation!!!!
You are the guy misunderstanding the method, though.J C wrote:Equally, until I intervened, a member of this thread was using a great big ASTRO-PHYSICS BASED 'supernova argument' to metaphorically ‘whack’ Creation Science into submission on the ‘Young Universe’ issue!!!
Consider yourself so whacked.J C wrote:Wicknight
It seems rather strange to believe in micro-evolution, but believe that this process somehow stops dead in its tracks just before it makes enough changes to seperate one species from another. What stops it, how does micro-evolution know to stop at a certain point and make no more changes to a species?
Micro-evolution is limited by the pre-existing genetic information upon which it must select. This phenomenon is known as the selection wall and it is quite rapidly encountered when artificially selecting for specific traits.
Equally Creation Science accepts that speciation does occur - usually very rapidly, and always using pre-existing genetic information.
Nope. A "selection wall" is a feature in retail displays, and you are a pseudo-scientist who makes up scientific-sounding terms to "strengthen" your hand-waving. On the other hand, you can provide a reference, if you like, showing use of the term.J C wrote:Wicknight
The Bible has been wrong about so many things to do with science
Science has NEVER proven any aspect of the Bible to be incorrect.
Well, there's none so blind as will not see!J C wrote:Scofflaw
Kind of makes Christian "morality" rather suspect! You should be good, but there's a "get out of jail free card" there.
This is the Good News of Salvation - that ALL people can be saved if they repent and believe on Jesus Christ.
It also shows that the God who expects Christians to ‘love their enemies’ also does so Himself i.e. He loves Humanity and wants to save them, even though they are in rebellion against Him.
Like I said.J C wrote:The most precise theodolites have angular resolutions of only about 1 second (which is amazingly small).
However, measuring the angular distances of stars is somewhat more difficult and less precise than ‘ordinary triangulation’ because the target star isn’t a prism and measurements are also complicated by the rotation of the Earth and atmospheric conditions on the Earth.
Using a triangulation base of the diameter of the Earth’s orbit of 186,000,000 miles or about 17 light minutes and triangulating out to 7 million light years would require an angular resolution of one degree second – going out to 100 million light years would require an angular resolution of 0.07 degree seconds.
To put this level of accuracy into perspective it is like attempting to measure a distance of 1,000 Km by measuring the angular distance of moving the theodolite 30 centimetres.
Theodolites. Theodolites, FFS.J C wrote:Wicknight
I agree that the various disciplines AREN'T being influences by EACH OTHER – but they ARE being influenced by the ‘Evolutionary World View’ that took hold across all of the science disciplines during the 20th Century.
The idea of Evolution is to be found across all areas of conventional science – and this includes Astro-Physics and Astronomy – although, in fairness, there are probably a greater number of Creationists in these two disciplines than in most other scientific areas.
What, then, 50 Creationists? And how is evolution relevant to astrophysics? Can you tell us?J C wrote:The problem for Evolution is that many observations contradict this hypothesis – but it hasn’t been revised or abandoned in the light of these observations.
Even you have only brought up a lack of "necessary" observations. Which observations* do you feel actually contradict evolution?
*Please note that your inane babble about randomly assembled proteins is not an observation - it is entirely theoretical, whether or not you believe it to be correct. I'm looking for an experimental result that can and has been independently verified, or a field observation that we can go and look at ourselves (although I'll accept photos).
Scofflaw0 -
Supernovae and biological evolution are still not related.Equally, until I intervened, a member of this thread was using a great big ASTRO-PHYSICS BASED 'supernova argument' to metaphorically ‘whack’ Creation Science into submission on the ‘Young Universe’ issue!!!0 -
One part of all this that's interesting is the coining and use of the world 'evolutionist', which seems to mean anyone who accepts a natural explanation for the world around us.
The correct word is probably 'scientist', but because intelligent design is now science they can't use that word and be anti-science (because as you know ID IS SCIENCE). The enemy must be labelled! Evolution is only one of many scientific theories that contradicts a YEC position, cosmology does too, yet we're not all branded cosmologists by J C!0 -
ID isn't science. At one point the discovery institute (I think that's its name) produced a list of 300 people with qualifications in science who support the ID theory. They were thoroughly rebutted by some scientific institute (I can't remember which) who produced a list of 600 scientists named either "Stephen" or "Stephanie" who assert that ID is tripe.
Something isn't science just because a small group of people assert it is. That's like including Atlantis on world maps.0 -
More mutations in the lab:
Is Evolution Predictable?
That's mutation there, folks, providing new and useful genetic information. There's even a creationist, arguing that this simply couldn't have happened. Who knew?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
As I explained, evolution is not to do with advancement, it is to do with adaptation to an environment. I'm not quite sure how suppressing all that is "backward" in culture adapts us better to our environments.wolfsbane wrote:To further 'advance', why not suppress all that is backward in learning, culture, or the ability to compete against the rest of us?
Rational to whom, and in what way?wolfsbane wrote:A rigorous eugenics program seems rational.
Not really. There is no logical reason God cannot be wrong, it is just an assumption made by those who follow Him. You insert into the definition of a god that he can't be wrong, and then assign that defintion yourselves. It is human assumption that a god can't be wrong, there is nothing actually backing that up external to our definition of God, there is no proof or logic to say a god cannot be wrong.wolfsbane wrote:It would be very illogical to do so.
True, but equally if you haven't you probably still believe you have. You can never actually knowwolfsbane wrote:Sure. But if you have, you have.
There have been wars and genocides carried out by Popes and clergy since the dawn of Christianity. To say they just didn't read or understand the Bible properly is a bit of cop-out to be honest. I would imagine they dedicated most of their lives to reading and understanding the Bible and found with in it justification for their terrible crimes.wolfsbane wrote:That is a view expressed by those who have little knowledge of the Bible. When you get an overview of it, the laws are not contradictory.
Its is, and as I said if the person does not have the same emotional feeling for other human being, him being an atheist or a Christian isn't going to do much. The vast majority of crime and murder carried out in the western world is done by those who would be classified as Christians. It isn't stopping themwolfsbane wrote:I'm not talking about any system, but about the beliefs in the heart of the potential perpetrator (you and me). It is the actual beliefs that influence the behaviour.
Well that isn't true either. An person can reason about morality clearer and better in the abstance of religion than based on religious teaching.. Secular laws, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights are examples of this.wolfsbane wrote:My point is that an atheist has no logical reason for felling bad about doing evil.
Probably because he doesn't care. The Nazi party members weren't exactly interested in finding moral purpose in life.wolfsbane wrote:Why will the Nazi not ask why we think ours is superior to his?
And I would argue with him that he is wrong.wolfsbane wrote:OK, then the Nazi might suggest that his view is different from ours, but that his is the more advanced, more in tune with the materialist 'truth' we know of the universe than the traditional morality we suggest.
Who says God is perfect? Do you or God? If you say He is perfect how do you know he is, or do you just assume he has to be to fit your definition of what a god should be?wolfsbane wrote:Perfection can't be improved on. That's a given.
Its quite logical actually. I don't like suffering, therefore I assume others don't like suffering. Therefore it is wrong for me to oppose suffering on other because I would not like them to oppose it on me.wolfsbane wrote:An argument, but not a logical one, if all we are is complex chemicals.
You can say we are all just complex chemicals, which is true, but that ain't going to make me feel any better if some thug is bashing my head, or my girlfriends head in on O'Connel St at 3am. Saying to myself, well she is just a bunch of amino acides, she don't really matter that much, isn't going to make myself or her feel any better.
Which is impossiblewolfsbane wrote:Not unless I knew his heart.
Says who? Who says a god cannot make mistakes? We do? Are we not the most falable creatures ever? Maybe we are wrong?wolfsbane wrote:Not if He is God.0 -
You can, and if by "DIRECT" you meant on Earth you would be correct.J C wrote:Could I say that that 100 light years is the absolute limit for measurement of distances to stars by DIRECT triangulation .
But as I said (for a third time) far away stars (over 1,500 light years) are not measured USING TRIANGULATION :rolleyes:
No, you are the guy claiming it is impossible to measure stars of a distance of 164,000 light years using any method, whch is a lie (its a lie because you have already been told you are wrong yet continue to post it)J C wrote:I’m not the guy claiming that a star can be measured at 164,000 light years distance using triangulation.
No its not. Mutation that increases genetic complexity ("information" as you call it) have been observed and documented many many times JC.J C wrote:Micro-evolution is limited by the pre-existing genetic information upon which it must select.
Micro-evolution can increase genetic information, so why can't macroevolution?
It has repeatably.J C wrote:Science has NEVER proven any aspect of the Bible to be incorrect.
This was an embarrashment for the Church in the time of St Augistine when he told Christians to basically stop being stupid and taking everything descibed in the Bible literally because non-Christians were laughing at the ridiculious claims in the Bible that were being repeated by Christians.
Fun how things don't change that much in 1500 years :rolleyes:
That is within the range of modern instruments on Earth.J C wrote:Going out to 100 million light years would require an angular resolution of 0.07 degree seconds
*Groan* Did I say that? No, i didn't. And you are wrongJ C wrote:It is indeed true that most Evolutionary Science disciplines rarely communicate with other disciplines – and this is a major disadvantage.
:rolleyes:
Very true, and all scientific disciplines prove YEC wrong. Fun that isn't it, if they never communicate with each other how they woudl all come up with the same answers if it was actually wrong?J C wrote:As this thread has proven, all science disciplines are interlinked.
What "idea" would that be?J C wrote:The idea of Evolution is to be found across all areas of conventional science – and this includes Astro-Physics and Astronomy.0 -
So? Isn't everything? Aren't blow jobs and anal sex (between a straight couple)wolfsbane wrote:It negates and perverts His purpose in making us male and female. It is a rebellion against His purposes and therefore He Himself.
What the big deal, no one has been following their biological purpose for the last 10,000 years.
Also, why would God create the genetic systems to have someone be homosexual if it was wrong?
That doesn't answer the question. Why does he care?wolfsbane wrote:Because He is holy.
But morality is (supposed to be) about right or wrong, not about pleasing someone.wolfsbane wrote:No, God is the perfectly moral One. Anything that makes Him unhappy is therefore immoral.
No, God being the absolute of morality, our doing right must be pleasing to Him.
Who says he is?wolfsbane wrote:Because He is the only perfect, holy, moral Creator of all things. Who else is qualified to determine what is right or wrong?
Well if you have a good argument as to why the Nazi's morals are right I'm all earswolfsbane wrote:And your morals are not so based? They may be wrong and the Nazi's right?
He can, if he wants. I doubt many would listen to him, since most people including most atheists believe there is right and wrongwolfsbane wrote:And logically he should have no problem doing that for any course of action. The atheist is able logically to say there is no right or wrong.
True, but that doesn't have anything to do with their religion.wolfsbane wrote:Leaving aside mental illnesses, the ordinary criminal is capable of being reached by conscience.
I don't expect him to do anything. He, if he possesses normal emotional systems placed in his brain by evolution, will feel bad about certain things. This is a frame work for establishing a moral code for ones self.wolfsbane wrote:You seemed to expect him to moderate his behaviour according to the advantages compassion has had for his evolution.
You don't "use" compassion it is an emotion. Its like saying you can choose to fall in love or not fall in love as you see fit. You might be able to fake falling in love, or fake not being in love, but that isn't really love is it.wolfsbane wrote:But he being able to think outside that box, is able to use or not use compassion as he thinks best suits him.0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw said:
That is a very helpful clarification of your position. I hold a thing is right or wrong because God says so; you hold it is so because you say so. I must say mine makes much more sense, if our starting points are true. Mine has the infinitely wise, holy Creator of all things telling us the way it is; you have the individual, millions of whom can come up with divergent moralities.I have given a basis for such a morality (treating any part of the world as an object to be manipulated in accordance with one's own wishes is morally wrong, and all immorality can be deduced from this premise). I regard my morality as absolute, but I do not require a god to back it for me. The argument that this is "only as good as the next person's morality" may confuse an undergraduate, but as one gets older one realises that life is for living, not for talking about.
If you have references to the theological arguments made by Christians for the seizure of Indian land, I'll be glad to see them. I'm sure many of the imperialists who talked of America's Manifest Destiny used God's name in their greedy plans, but that is no proof they were Christians in my sense of the word. Certainly true Christians have been suckered many times by politicians into thinking unjust wars were really just, that they were to defend the innocent, liberate the oppressed, etc., rather than just to increase power and gain plunder. I confess Christians can be just as gullible as any other decent person.Clearly not. I'll note in passing that this was carried out by Christians, and generally found at the time to be in accordance with Biblical principles - the result of taking "be fruitful and multiply" to its logical conclusion - the Indians were not as fruitful, or as multiplied, as the white man, and were therefore deficient in following God's will.Easy - I'm human. I should, strictly, regard an adult pig as the moral equivalent of a newborn human. I don't, because I am human. Hard on the pigs, but they'll cheerfully eat me given the opportunity, so I don't feel as bad about it. Buddhists and Jains have perfectly sensible views on this one, but I'm a meat-eating barbarian.
I appreciate your honesty.
Correct.This leads me back to a couple of earlier points. First, if mankind is "born sinful", then all are doomed who are not saved.
Also correct.That the Bible was not brought to, say, Tahiti, for a millenium and a half, means that generations of Tahitians were born and died without hope of redemption.
You missed the other option, the correct one: God is just. If He choses to save any sinner, that is grace and mercy. That He chooses to leave the rest in their sin and so be damned is justice.Your God is clearly either useless, careless, or spiteful.
He saves whom He will, without regard to their background. All deserve His wrath; but He sent His Son to pay the penalty for all whom He chose to save.The materialist supposition that the Bible is the work of an Ancient Near-East tribal people, arranged into a single work by a variety of people with an interest in a reformed version of the tribal religion, and spread from there by unassisted human effort, is a pretty simple explanation for this fact. I'm interested, of course, to hear how it can otherwise be explained. Perhaps God just hates Tahitians?
Well put.As to the argument that only the elect will be saved...well, as a basic premise, let's take the idea that God is omniscient. Omniscience clearly has to involve knowing everything - the ways and the ends. God therefore, at the moment of Creation, knows who is doomed and who is not. God creates in the foreknowledge of His own condemnation of billions of people.
Yes, I worship Him, for He is wholly righteous, we are not; He is infinitely wise, we struggle to understand how even physical things work; He is merciful, for He pardons all who turn to Him.And you worship him? And you presume to lecture anyone on morality?0 -
Scofflaw said:
Again, I appreciate your honesty in admitting the irrationality of atheistic morality.This is a very accurate point. I can, as an atheist, decide that raping and pillaging is where it's at, and swing along down to Stephen's Green to get on with the glad work! There is certainly no a priori reason why I cannot do so, as far as I am aware.
History has shown that the preaching of the gospel has radically changed even the most wicked of men. Some of them are genuinely converted to Christ and adopt a new lifestyle in keeping with their knowledge of God's will. Others are not converted, but the fear of God restrains them from continuing their evil works.Unfortunately, you are in no better a position than I, which is my point. If you cannot lead me to God, you cannot prevent me from choosing this path. If I genuinely am an atheist (that is, it is a position that I have come to through reason), you are going to have a very hard time doing so. What will you then do? You will shrug, and be "comforted" (in an existential sense - I don't mean to imply that you would find it emotionally satisfying) by the thought that I will be getting my come-uppance on the Last Day.
Yes, even false idealogies can give resignation to the inevitable in this life or hope for the next. This important function does not however establish either the truth or falsehood of the idealogy.That's what religion is for, in my book (or at least one of the things) - making the unacceptable acceptable.
I deny that unbelievers are just as likely to be moral as believers. Just look around you. That all have a conscience is true, but that conscience is more often overruled in the unbeliever than in the believer.That I do not do such a thing, and neither do the vast majority of unbelievers, evolutionists, and atheists, in the same proportion as Christians, you explain with the convenient assignation of this to the workings of a God-given conscience.
It's is so refreshing to hear an atheist acknowledge his morality is based on faith.:) That's just what I have been saying. That's why I find it rather illogical of them.As I said, this is a matter of faith only - we both believe that most men have one, so I hope not to see this argument again, since it cannot be resolved without us standing in a furnace or the like.
Yes, God has not made even true Christians perfect yet - that awaits Christ's return. Some indeed are restrained from sinning by the shame it brings, but the main restraint on the Christian is their love of God. The story is told of two boys playing; one wants the other to do something dishonest, but the boy refuses. His friend says it must be because he is afraid of his father hurting him. The boy says, No, it's because I'm afraid of hurting my father.Obviously, God's mercy and grace is limited, or else reception is patchy, since we have thousands of examples of those who led good Christian lives except for one crime. It is largely found to be the case that people do not do evil things because they do not want to think of themselves as the kind of person who does those things.
You err in thinking man is not responsible for his sin just because he is incapable of doing otherwise. If you spend the rent money on booze, you can't say you needn't pay it as you are broke. Man is not innocent; he is a sinner. When Adam fell, we fell with him - his sinful nature became ours. God doesn't say why He allowed the Fall to happen - but the reality is still that we are born enemies of God, rebels against His ways.As a theory of crime and punishment, of course, it is a horrific proposition. God will punish criminals, but we certainly should not. The criminal is born sinful and prone to sin, and only God's grace prevents him sinning. The criminal is therefore not responsible for his acts, which are born out of his sinful nature - perhaps we could go with "diminished responsibility" or "guilty but sinful".
Excelsior gave a good reply. I confirm that this is indeed the Biblical view of things: none of us deserve mercy, but He grants it to all who come to Him, no matter how wicked they have been. Jesus Christ bore the punishment for the sins of all who repent and trust in Him; God is able therefore to be both just - punishes sin - and the justifier of those who come to Him.In any case, any concept of Christian "moral responsibility" is made a mockery of by grace - which the individual who has spent his life in acts of evil can obtain by being born again in God. That his conversion may be genuine in no way lessens the misery he has caused, but he himself can enter Heaven, washed clean by the blood of Christ.
...
If evolution is true, then it does make sense. There can be no moral reason not to, and it would make an interesting scientific experiment. The ego might well like to think the one who brought a leap forward in evolution might be revered for millenia to come. There is no comparison with the Christian and Judgement Day: that Day is for God to deal with His enemies, casting them into hell. No human can do so now.Hmm. So, because we are subject to evolution over the course of millions of years, we should decide who is "fit" and who is not and speed the whole process up. Er, no. Evolution does not imply, require, support, condone, or otherwise lend credence to this ridiculous idea - any more than Judgment Day requires us to start killing sinners now, at once.
Maybe it's because Hitler overdid it and so discredited it in the eyes of ordinary people. The scientific elite didn't seem to have any problems with it at the time.Seriously, wolfsbane, it's obvious you're trying to attach eugenics and Social Darwinism to evolution in the hopes of discrediting it. Unfortunately, the eugenics movement and the Social Darwinists understood evolution about as poorly as JC does. It won't wash.
If Christianity was not logically tenable, I would not be holding to it. Nor would I hold to any morality that was irrational. I would much rather admit there is no morality and I only behave as I see fit at the time.There is simply no requirement for a system of morality to be logically tenable from first principles, any more than there is a requirement that Christianity be logically tenable from first principles. You are knocking the former, but accept the latter.0 -
Assyrian
Which geological strata are the flood sediments supposed to lie between anyway? Which strata are without animal tracks, burrows, raindrops, roots, river beds, soil formation or erosion?
Most fossils were drowned in the Flood and buried in the Flood strata. Footprints of MANKIND and other animals were left in mud as they vainly tried to flee from the deluge – and these footprints were then covered in more sediment and fossilised.
Burrows, raindrops, roots, river beds, etc existed before the Flood and some of these artefacts were preserved in it’s sediments.
Assyrian
Except of course for the dinosaurs walking around, and building nests, the worms burrowing in the ground, termites building their mounds
The said Dinosaur nests and Termite mounds could only be fossilised by catastrophic inundation by water and sediment i.e. flooding!!!!
Assyrian
How do you get raindrop marks under water?
You don’t obviously get raindrop marks forming under water – but you would have gotten plenty of raindrop marks in dust/mud at the start of Noah’s Flood, in localised respites during it and in it's immediate aftermath – and some of these marks were preserved by being covered in sediment that then petrified.
Assyrian
Now it is evidence of of very special care in our creation if God took billions of years preparing it, but not if he knocked it together in a couple of hours from left over chimp DNA.
Not much evidence of ‘special care’ as you call it, IF God created a self-replicating molecule and walked away and let it fend for itself over billions of years in a ‘dog eat dog’ world of cut-throat competition, disease and death.
God Directly Created Adam and Eve – and He didn’t use any 'left over' chimp DNA in the process. He did use similar basic designs, biochemical processes and DNA.
A more accurate analogy to yours, would be that of a car manufacturer producing different models of car from the basic family saloon to the Rolls Royce.
Even though the ‘Roller’ would have four wheels, a braking system, etc – all of these items would be specifically designed for the ‘Roller’, would be brand new and of superior specification to the family saloon as well as incorporating additional luxury features not found in the saloon car.
Assyrian
who was our last common female ancestor? And who was the last common male ancestor?
Adam and Eve were the first and last (in fact the only) common ancestors of Mankind.
Assyrian
the Law of Cause and Effect... states that the effect cannot be greater in size or in kind than the cause. So a forest fire can't start from a small spark?
A forest fire ‘effect’ is obviously ‘caused’ by a spark COMBINED with plenty of flammable vegetation. The forest fire cannot be any greater than the supply of flammable material available to it – and it therefore does obey the Law of Cause and Effect.
Assyrian
Even Darwin predicted large gaps in the fossil record because only established species will be around in large enough numbers to leave a lot of fossils
Perhaps – but the lack of continuua in LIVING CREATURES is hard to explain, as indeed is the array of useful proteins with enormous differences between each one of them.
Assyrian
Create means make. It doesn't specify how it was made, neither do any of the creeds. Unless you claim to know how God actually did make everything, you are in no position to say science is wrong when it tells us what the evidence say happened.
‘Create’ can indeed also mean ‘make’ – but it doesn’t mean ‘evolve’. Equally the scientifically observable evidence indicates a rapid creation / making of all organisms.
Scofflaw
More mutations in the lab:
Is Evolution Predictable?
Quote
”In the experiment, the dominant strains of separate generations of the microbe ended up developing the same mutant gene in response to the same environmental hazards.”
It is no surprise that the pre-existing genetic information for useful responses to the same environmental hazards would be repeatedly selected by Natural Selection when the organism was exposed repeatedly to the same environmental hazards.
This is a good example of Natural Selection in the lab. - traits changing because of the interaction of genetic information and environment ISN’T macro-evolution.
And here is an amazing breakthrough that puts the final nail in the 'Evolutionary Coffin'
http://wizbangblog.com/2005/03/23/evolution-stood-on-its-head.php
A backup copy of the genetic information - but not DNA.
Assyrian
How about googling: SN1987A triangulation
I did and this is what I found:-
"spectra taken in 1977 show nothing unusual about the star. But there are important changes are taking place deep in its core, where we cannot see them with our instruments. The rings are there, but the vast distance to the system dims the rings into invisibility. The star was hot, but also may not have been hot enough to make the rings glow back then."
I see. Here we have a NORMAL VISIBLE star identified in 1977, supposedly @164,000 light years away!!
The rings – two larger ones and one smaller one (that are critical to the trigonometric operation later on) are invisible - and therefore may not have existed then.
"February 24, 1987: Sk-69 202 transforms itself into SN1987A.
About 1057 ultraviolet and x-ray photons stream out from the inferno. A small fraction of this energy hits the near ring system, causing it to glow. The gas in the hourglass is not terribly dense, nor is it thick, so it glows feebly. The rings, however, are denser, and the glow is more pronounced."
Fair enough. The star explodes.
"When SN1987A exploded, its light struck the central ring of gas after 0.658 years, illuminating it"
However according to:-
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000217.html
In February of 1987, astronomers witnessed the brightest supernova of modern times - supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Mysterious rings of material surrounding the expanding stellar debris were soon emitting a visible glow excited by intense light from the explosion.
Equally according to:-
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000206.html
When the Hubble Space Telescope was pointed at the supernova remnant in 1994, however, the existence of curious rings was confirmed. The origins of these rings still remains a mystery
As “the origins of these rings still remain a mystery” (to quote above) they may simply be a routine physical phenomenon associated with the supernova. The length of time taken by them to ‘glow’ may be totally independent of the original explosion – or their distance from the star. They may be merely a stage - like the ‘glowing gas hourglass’ that preceded them. Nobody is arguing that the length of time taken for ‘glowing gas hourglass’ to ‘glow’ is a measure of the width of the ‘hourglass’. Could I also point out that the ‘glowing gas hourglass’ is actually LARGER than the rings yet it 'glowed' BEFORE the rings ‘glowed’.
The ‘glowing gas rings’ may be just a second stage typically reached some months after the original explosion. In this regard, a second ‘glowing gas ring’ stage (IDENTICAL TO THE FIRST ONE) seems to have occurred 10 years after the original explosion – and nobody is arguing that THIS ONE indicates that the rings are 10 light years away from the star. There is therefore serious doubt over the ACTUAL distance of the rings from the star.
"In order to use the rings of SN1987A to trigonometrically calculate the distance, we must know where the rings lie. "
PRECISELY
In order to use the smaller ring radius to trigonometrically calculate the distance, we must know where this ring lies relative to the star.
If the ring is actually located the same distance from the star as the diameter of say our own Solar System - as measured by the orbit of Pluto (13.75 Light hours diameter) then the distance of SN1987A by trigonometrically measuring radius 6.85 Light hours by the angular distance of= 0.808 arcseconds would only be 204 Light Years!!!!
Indeed, if the gas ring was at twice the radius of our Solar System it would still only be 408 light years away!!
"Looking at the HST photo it appears rather clear that they are most likely centered about the star. The small ring is centered in the plane of the star and the two larger rings are centered at some distance from the star."
I see, you look at the photo and you see the rings !!!
........and that is about all that you can definitively conclude!!!
Scofflaw
A "selection wall" is a feature in retail displays, and you are a pseudo-scientist who makes up scientific-sounding terms to "strengthen" your hand-waving. On the other hand, you can provide a reference, if you like, showing use of the term.
It is also called a “selection limit”!!!
Try Googling the words “selection limit” & breeding0 -
But its not. In fact you can see its not by measuring the time it takes energy from the star to hit the primary ring, which is exactly what they did do.J C wrote:If the ring is actually located the same distance from the star as the diameter of say our own Solar System
The radius of the rings is not 17 light hours, it is 0.6 light years. Unless you are now claiming that light travels much slower 164,000 light years away from Earth than it does on Earth (honestly, I wouldn't be surprised)
Based on this, using simple geometry you can work out the star is 164,000 light years away. A junior cert student could do that
This is all in the same article you quoted back to us. Did you even bother to read it?
:rolleyes:
The universe has to be at least 164,000 years old, otherwise we couldn't see this star or its rings. Also, this star is where it appears to be and did exist, since (according to the Bible) God doesn't lie or fake. It is what it appears to be.
BTW Scientists have accurately measured the distance of stars millions of light years away from Earth using more advanced measurement systems than triangulation.
Kinda throws out the whole 6000 year Bible thing out the window now doesn't it JC.0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
A "selection wall" is a feature in retail displays, and you are a pseudo-scientist who makes up scientific-sounding terms to "strengthen" your hand-waving. On the other hand, you can provide a reference, if you like, showing use of the term.
It is also called a “selection limit”!!!
Try Googling the words “selection limit” & breeding
Hmm - points in order of appearance, rather than importance:
1. get your terminology right.
2. understand the implications of the term you're using.
A "selection limit", as encountered in breeding programs, is definable as follows (emphasis added):A population undergoing genetic change encounters a selection limit when the genetic variation is exhausted and no further change is possible, at least in the desired direction. For a breeding program aimed at improving productivity, this may take the form of a “yield plateau” that renders further efforts futile.
Now, I can see why you think "selection limit" sounds good - it sounds like micro-evolution can only go so far and no further - thus ruling out macro-evolution. And you are entirely wrong, because you misunderstand the term you're using.
Selection limits apply in the absence of mutations, and take about 20 generations to kick in. Mutations are how selection limits are passed, because they add to the genetic variability of the breeding population.
Don't believe me? Let's consider cows (or horses, or sheep, or any other domesticated animal). We have been breeding them for thousands of years, according to both YECs and "Evolutionists". That's a lot more than 20 generations.
If your application of the term were correct, we would have hit the "selection wall" a long time ago, and would certainly not be able to create new breeds as we do. Unless, that is, there is a global conspiracy in the farming and livestock communities?
So, you have to accept this: either mutation adds to the genetic variability of populations, allowing them to bypass selection limits, or there is some other mechanism (suit yourself) that allows populations to bypass selection limits. Either way, selection limits cannot be regarded as an obstacle to macro-evolution, because they quite clearly get bypassed regularly.
Now, I think that you chose the term "selection limit" because it sounds dramatic and final, and as if it did what you wanted it to do, and made it even more dramatic-sounding by dressing it up as "selection wall". I say that you are a pseudo-scientist, and you can't even see when a term you're using has the opposite implication from your intention.
Scofflaw0 -
JC wrote:More mutations in the lab:
Is Evolution Predictable?
Quote
”In the experiment, the dominant strains of separate generations of the microbe ended up developing the same mutant gene in response to the same environmental hazards.”
It is no surprise that the pre-existing genetic information for useful responses to the same environmental hazards would be repeatedly selected by Natural Selection when the organism was exposed repeatedly to the same environmental hazards.
This is a good example of Natural Selection in the lab. - traits changing because of the interaction of genetic information and environment ISN’T macro-evolution.
And here is an amazing breakthrough that puts the final nail in the 'Evolutionary Coffin'
http://wizbangblog.com/2005/03/23/ev...n-its-head.php
A backup copy of the genetic information - but not DNA.
Again, particularly when quoting from such a short post, it would be better if you could attribute the quote to the right person - although I respect Assyrian, I'm definitely not him, as per the citation in your post.
You have failed to read the article, which is all about mutation and selection. You have instead attributed this to "pre-existing genetic information" and said something stupid about that instead.
Mutation -that's not the same as "pre-existing genetic information", you see. Not even spelled the same way, actually. Read the article, not the abstract.
I see you're latching on to yet another barely half-formed idea in the case of the possible gene backups in mustard plants. It's an interesting article, which I doubt you have bothered to read. Why do you think this disproves evolution, when only 10% of the genetic material that was altered had gone back by an unknown mechanism?
RTFM,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw
I have given a basis for such a morality (treating any part of the world as an object to be manipulated in accordance with one's own wishes is morally wrong, and all immorality can be deduced from this premise). I regard my morality as absolute.
Two questions come to mind:-
1 Do you drive a car, eat breakfast, live in a purpose built house or in any other way treat any part of the world “as an object to be manipulated” in accordance with your wishes?
Or
2 Do you confine yourself to ‘manipulating any part of the world’ in accordance with somebody else’s wishes?
Wicknight
But its not. In fact you can see its not by measuring the time it takes energy from the star to hit the primary ring, which is exactly what they did do.
The radius of the rings is not 17 light hours, it is 0.6 light years.
Why do you say it took 0.6 light years to reach and excite the small ring (which didn’t become visible until 0.6 years after the explosion) – when the gas in the ‘hourglass’ became excited BEFORE the rings even appeared!!!!
Surely the ring would have become excited before the extremes of the ‘hourglass’ became excited (at distances beyond all of the rings) – UNLESS the ‘excited hourglass’ was the first stage in the process and the ‘excited rings’ were the second stage.
Wicknight
BTW Scientists have accurately measured the distance of stars millions of light years away from Earth using more advanced measurement systems than triangulation
I’ll deal with these “more advance measurement systems” another time.
However, the SN1987A was a triangulation exercise.0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
I have given a basis for such a morality (treating any part of the world as an object to be manipulated in accordance with one's own wishes is morally wrong, and all immorality can be deduced from this premise). I regard my morality as absolute.
Two questions come to mind:-
1 Do you drive a car, eat breakfast, live in a purpose built house or in any other way treat any part of the world “as an object to be manipulated” in accordance with your wishes?
Or
2 Do you confine yourself to ‘manipulating any part of the world’ in accordance with somebody else’s wishes?
The former, rather than the latter. No to the car, yes to the breakfast and house. I do treat breakfast as an object to be manipulated almost entirely in accordance with my wishes, but I have a lot more respect for the house.
I didn't make it explicit at the time that treating the inanimate as an object is, while not perfect, not very immoral. An inanimate object like cereal, which is made from plants sown for the purpose (and whose offspring will be carefully looked after!), is pretty much manipulable at will. The house, being a designed object (!), and capable of use by others, both during my life and after, requires a good deal more respect. Obviously anything living is worthy of more respect in turn.
I don't drive because driving tempts one to treat the world badly. Same for television.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw
Hmm - points in order of appearance, rather than importance:
1. get your terminology right.
2. understand the implications of the term you're using
I did get my terminology correct – you are the one showing your lack of knowledge on this issue - and making the usual ad hominem remarks about my (obvious) scientific qualifications:-
The term “Selection Wall” is routinely used by Irish Plant and Animal Breeders – the Americans use the term “Selection Limit”!!
I fully understand the implications of the term – and could I point out that you didn’t even know that the term “Selection Wall” existed before I pointed it out to you!!!
Scofflaw
Selection limits apply in the absence of mutations, and take about 20 generations to kick in. Mutations are how selection limits are passed, because they add to the genetic variability of the breeding population
Selection walls/limits can be reached within 5-10 generations when selecting intensively for single traits – which is an instant in supposed ‘Evolutionary Time’.
Mutations always result in a loss of genetic information.
Scofflaw
Let's consider cows (or horses, or sheep, or any other domesticated animal). We have been breeding them for thousands of years, according to both YECs and "Evolutionists".
If your application of the term were correct, we would have hit the "selection wall" a long time ago, and would certainly not be able to create new breeds as we do. Unless, that is, there is a global conspiracy in the farming and livestock communities?
Indeed we have been breeding them for thousands of years. The reason that we still can create new breeds is that we haven’t exhausted ALL genetic diversity yet – although the preservation of genetic diversity is indeed becoming a very serious concern at present.
Equally, genetic diversity ISN’T found in intensively bred stock – it is found in wild or outbred stock that HASN’T been intensively selected for single traits – and therefore HASN’T reached Selection Walls/Limits.
Scofflaw
Now, I think that you chose the term "selection limit" because it sounds dramatic and final, and as if it did what you wanted it to do, and made it even more dramatic-sounding by dressing it up as "selection wall". I say that you are a pseudo-scientist, and you can't even see when a term you're using has the opposite implication from your intention.
I didn’t CHOOSE the term “selection limit” – it is objectively a standard term used by American Plant and Animal Breeding Scientists (and indeed increasingly used in Ireland as well).
I didn’t ‘dress it up’ as anything other than the standard Irish scientific term of “Selection Wall”.
If you have a problem with that, so be it.
Could I also say that “Selection Walls/Limits” are amongst the least of the difficulties facing Evolution – which now has to explain a backup cryptic source of information in Mustard Plants (and probably in all other organisms as well) that RECTIFIES mutational ERRORS – the supposed ‘seed corn’ of Evolution.
If there is indeed some mechanism built into organisms to repair flawed genes, the whole theory of Evolution - which is already mathematically impossible - is now a few dozen orders of magnitude more impossible!!!!
There is indeed something other than DNA that apparently is carried on some sort of genome and we don't even have a name for it yet, much less understand it!
I do have a name for the Creator of this mechanism though – He is the Lord Jesus Christ !!!0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:I did get my terminology correct – you are the one showing your lack of knowledge on this issue - and (laughably) making the usual ad hominem remarks about my scientific qualifications:-
The term “Selection Wall” is routinely used by Irish Plant and Animal Breeders – the Americans use the term “Selection Limit”!!
It must be the lack of references that confused me - being unable to find other people using the term, plus your abysmal track record. I'll take it on faith, then.
I've said before that I'm prepared to mock your "scientific credentials" as long as you veil them in mystery and claim things that aren't possible. We've been over the subject before.
It would be an ad hominem attack if your credentials were both irrelevant and uncited. As I've said, you do claim them, and they are clearly germane to the question of whether you understand science. It is increasingly clear from your posts that you consistently misunderstand science, and persist in basic errors and fallacious assumptions long after these have been proven incorrect.
So, just so that you're certain - I hereby formally mock and deride JC's unsubstantiated claims to improbable scientific qualifications.
I am prepared to accept as likely that you are an AgSci graduate from NUI, who did the usual smattering of things like Geology in first year. You may now be working in the livestock industry.J C wrote:I fully understand the implications of the term – and could I point out that you didn’t even know that the term “Selection Wall” existed before I pointed it out to you!!!
Clearly you don't, as you prove so neatly below.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Selection limits apply in the absence of mutations, and take about 20 generations to kick in. Mutations are how selection limits are passed, because they add to the genetic variability of the breeding population
Selection walls/limits can be reached within 5-10 generations when selecting intensively for single traits – which is an instant in supposed ‘Evolutionary Time’.
Mutations always result in a loss of genetic information.
That's it, is it - just a bare statement of dogma, despite all the huge body of lab work that deals with the subject, and which is in direct contradiction of your dogma? Why would I accept such an unsupported statement?J C wrote:Scofflaw
Let's consider cows (or horses, or sheep, or any other domesticated animal). We have been breeding them for thousands of years, according to both YECs and "Evolutionists".
If your application of the term were correct, we would have hit the "selection wall" a long time ago, and would certainly not be able to create new breeds as we do. Unless, that is, there is a global conspiracy in the farming and livestock communities?
Indeed we have been breeding them for thousands of years. The reason that we still can create new breeds is that we haven’t exhausted ALL genetic diversity yet – although the preservation of genetic diversity is indeed becoming a very serious concern at present.
Equally, genetic diversity ISN’T found in intensively bred stock – it is found in wild or outbred stock that HASN’T been intensively selected for single traits – and therefore HASN’T reached Selection Walls/Limits.
Really? So although we have enough genetic variability for thousands of years of breeding various strains, it's not possible for there to be enough genetic variability to allow speciation? Pull the other one, son, it has bells on!
I am aware that genetic diversity of stocks is becoming an issue, because modern farming has eliminated a lot of local breeds, and it is rare for mutation to produce what a breeder would consider to be a useful variation, if the variation is even identified.J C wrote:I didn’t CHOOSE the term “selection limit” – it is objectively a standard term used by American Plant and Animal Breeding Scientists (and indeed increasingly used in Ireland as well).
I didn’t ‘dress it up’ as anything other than the standard Irish scientific term of “Selection Wall”.
If you have a problem with that, so be it.
I'm beginning to think this is your work area, so I'll take your word for it.J C wrote:Could I also say that “Selection Walls/Limits” are amongst the least of the difficulties facing Evolution – which now has to explain a backup cryptic source of information in Mustard Plants (and probably in all other organisms as well) that RECTIFIES mutational ERRORS – the supposed ‘seed corn’ of Evolution.
Oh, please - 10% of affected DNA in one plant! It's a whimper, not a bang. This will impact evolutionary timescales (which are variable, anyway), but unless it happened to 100% of mutated DNA in 100% of organisms, you are very seriously over-egging your pudding here. Hardly a surprise, given your "squirting dinosaur marrow".J C wrote:If there is indeed some mechanism built into organisms to repair flawed genes, the whole theory of Evolution - which is already mathematically impossible - is now a few dozen orders of magnitude more impossible!!!!
No. See entire thread, almost everyone's posts but yours, for details of how ridiculous your maths is.J C wrote:There is indeed something other than DNA that apparently is carried on some sort of genome and we don't even have a name for it yet, much less understand it!
Well - first, that's only a suggestion. Second, the reason we don't have a name for it is because we don't know which of several chemicals it is. Third, we don't understand it because it hasn't been investigated.
Fourth, and entirely typically, you have seized on this barely-thought-out suggestion and decided that it invalidates evolutionary theory, a conclusion reached by none of the researchers involved. You are a pseudo-scientist - you grab whatever seems to support your position without troubling to read or understand the material, and loudly trumpet your misunderstood version as absolute truth.J C wrote:I do have a name for the Creator of this mechanism though – He is the Lord Jesus Christ !!!
Did you edit that? I'm pretty certain it originally said "and he wants to save you" - perhaps he changed his mind?
Scofflaw0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement