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
-
-
Wicknight wrote:Did you actually read the article you linked to...5uspect wrote:Isn't this the problem with this whole thread? Creationists seeing what they want to see and ignoring the other stuff.
Yes Wicknight, I read the article - I deliberately picked it as one with an evolutionary perspective to demonstrate that an alternative interpretation of the "facts" is actually possible.
In fairness, 5uspect, you will agree that if one starts from the premise that the Bible is true, it is not unreasonable to find such fossils as evidence for a global flood. Perhaps these creatures weren't ordinarily resident in these locations but their dead bodies were carried to their last resting place by the catastrophic flood waters prophesied by Noah. Perhaps marsupials and monotremes have some as yet unknown biologically programmed preference for antipodean habitats and this is why we now find then concentrated in the Australia & New Zealand. Perhaps they were cut off when land bridges formed by the postdiluvian Ice Age receded.
The point is we probably can't know with absolute certainty what the exact explanation is but we can try to examine the evidence with open minds. I put this forward in an earlier thread... creationists have the capacity to understand the evolutionary mindframe in a way that it appears from these exchanges is not reciprocated by evolutionists who only see the material aspects and by their own wilful denial cannot allow God to be the causative agent of the processes that have led to the present.
As an aside, does anyone else see the irony in the choice of scientific name to describe the human species, homo sapiens sapiens, in the light of Paul's admonition to the Romans:The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.In case anyone takes this the wrong way, I intend no insult but merely wish to highlight that the Bible teaches us that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord and that to ignore his stated desire for each of us to return to knowing him through Jesus is foolishness indeed. God's heart towards us is love first and foremost, so that we might avoid the consequences of his equally real anger.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.......0 -
But they are not evidence of a global flood, thats the point.RiverDeep wrote:In fairness, 5uspect, you will agree that if one starts from the premise that the Bible is true, it is not unreasonable to find such fossils as evidence for a global flood.
The fossils date from millions of years ago. They are totally inconsistent with all these creatures dying at one 4000 years ago. They also don't match any creatures alive today.
It would be like calling up the UN claiming that a genocide has happened in Glasnevin yesterday because of all the dead bodies in the cemetary :rolleyes:
And perhaps monkeys built the pyramids. You can spend all day making things up.RiverDeep wrote:Perhaps these creatures weren't ordinarily resident in these locations but their dead bodies were carried to their last resting place by the catastrophic flood waters prophesied by Noah.
Or perhaps the Bible was written by a bunch of lads 3000 years ago who didn't know anything about science or the natural world.RiverDeep wrote:Perhaps marsupials and monotremes have some as yet unknown biologically programmed preference for antipodean habitats and this is why we now find then concentrated in the Australia & New Zealand. Perhaps they were cut off when land bridges formed by the postdiluvian Ice Age receded.
But thats the point, your mind isn't open. It is closed, as are all serious YECsRiverDeep wrote:The point is we probably can't know with absolute certainty what the exact explanation is but we can try to examine the evidence with open minds.
It has already been closed because you are blindly accepting the Biblical account of creation. So, according to YECs the current theories based on sound evidence have to be wrong, and there must be a smoking gun missing piece of the puzzle that proves the Bible correct.
Your mind is closed to the far more likely fact that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago, and there wasn't a global flood 4000 years ago.
That is the difference between science and creation science. Science changes all the time, as we learn new things about the world, as our understand advances. The theory of evolution has grown greatly in the last 150 years, from what it once was.
Creation Science doesn't change, it doesn't grow it doesn't adapt. It follows the Bible, the book of Genesis, and that is it. Any evidence presented cannot challange that original hypoties. The book of genesis is correct, that is that, end of story.
Your mind is closed before any evidence even passes your nose. You have already made up your mind that the evidence, all the evidence, must support your original proposition, that of a young biblical earth. Your mind is a closed as it gets.
It is perfectly possible to allow God in. But that doesn't change the fact that there was not a global flood 4000 years ago.RiverDeep wrote:I put this forward in an earlier thread... creationists have the capacity to understand the evolutionary mindframe in a way that it appears from these exchanges is not reciprocated by evolutionists who only see the material aspects and by their own wilful denial cannot allow God to be the causative agent of the processes that have led to the present.
There is a difference from believing in God and making things up to fit within the Bible.RiverDeep wrote:God's heart towards us is love first and foremost, so that we might avoid the consequences of his equally real anger.
It seems a bit silly then to basically call His creation a lie, a creation that you can freely study all around us, instead insisting on the teachings of an accient book written by men who knew nothing of biology and history.0 -
PH
Are you really saying that :
In the middle of the egyptian civilization every member was killed by a catastrophic flood.
Some(300?) years later a new group of people (descended from those on the ark but obviously unrelated to any of the 4th dynasty egyptians) came along and took over exactly from where the last ended, with the same language, society, traditions, stories, Gods and technology?
Not quite.
The Ante-Diluvian people who lived in ‘Old Kingdom’ Egypt and built the Pyramids were a different people and spoke a different language to the post – Flood people who dispersed from Babel into ‘Mid Kingdom’ Egypt.
The post-Flood Pharaohs found a few landmark Pyramids in their back yards – and like many egomaniac rulers since and before, they sequestered the Pyramids and made them their own.
To further legitimise their position they invented relationships to the previous people who built the pyramids – and so by a combination of carving/painting their hieroglyphics on the said structures and availing of the services of a good ‘Creative’ Genealogist, the Pyramids became their very own!!!
Wicknight
It is known as a "tipping point" The tipping point was farming and the invention of complex tools, approx 15,000 years ago
This ‘tipping point’ idea of yours, is a very poor explanation. Farming skills are pretty basic – and farmers always emerge spontaneously to meet a tightening market demand for food whenever populations pressures become so great that hunter/gathering is insufficient to meet food demands.
If Human Beings really lived 150,000 years ago then everything that happened in the last 5,000 years should have happened 150,000 years ago – actually WHAT would have prevented it happening?
The real ‘tipping point’ was about 7,000 years ago - and it coincided with the Creation of Mankind.
Wicknight
please explain how the geological features you attribute to a massive global flood and up heavial of land masses can be still found in these relatively untouched areas.
Although a large percentage of sedimentary rock was laid down during Noah’s Flood – some sedimentary rock was formed pre-Flood – and some sedimentary rock continues to form today e.g. the water sorted volcanic ash in the Mount Saint Helens eruption. Equally, all tectonic movement WASN’T confined to the period of Noah’s Flood.
Wicknight
geological structures such as Easter Island were not caused by millions of years of tectonic activity, but were infact cause by the Biblical Flood. It is hard to imagine that stone monuments on Easter Island would survive the creation of the island itself
The Easter Island stone monuments were made from igneous rock as indeed is the whole island. The stone monuments obviously were created after the island formed – and so they didn’t need to survive the creation of the island itself.
Wicknight
What is the growth rate needed to repopulate Africa, Asia, Europe and America in 300 years from 6 people? Because don't forget, while Eygpt and Africa were being repopulated, so was Asia seemingly, and Austrialia, and Europe.
A world population of 500 million could be achieved in about 400 years starting with 6 people if the average couple had 10 children. Although 10 children is very high by today’s standards it would be a realistic figure for the immediate post-Flood Humans who continued to live long lives during the first few hundred years after the Flood.
Equally, resource limitations wouldn’t be an issue, and the next priority after food and shelter for any pioneering people is (massive) reproduction – to provide the young people needed to exploit the abundant natural resources all around them and to guarantee the parents some security in their old age.
Wicknight
Also please explain how the new settlers in Eygpt managed to lose their original culture, language and writing and pick up the Eygption one right where it left off, when none of them would have known how to read Eygptian writing, or have been aware of Eygptian history. On, and do this in a few decades.
They DIDN’T pick up any of the Ante-Diluvian language or culture – they did as subsequent colonisers often did – they imposed their language, culture and writing on the stone artefacts that they found when they went to Egypt.
Wicknight
Also please explain the records of Eyptian kings that are known to have lived and ruled in this "period of chaos" (and there are quite a number of them)
A little bit of ‘Creative Genealogy’ to bolster the authority of the incumbent Pharaoh, no doubt!!!0 -
Wicknight
How did these settlers managed to spred to all parts of the globe in 800 while also settling to farm and produce food for the 3.5 children every single couple was producing.
Birth rates in nomadic cultures is much lower than settled cultures as they have far less resources. And when they are having children then tend not to move around as much.
These weren’t nomads – most individuals settled after they spread out across the Earth.
Wicknight
How did they farm when they were moving, very quickly, to repopulate the rest of the world.
The average person may have journeyed for 100 miles – and then settled and farmed.
Wicknight
You can't farm and spread around world in 800 years. Especially when attempting to support that largest population growth in human history.
Why not?
Wicknight
Have you ever seen flood damage JC?
I have – and it’s effects vary from total destruction, to no practical effect to an increase in fertility and food productivity.
Wicknight
If you work on the idea that the grain needed to populate the Earth was stored on the Ark, that isn't enought food to sustain your 3.5 children growth rate with in a local population, let alone one that is constantly travelling in an attempt to repopulate the Earth
Plant life is amazingly resilient – the area of the Mount St Helens eruption was written off by many observers in 1980 because of the scale of the destruction. Today practically all of the plant life is flourishing on the mountain sides (a common phenomenon on most volcanoes) and nearly all of the large macro-fauna have returned to the Mountain!!!
Wicknight
Which would make that the highest growth rate in human history. Everyone would have to produce 3.5 children. Who would feed these 3.5 children?
It was obviously a very dynamic time!!!
The older children would help feed the younger ones once they became able to do any useful work – you obviously didn’t come from a large family of 10 children yourself, Wicknight!!!!
5uspect
JC do you have an exact inventory of what was carried on Noah's Ark? Or even an estimate? Now using this inventory what size would you imagine this ark would be?
No, I don’t have an exact inventory.
However, Gen 6:15 confirms the size of the Ark to be 300x50x30 Cubits – which was 137x23x13.7 metres or 43,160 cubic metres.
To put it into perspective, The Ark was equivalent to the volume of 522 standard railway stock wagons, each of which can hold 250 sheep i.e. over 130,000 ‘sheep spaces’ so to speak. The Ark was a truly massive vessel, unmatched in size by modern shipping until the building of The Great Eastern Liner by Isambard Kingdom Brunel in 1858.
Taking young semi-mature animals on board would greatly reduce the space and feed requirements as well as minimising any mortality risk.
Examples of every KIND were commanded by God to be taken on board. Creationists DO accept that speciation occurs (using EXISTING genetic diversity) and it is thought that as little as 16,000 KINDS would have been sufficient to generate the diversity of terrestrial and avian species seen in the World today.
For example a single pair of the Dog Kind could have given rise to Domestic Dogs, Wolves, Wolverines, Cape Hunting Dogs, Hyenas, Jackals, Foxes, etc.
The vast majority of Kinds would be small animals such as young lizards and mice that would literally fit into a match box. Other animals such as lambs, calves and baby elephants would require somewhat more space. However, if we assume 32,000 animals (including birds) on the Ark each with a generous average space requirement of 50x50x50 cm (0.125 cubic metres), then all 32,000 animals could be accommodated in about 10% of the space in the Ark – leaving plenty of room for feed, straw bedding and access.
In addition, we should bear in mind that the animals themselves didn’t have any fear of Man before the Flood (see Gen 9:2) and they therefore would have been very placid and easy to manage on the Ark, unlike what “wild” animals would be like nowadays. They may also have gone into a type of hibernation during the flood, which would have saved on feed as well as making management even easier.
5uspect
Oh and also the poor people repopulating the globe while farming, migrating, having 3.5 kids, learning all those new languages and cultures, changing the colour of their skin etc
Most of them actually had more like 10 children – and thrived on it!!
They didn’t need to learn any other language or culture – the reason that the Babel Dispersal occurred was because they couldn’t understand each other!!!
The people groups with the darker skin pigmentation gravitated towards the Tropics while the paler skin types gravitated northwards – so they DIDN’T need to change their skin colour!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
Fair enough JC, now just explain why the hewbrews of the 2nd millenium BCE didn't invent the computer. Or learn to fly. Or produce modern medicine. Or produce the combustion engine. They had exactly the same brains as us, so what was the hold up? Exactly WHAT stopped the hewbrew people of the middle east landing a rocket on the moon ... its not hard, we did it with technology you can find in a modern calculator. Piece of piss really ...J C wrote:If Human Beings really lived 150,000 years ago then everything that happened in the last 5,000 years should have happened 150,000 years ago – actually WHAT would have prevented it happening?
What nonsense :rolleyes:
How, if the Earth was completely flat, and all the water was underground as you previously claimedJ C wrote:Although a large percentage of sedimentary rock was laid down during Noah’s Flood – some sedimentary rock was formed pre-Flood
Despite the fact that you previously claimed it was.J C wrote:Equally, all tectonic movement WASN’T confined to the period of Noah’s Flood.
So are you just now making this up because you have to alter your story to keep up with reality.
So, what you said 3 posts ago was completely wrong.J C wrote:The Easter Island stone monuments were made from igneous rock as indeed is the whole island. The stone monuments obviously were created after the island formed – and so they didn’t need to survive the creation of the island itself.
Not if there wasn't ANY FOOD! :rolleyes:J C wrote:A world population of 500 million could be achieved in about 400 years starting with 6 people if the average couple had 10 children. Although 10 children is very high by today’s standards it would be a realistic figure for the immediate post-Flood Humans who continued to live long lives during the first few hundred years after the Flood.
Also I have no idea where you got the idea that 10 surviving children was a typical growth rate. And it seems a little bizare considering the growth rate was 3.5 only a few posts ago.
Seriously, you are just making this sh1t up aren't you :rolleyes:
Why exactly?J C wrote:Equally, resource limitations wouldn’t be an issue
DO you actually know anything about Eygptian language?J C wrote:They DIDN’T pick up any of the Ante-Diluvian language or culture – they did as subsequent colonisers often did – they imposed their language, culture and writing on the stone artefacts that they found when they went to Egypt.
You would know that the different languages of Eygpt closely relate to each other. The language adopted in 2000 BCE wasn't a "new" language. All egyptian languages up to late eyptian used very similar hieroglyphics, and correct me if I'm wrong but they were nothing at all like the languages used by the people living in the middle eastern regions around babylon.J C wrote:A little bit of ‘Creative Genealogy’ to bolster the authority of the incumbent Pharaoh, no doubt!!!
Or you are just making cr@p up .... yup, I think the later is the more likely0 -
How?J C wrote:The average person may have journeyed for 100 miles – and then settled and farmed.
They would have been moving into unpopulated lands. No towns, no villages, to supply shelter, food, clothing.
What did they eat while they were travelling their 100 miles (approx 6 years travelling).
Ok, say that each person moved 100 miles and then settled down and raised kids, when then moved 100 miles. It woudl take 1,310 years to reach East Asia, another 200 years to get to Japan, and another 1000 years to get to America. Another 2000 years to get to South America
To reach China in 400 years each person would have to walk approx 400 miles (approx 3 years travel). With no food Unlikely. It would still take another 700 years to reach American, another 700 years to reach South America. Which is nonsense because we know approx 5 to 7 million people lived in the Amazon area alone around 1000 BCE. With the updated time table the handful of settlers would not have even reached the Amazon by then
While this was happening of course they wouldn't be able to farm, develop towns or cities, or invent anything, like the entirely new Chinese culture you claim they invented.
Of course that still doesn't explain how Asian people developed Asian features, or Afrians or native americans.
Because farming requires you be settled in one place for years on end to look after the farm. And it would be a bit of a wopper of a farm if it had to feed ten times as many people each generation. :rolleyes:J C wrote:Why not?
Have you ever seen flood damage from a flood that would bury a sea level are under 5 km of water?J C wrote:I have – and it’s effects vary from total destruction, to no practical effect to an increase in fertility and food productivity.
It is, but the one thing it does need is sun light. Sun light is lost after 300 meters of water level. Considering your flood would have to have been well over a few kilometers high to cover all land mass, the land under it would have been in total blackness. In 40 days, completely starved of all light, oxygen and CO2 all plant life on the Earth would have died All of itJ C wrote:Plant life is amazingly resilient
It was written off by who?J C wrote:– the area of the Mount St Helens eruption was written off by many observers in 1980 because of the scale of the destruction.
Yes, because they had no food except what was on the Ark. No animals except what was on the ark (and animals require as much food as humans). So obviously they were going to produce 10 new children for each couple.J C wrote:It was obviously a very dynamic time!!!
What, did they eat the new children? Because there certainly would not have been any food to feed them. Remember, all plant life had died.
Feed them with what exactly?J C wrote:The older children would help feed the younger ones once they became able to do any useful work0 -
RiverDeep wrote:http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/introducing/about_marsupials_3.htm
As this article explains, evidence of now-fossilized antediluvian marsupials and monotremes are found on all continents, which is consistent with the predictions of a creation/global flood model.
Indeed. This is, in fact, why I said "kangaroos" and "platypuses" rather than marsupials and monotremes!
See, the fossil ones aren't the same as the Australian kangaroos and platypuses. I see, however, that you have referred to the fossil ones as "antediluvian" - very amusing! Of course, the ones that came off the Ark have to be the same ones that went onto the Ark, so it's difficult to explain how the difference came about simply by virtue of the Flood. After all, Noah took both clean and unclean animals.
Come now, there's a great big gap here. Ark comes to rest in the Middle East, kangaroos and platypuses head for Oz, swim across the Wallace Line. At no point do any die, or settle down - nope, the whole Oz fauna (and worse, the Kiwi fauna) has to get to, and across the Straits, leaving not a single member behind, alive or dead. Lombok Strait, by the way, is 600 foot deep at its shallowest point.
What do you reckon their route was? Did they go across Pakistan and Northen India, or head up round Tibet? Hmm, hmm. Those are hard routes, with some very narrow bits. Have Creation Scientists not mounted vigorous searches in the bottlenecks for the missing fossils?
And the flora?! How did the Australian flora manage to leg it across the Wallace Line? Did the trees walk? If they were all carried by the animals as they made their amazing journey from the Middle East, what did the animals eat when they got to Australia? How did koala bears manage until the gum trees grew?
Or, alternatively, are you suggesting that what went onto the Ark was the animals we find as fossils (admittedly most of them in the wrong place - South America), and that, during their gruelling trek/swim to Oz they changed form into the ones we see today? Oh, hang on, you can't suggest that, because that would be a change of "kind", wouldn't it? Or maybe you can, since the definition of "kind" seems a little loose, although it's hard to see what fits into the same "kind" as a platypus. Plus, again, unless none of the animals died en route, we'd have a whole series of transitional fossils all along the migration route! Now there's something for Creation Science to really get its teeth into! After all, those fossils should be pretty much at the top of the record, shouldn't they?
At what point does the phrase "stop this at once, it's silly" come inexorably to mind?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
no doubt indeed. Are you decended from these genealogists by any chance?J C wrote:A little bit of ‘Creative Genealogy’ to bolster the authority of the incumbent Pharaoh, no doubt!!!
I said it before and I'll say it again you have the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen. Seriously, I really mean that.
I really can't believe the utter nonsense you and RiverDeep have just polluted the internet with. You state all these silly ideas as if they are logical fact without a shred of evidence and expect us to swallow it. No wonder people think creationists are as loony as flat earthers.0 -
Wicknight wrote:It is, but the one thing it does need is sun light. Sun light is lost after 300 meters of water level. Considering your flood would have to have been well over a few kilometers high to cover all land mass, the land under it would have been in total blackness. In 40 days, completely starved of all light, oxygen and CO2 all plant life on the Earth would have died All of it
Don't forget the massive pressure at such depths. But I don't think all the evidence in the world will convince J C. Admit it J C. You will never even consider the faintest thought that you might just be wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
Once again can I point out that none of this has anything to do with evolution, for your 'science' to be correct, we've established that every branch of science is massively wrong.
Biology
Comsology
Geology
Chemistry
Physics
Astronomy
Meteorology
...
I could go on, but it might be simpler if you could list any areas of science you think we've actually gotten correct?
Now we've also got to throw away archeology and linguistics too ...0 -
-
Wicknight wrote:Exactly WHAT stopped the hewbrew people of the middle east landing a rocket on the moon ... its not hard, we did it with technology you can find in a modern calculator. Piece of piss really ...
What nonsense :rolleyes:
Hell they landed on the moon landing slide rulers, they didn't even have calculators....
0 -
-
Scofflaw wrote:At what point does the phrase "stop this at once, it's silly" come inexorably to mind?
It always amuses me that YEC dismiss quite pratical and plausable processes such as evolution (even if one believes evolution isn't responsible for life on Earth it has still been proven a perfectly workable natural process) as nonsensical, yet choose to believe that -
- the entire Earth can "flood" in a few days,
- that plant life can survive under kilometers of water and with no light
- that post-Flood populations can grow at 10 children per couple (with no food) while spreading 400 kilometers (with no food) each generation (which is only 33 years according to JC, which isn't enough time to have 10 children, let alone 10 surviving children!),
- that animals and plants (wtf?) could swim from Austrialia to New Zeland (approx 1000 miles)
How are these things much more plausable than evolution, a process that we can be certain works on a micro-level, and 99% certain works on a macro-level.
- How certain are YEC that trees can swim from Austrialia to New Zeland (approx 1000 miles)?
- How certain are YEC that plant life can survived under kilometers of water with no light for 40 days?
- How certain are YEC that a person with a life span of 33 years can produce 10 suriving children, while also walking up to 400 kilometers into a barren dead region with no food?
- How certain are YEC that ALL dating methods do not work? ALL of them, ever used. No modern dating system, devised anywhere, be it radiometeric or otherwise, ever has put the date of the Earth at 10,000 years
- How certain are YEC that all known species of dinosar lived along side humans for approx 2000 years? Along with every other known historical species. Creatures that science says died off millions of years ago, creatures that have never been recorded in any ancient cultures
- How certain are the YEC that the Eygptian and Greek cultures simply made up approx 400 years of culture when no one was in Eygpt or Greece? This is after babylonian settlers came to the region and in a matter of decades took on the culture, lanaguage and even genetic properties of the previous civilisation0 -
> To reach China in 400 years
By my calculations with google earth, it's 8,300 miles from Baghdad to Beijing, going via the coast, but cutting though the north of India. That's a rate of 20 miles per year or a nice round three hundred feet per day, every day. For 400 years. And once you arrive at a place, you instantly stop for good, and quick as you can, set up a capital city, with fully-operational agricultural infrastructure from the outlying areas from farmers who develop locale-specific crops and agricultural techniques at the drop of a bamboo hat.
Now, here's a thing. Since you've got many languages (and languages don't evolve), you must have started off your trek with all your languages intact, and then remember on your trip to drop the languages and people off in such a way as to make it look to subsequent linguistic and ethnic historians, that quite a few of the peoples are related, genetically and linguistically. Anyhow, on the language front, this means that you should tot up the number of languages between Baghdad and Tierra del Fuego, then multiply by some factor to give you the number of people required to keep the language alive until it reaches the place where it was subsequently spoken. So, let's do that. There are around 6,000 languages in the world and say around 4,000 of them in India, Asia the Americas and Australia and the Pacific islands. Assuming you have to have a group of at least ten people to keep a language alive, that means that 40,000 people had to leave Baghdad to begin the gallop to South America. But long marches are notoriously fatal to humans, so you should probably start out with a few more than ten, so try fifty instead, giving a total of 200,000 people. Then you've to make sure somehow they don't interbreed and mix up the languages as the generations pass by.
So, YEC requires that, for reasons unknown, 200,000 people who can't communicate with each other, and who have no maps describing where to go, suddenly decide to up stakes from Baghdad and to go on a 24,000-mile walking holiday together to South America which they don't know is there, carrying nothing but the clothes they stand up in and a few sacks of figs and a barrel of hummus.
Like YEC's, they must have been completely barking.
.0 -
Wicknight wrote:It always amuses me that YEC dismiss quite pratical and plausable processes such as evolution (even if one believes evolution isn't responsible for life on Earth it has still been proven a perfectly workable natural process) as nonsensical, yet choose to believe that -
Today must be our birthday, another brilliant post, that also goes in my scrap book. Those two posts simply, and in an understandable to the layman manner, wrapped up the entire issue. Genesis 1 and the DaVinchi code, two interesting reads, can be learned from, but badly misunderstood and constantly misquoted...for what ever reason.0 -
Sapien wrote:Please elaborate.
They believe that genetic material can re-arrange itself due to mutation during reporduction (though JC has claimed mutations can't benefit an animal, so it seems funny he accepts mutations in relation to specialisation), but that new genetic structures cannot form during said mutation.
So if you have 10 chromosone you can have ten chromosone in a different order after a long period of mutation, but not 11.
This theory (like most YECs ones) has been proven wrong. Mutation which increases genetic complexity has been observed.
It makes sense too, since you aren't just rearranging the chromosones, you are also copying them.
The biological process limits the number of copies to the original number. But like any biological process this can fail, and more copies can be produced than originally needed. 99.999% it will not work out to have any benefit for the creature, and possibly result in its death or serious defects.
But over the hundred of thousands of years (millions of years), with trilions of life forms reproducing every second, it is clear that eventually errors in the copying process will produce more copies of genetic code than originally needed, and this, in very rare instances, will produce a beneficial result.0 -
-
Ordinary mitotic processes can account for the rearrangement of chromosomal DNA giving rise to variations within species and in the case of isolating events this can even cause speciation. These are not considered to be mutations, as such. Mutations are in most cases deleterious and if not repaired by cellular machinery will often cause disease and/or death.
Some such mistakes can be sustained however. An example would be the tetraploid Argentinian rat, Tympanoctomys barrae, which has twice the number of chromsomes as similar species and is considered to have arisen as a result of a copying error in an ancestral reproductive cycle.
This is not an increase in genetic information, rather it is a case of informational redundancy as the chromosomes have merely been repeated. There is no real benefit to the organism and serendipitously no apparent defect, although it might be said that it is energetically unfavourable to have to reproduce twice the amount of DNA with no real gain in fitness.
This is another example of an event that can be predicted by either a Biblical creation model or a materialistic evolutionary one. The question is whether or not one can move aside one's presuppositions to allow the validity of both options.
Of course, I prefer the Creation model because I continue to have personal relationship with the One who created the universe and who holds us to account for our decisions with respect to his Son's sacrifice for our sin in order that we might have eternal life in him.
I reject the long age evolutionary model for this reason and also because I believe that the scientific evidence can be interpreted to fit the creation model better.0 -
Advertisement
-
RiverDeep wrote:Ordinary mitotic processes can account for the rearrangement of chromosomal DNA giving rise to variations within species and in the case of isolating events this can even cause speciation. These are not considered to be mutations, as such. Mutations are in most cases deleterious and if not repaired by cellular machinery will often cause disease and/or death.
Some such mistakes can be sustained however. An example would be the tetraploid Argentinian rat, Tympanoctomys barrae, which has twice the number of chromsomes as similar species and is considered to have arisen as a result of a copying error in an ancestral reproductive cycle.
This is not an increase in genetic information, rather it is a case of informational redundancy as the chromosomes have merely been repeated. There is no real benefit to the organism and serendipitously no apparent defect, although it might be said that it is energetically unfavourable to have to reproduce twice the amount of DNA with no real gain in fitness.
This is another example of an event that can be predicted by either a Biblical creation model or a materialistic evolutionary one. The question is whether or not one can move aside one's presuppositions to allow the validity of both options.
Of course, I prefer the Creation model because I continue to have personal relationship with the One who created the universe and who holds us to account for our decisions with respect to his Son's sacrifice for our sin in order that we might have eternal life in him.
I reject the long age evolutionary model for this reason and also because I believe that the scientific evidence can be interpreted to fit the creation model better.
Actually, polyploidy is fairly common in plants - a good example is Spartina townsendii/anglica, which is octoploid.Polyploidy occurs in some animals, such as goldfish, salmon, and salamanders, but is especially common among ferns and flowering plants, including both wild and cultivated species. Wheat, for example, after millennia of hybridization and modification by humans, has strains that are diploid (two sets of chromosomes), tetraploid (four sets of chromosomes) with the common name of durum or macaroni wheat, and hexaploid (six sets of chromosomes) with the common name of bread wheat. Many agriculturally important plants of the genus Brassica are also tetraploids.
As a matter of interest, how does the Bible explain genetic diseases? Presumably, of course, they're a consequence of the Fall - I can only assume that they were introduced into Adam and Eve's genome at that point, since before then they were (physically) perfect.
The question really is - if genetic diseases are a consequence of the Fall, why do only some families have them? Are the consequences of the Fall not the same for everyone?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
You are right, it isn'tRiverDeep wrote:This is not an increase in genetic information, rather it is a case of informational redundancy as the chromosomes have merely been repeated.
Genetic increase is very rare, and even rarer to produce sustainable effects. But it does happen.
Did he tell you Genesis is correct?RiverDeep wrote:Of course, I prefer the Creation model because I continue to have personal relationship with the One who created the universe and who holds us to account for our decisions with respect to his Son's sacrifice for our sin in order that we might have eternal life in him.
If he did, fair enough.0 -
Scofflaw wrote:As a matter of interest, how does the Bible explain genetic diseases? Presumably, of course, they're a consequence of the Fall - I can only assume that they were introduced into Adam and Eve's genome at that point, since before then they were (physically) perfect.
The question really is - if genetic diseases are a consequence of the Fall, why do only some families have them? Are the consequences of the Fall not the same for everyone?
You have accurately described the creationist position. With regard to the universal application of the consequences of the Fall, it is apparent that the worst affect - physical death - affects us all. Although this aspect of the Fall was not immediately experienced by the first two humans, according to the Biblical account of history, other aspects - pain, suffering, disease, the increasing struggle to obtain resources to live - had a cumulative effect as time elapsed.
Regarding genetic disease, we would see that this is one of the probable reasons why God enacted a prohibition against close marriage in the Mosaic law; so that those who heed his warning might avoid the likelihood for the expression of recessive genes which may cause disease.
It goes to show that if God is, then in the ultimate analysis following God's instructions for life make sense. Jesus's stated purpose is the redemption of humankind.0 -
RiverDeep wrote:Regarding genetic disease, we would see that this is one of the probable reasons why God enacted a prohibition against close marriage in the Mosaic law; so that those who heed his warning might avoid the likelihood for the expression of recessive genes which may cause disease.
It goes to show that if God is, then in the ultimate analysis following God's instructions for life make sense. Jesus's stated purpose is the redemption of humankind.
Mmm. Problem is, those genes that produce the disease must have been present in Adam and Eve (if Adam and Eve contained within themselves all future genetic variability). If the whole human race grew out of this pair, why have some inherited, and not others? And if one of their children in particular was the only one that inherited the gene for the disease, then that disease should only be found in those people descended from that particular child - which should now be reflected in genetic diseases being restricted to single races, which is not the case.
In addition, of course, all the genetic diseases must have been present in Noah's family, otherwise they would have drowned with their possessors in the Flood. So we're talking about 6 pretty unwell people here!
The same point as to genetic disease inheritance being restricted to particular races (or people in particular areas) then applies to Noah's descendants.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I don't see how any of the previously discussed methods of DNA mutation/rearrangement can produce genetic increase - rather I see the various processes as a manipulation of already present complex information containing material. The complexity of the DNA code can be taken to infer an intelligent cause, particularly when we observe the amazing capacity for intra-cellular DNA repair while at the same time mechanisms for variability allow for adaptation at the genotypic level which when expressed phenotypically allow new strains of some species to survive harsh conditions of environmental change. This adaptability has been observed, e.g. in Galapagos finch beak size, over very short periods of time. But even for well-studied organisms with very short generation times, e.g.E. coli, while new strains arise, such adaptabilty has never been observed to cause change at higher levels of order.Wicknight wrote:You are right, it isn't
Genetic increase is very rare, and even rarer to produce sustainable effects. But it does happen.
You may well mock my honest response to your question, but not long after I placed my faith in Jesus as God and Saviour, I felt personally challenged when I read the words ascribed to Jesus at the end of the 5th chapter of the book authored by his close disciple, John.Did he tell you Genesis is correct?
If he did, fair enough.If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Up to that point I had been a theistic evolutionist. Thereafter, I took on the position that seemed clear to me as Jesus taught it, that faith in the inspiration of all of scripture is a necessary prerogative to faith in Jesus himself. This was a rational decision for me albeit with a basis in faith, i.e. it made sense for me to believe the words of the Person I worship as God in the flesh.
As I reasoned to myself that there must be evidence for recent creation, etc. I began to search. Works by scientifically qualified creationists like Morris, Gish, Wilder-Smith, Ham, Parker, Sarfati, and many others encouraged me to take confidence in the position that the Bible is an accurate account of cosmological and human history.0 -
robindch wrote:Now, here's a thing. Since you've got many languages (and languages don't evolve), you must have started off your trek with all your languages intact.....
I am sure that most linguists would disagree with you here, including Biblical creationists, who would be aware of the change in English since the 1600's as a particular example.
While the timescales may be different, the concept of many modern languages arising from a single ancestral language is consistent both with the Babel account in Genesis and current consensus even among linguists who reject a Biblical creator.
In fact, there are some evolutionary-minded linguists who doubt that natural selection can account for the innate capacity for language acquisition that appears to be unique to humans. Creationists might add that God has given man the capacity for language to facilitate worship - another behaviour that is unique to man but also often misplaced as to the object and/or practice of worship.
In any event, it is not outside the bounds of reason that when God separated people group by language that there was a genetic basis for this and this may have given rise to phenotypic similarities within people of the same language groups and major differences between those groups at the same time. Neither is mass migration to widespread locations throughout the earth, either over land bridges postulated by a postdiluvian ice age or by sea transport.0 -
> in genetic diseases being restricted to single races, which is not the case.
You may not be accurate here. Irish people -- if they could be classed as a 'race' -- have amongst the world's highest incidences of Cystic Fibrosis, while the long existence of Judaism together with forced or voluntary ingroup breeding has caused a number of (mostly) Judaism-specific genetic diseases:
http://www.mssm.edu/jewish_genetics/genetic_diseases.shtml
And, having just checked, it seems that the Zoroastrians and some smallish and isolated Christian groups (like the Maronites in Lebanon) have some too:
http://www.unescoparzor.com/project/medical.htm
http://www.emro.who.int/ncd/Genetics-leb-01.htm
I wonder if anybody's carried out a meta-analysis of these disorders?0 -
> I am sure that most linguists would disagree with you here, including
> Biblical creationists, who would be aware of the change in English since
> the 1600's as a particular example.
Nope, you're wrong! I had it last week on the authority of our uber-contributor, JC, that English was "created" during the destruction of the Tower of Babel, was spoken for around two thousand years somewhere by an indeterminate group of people who didn't leave so much as a grocery note behind, while slowly making its way from Babylon, through what's now Germany to pick up some Saxon influence, eventually to arrive in somewhere like Dover in the 1400's from where it became the English Lingua Franca apparently overnight.
It's a good example -- yet one more of many -- of the rapidly-multiplying number of blind-allies that creationists must create, then back themselves up, in order to justify their initial erroneous axiom.
.0 -
robindch said:
That would be interesting, if I had made such a claim. I in fact made the lesser claim, that establishment science often makes such claims - especially in defence of its evolutionary shibboleth.I've highlighted in bold the bits which refute the claim you make that science claims to provide the final answers to everything.Also, just because you view the world as black and white and full of other people's believed-infallible, but faulty, religions, doesn't mean that it actually is. Likewise, some people's conclusions are provisional and open to revision -- see above -- and not finalized and closed, like yours.
As I've also stated before, the scientific explanations we offer for how things came to be as they are, are often revised. The mechanisms involved in the Flood, for example, or for a reduced longevity - all speculative and open to revision.
The underlying truths - that there was a Flood, that people once did live much longer than we do now - these are what is not open to revision.
An example of such 'internal debate' in Creationism: Decreased lifespans: Have we been looking in the right place?
by Carl Wieland http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/lifespans.asp0 -
Advertisement
-
Son Goku said:
It is an appeal to a unique event, an unrepeatable and unfalsifiable circumstance. Everything we observe has a beginning. You even say time has a beginning. But you say matter always was. Sounds rather a faith statement to me.Explain how it is. Unless you explain how it is unscientific, then that's simply an assertion.
They have their presuppositions.Take the statement "the world is 6,000 to 10,000", it isn't a theistic statement. Yet nobody outside very fundamentalist christianity has ever honestly looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that the world's age is anywhere in that range.
That's because you are missing the point. It was not that suppression of creation science is equivalent to the extermination of the Jews; it was that toleration of suppression of others (even if we do not share their outlook) exposes one to the same fate, when the suppressors move down their list of undesirables.I can understand why you say this stuff, but you have to understand you sound mad to most when you compare anything to the holocaust.
It's a cheap, intellectual lazy, emotive trick that gets you out of making an actual argument.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) about the quiescence of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. (Wikipedia)0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement