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
-
STRAW MAN NUMBER TWENTY ONE!!
Wicknight
In 100 years the population of Ireland, a very under populated country since the famine, with plenty of space, and with a Catholic following that shunned birth control, the population has risen by only a million, a large proportion of that is due to immigration.
It's even worse than that!!!
Between 1800 and 1900 the population of Ireland actually HALVED!!!
BUT this was due to famine and emigration.
However, between 1800 and 2000 the Irish Diaspora worldwide INCREASED to about 100 million!!!!
STRAW MAN NUMBER TWENTY TWO!!
Wicknight
Do you expect us to believe that a post-flood poplulation grew from 6 people to tens upon tens of millions in 230 years?
The big ‘kick’ in population starts from 300 years onwards – and that is what the history of the post-Flood period also tells us.
STRAW MAN NUMBER TWENTY THREE!!
Wicknight
The obvious question becomes then "Where are they?"(The Neanderthals)
And the obvious answer is that many have now become Evolutionists and a few have become Creationists and they are ALL happily
posting to this thread !!! 
Scofflaw
Wicknight, that's far better than mine...I take my hat off to you! You probably ought to put a disclaimer at the top though...
And I take my hat off to both yourself and Wicknight for your abridged accounts of the thread so far.
Did I REALLY say that??!! 0 -
-
-
Very true, so it went from 4 million to 100 million in 100 years.J C wrote:However, between 1800 and 2000 the Irish Diaspora worldwide INCREASED to about 100 million!!!!
Which would mean that, in a hundred years, your 6 people would have managed to multiple to whooping 150 people. And in 200 years you would have increased again to an incrediable 3750 people.
I must admit JC, it does make it so much easier when you prove my points for me :rolleyes:
Using realistic modern (as in over coming diease and food shortages) growth pattern (ignore that growth was much slower back then) after 200 years of expantion you come out with a population of just under 4000.
So if the "big kick" in population starts 300 years after the flood (2000BCE) how do you explain that fact that their were already people in China in 2000 BCE?J C wrote:The big ‘kick’ in population starts from 300 years onwards – and that is what the history of the post-Flood period also tells us.
Or for that matter, that most of your past posts are no irrelivent since this "big kick" wasn't mentioned at all and all your points of reference were from the year of the end of the flood.
You even said that after about 400 years resources would run out and population growth would level off, like 4 posts ago :rolleyes
Moving goal posts are we JC. Or are you just forgetting what you made up yesterday?
So please tell me what was the population would have been 300 years before the big kick, and 400 years after the flood just before the population leveled off?
Maybe I should give a bit more time to speed read through AnswersInGenesis to find a made up excuse for that one too .... take your time ....J C wrote:And the obvious answer is that many have now become Evolutionists and a few have become Creationists and they are ALL happily posting to this thread !!!
Don't worry JC, we ask the same question about you as well, all the time. Actually more along the lines of ..J C wrote:Did I REALLY say that??!!
"Does he REALLY believe that? How can he, its completely nonsense"
I'm thinking of starting a betting pool taking odds that you are are really an biologist just playing a YEC for a bit of craic ....0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Sapien wrote:How is speciation from "EXISTING genetic diversity" different from evolutionary theory? How can one accept speciation and not evolution?
0 -
Sapien
How is speciation from "EXISTING genetic diversity" different from evolutionary theory?
How can one accept speciation and not evolution?
Very easily, as it turns out!!
Creationists observe that Speciation uses pre-existing genetic information – Evolutionists claim that speciation predominantly occurs via new genetic information.
Creation predicts a ‘horizontal’ or ‘downhill’ speciation within Created Kinds while Evolution proposes an ‘uphill’ speciation with an unbroken continuum of species from single cells to Man.
This topic is discussed in more detail here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp
Scofflaw
First - archaeology is a forensic science, like geology, with an amazing amount of room for interpretation. Ask Erich von Daniken!
Not only is Archaeology and Geology forms of forensic science but so are Palaeontology and Palaeo-biology.
In fact all scientific investigation of the ‘Origins Question’ including explanations such as Creation and macro-Evolution are actually based on forensic science.
Scofflaw
Second, the difficulties of getting a controversial theory published are well known. It has been suggested that new paradigms often have to wait until the tenured professors who championed the previous paradigm have died off. Certainly plate tectonics had to fight to make headway for years before, suddenly, overnight it seemed, it simply became the accepted paradigm.
The "generation" in scientific thinking appears to be about 30 years (coincidentally, or not).............
........................."Creation Science" first reared its head in the 1960's.
Sounds like a paradigm shift might be overdue, Scofflaw!!!!
Scofflaw
Anyone, no matter their views, can become a scientist - as you have proved yourself, by pointing out the eminence of some Creationist scientists. Any scientist, no matter their views, can get scientific work published - as you have proved yourself, by citing the mainstream scientific publications of Creationist scientists.
I would have to say that this has also been my happy experience to date.
However, the view that Creationists aren’t REAL scientists, is a theme that has emerged strongly on this thread.
This ‘put down’ of Creationists (no matter how eminent) is encapsulated in the following quote from yourself :-
Scofflaw
“"Creation Science" first reared its head in the 1960's, and 40 years later is still the province of a few oddballs.”
Here is an interesting article about Creation v Evolution debates.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4249news3-20-2000.asp
It concludes that Evolutionists are reluctant to debate Creationists unless the Evolutionists significantly outnumber them
A bit like this thread actually!! :eek:
Wicknight
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.
Your faith in a system of Evolution that you accept will not work 99.999% of the time and that is propelled forward by copying ERRORS of genetic material that is otherwise observed to be approaching perfection – is quite amazing to behold.
You are actually a person of very great faith indeed. 0 -
-
Wicknight said:
The point I am making is that dating is not an exact science. BTW, I see no reason to hold an antideluvian origin of the Egyptian dynasties ( though I agree that mankind back then was likely to be well-organized as well as very wicked), so there is no need for a 300 year gap.You will notice that all dating methods are in a straight line, they all decend well before 2300 BCE, they all are largly unbroken.
There was no 300 year "gap" in the history of Eygpt, it doesn't matter which dating system you use.
Given the longevity and the likelihood of multiple births, I see no reason to doubt it. (My own mother had 10 kids, several of my neighbours had more, with not much more than the basics the post-Flood folk would have had).In 100 years the population of Ireland, a very under populated country since the famine, with plenty of space, and with a Catholic following that shunned birth control, the population has risen by only a million, a large proportion of that is due to immigration.
Do you expect us to believe that a post-flood poplulation grew from 6 people to tens upon tens of millions in 230 years?
That is a big supposition. What happened to the food in the Ark? Did God forget to supply them with their needs for the first year after they disembarked? What happened to the seeds they would have with them and the seeds that would have survived outside? The first generation would have the whole world before them to hunt, gather and plant. In fact, as the population rose, the resources were still unlimited. Grass, plants, animals in abundance.Also, as has been pointed out the JC a few times (which he ignores, probably because it is very damning to the YEC view) THERE WAS NO FOOD
Every son would have had space to farm as much as he liked. Or pasture his flocks. There was no need for a land-rush. Even in Abraham's time, pasture was still pretty much freely available - Lot took the lowland plains, he took the hills of Judea. Their problem was they had massive flocks that could not be accomodated in one or the other of these locations. Imagine what it was like for their forefathers, how much free land they had.What did these incredibly large growing population bases eat? Because farms don't grow by x10 every few years, not with farming methods from 2000 BCE. It would be hard to do that now, let alone back then.Instead of 230, try 23,000. That is a proper "big number" You want me to suggest a population after 23,000 years? That would be your problem, to explain why it took so long to get where we are and to account for the skeletons. I'm happy with the Biblical timeframe.
Hmm, you know there were 20 million folk in Africa around 4000 years ago?In Africa alone? Try 20 million.
See my comments on dating and gaps above.
Because we have strong evidence of large civilisations around the time of the Biblical flood. Actually we have strong evidence of large civilisations before the flood, that don't break for the flood at all. According to Epytian records, nothing happened in 2300 BCE to wipe them out, they carried on quite happy. I'm giving JC the benefit of the doubt that these civilisations were completely destroyed, and that the settling babylonians some how managed to start up again exactly where the old ones left off, but they would have had to have done this incredibly quickly, since there is no grap in African or Chinese culture.
Where do you get the 120 million figure from? Anyway, I reckon about that figure in 400+ years, given a rate of 3.7% per year, which is suggested by the Biblical figures.How exactly?
How many children would each couple have to survive for the population of Earth to grow from 6 to 120 million in a few hundred years?
All the land was free to crop and pasture.And more importantly, what would they eat?
You have historical figures for population growth 4000 years ago?History.
Not sure how you work this out.The only way yours and JCs population model would work is if each couple had between 30 and 60 children, leaving them with approx 10 surviving after diease had taken its natural toll. 60 children in a 40 year time (a 15 year fertilitiy window) is a little unrealistic, especially if you have to feed all of them, until some of them die off naturally
They would certainly have been less vunerable, given that we lose genetic abilities rather than gain them.Or the post flood populations had some how managed to defeat most common dieases, as we have today. It would seem strange though that,despite spreading across the entire globe this amazing information was some how lost completely, and had to be rediscovered in the 19th century.
From what part of history?The growth rates are based on historical growth rates.
So 3 out of 4 of their kids had to die before breeding? You know that?JC is making up the growth rate he needs (each couple has 10 surviving children, meaning they must have had approx 40 children altogether) to get the population to spread as quickly as he needs. It is nonsense.
Indeed it is nonsense. So why did you raise it, If 1000 years ago 20 Arabian looking people settled in Austrialia you would have a small population of Arabian looking settlers, just like the European settlers haven't all started to change into black men ? Is it just another straw-man?Proper scientists? No, because that would be nonsense.
No. Some of the dispersed developed black skin, others white, others yellow, etc. The dispersal resulted in genetic isolations. The continued isolation continuously reinforced the genes for the colour of that particular group.They why are people in the middle east or asia not black skinned? Did they all move to Austrialia?
We do see various types of skin colour and physique in different parts of the world. Did I say Aborigines begame black on their way to Australia? Their blackness would have developed gradually as it was reinforced by their isolation. Maybe they were as black as they are before they arrived, maybe it only fully developed 1000 or 2000 years later. We don't know.If the eviromental adaptation caused them to turn black some where between Babylon and their trek to Africa or Austrialia, why do we not see African or native Austrialia looking people wondering around Iraq? or Korea?
We can assume all people looked like Noah and his sons for some generations after the Flood. But with the dispersal at Babel, the different traits would have developed. We cannot say that today's Middle Eastern type was what the original Middle Easterns of Babel looked like.What?
You think 1 BCE all the native austrialias looked like Middle Eastern people,
Where do you get 600 years from? If we take Babel c.2242BC, that leaves a lot of time for genetic specialization.but over the course of 600 years,
The genetic pool was indeed contained in the 6 people - and in the original 2 in the Garden - but the pool I am referring to was that of all mankind. The developing people groups became isolated and had only their group as a pool.because they were isolated from the genetic pool (what does that even mean?? the genetic pool is based on 6 people)
Yes. Not all their culture, obviously. Memory of the Creation and the Flood were retained, albeit in corrupted forms.there bone and skeleton structures changed significanly, there skin colour changed and they lost all their native culture?
Remembering my point about the imaginary 600 years, let me also point out that Aborigines are fully human. They did not evolve into something different than they were. No fish to mammal, as in alleged evolution. Just adaption, as in Creation science. And, yes, adaption can be relatively quick.What you are describing is evolution, yet instead of the normal proper theory that this took thousands of years, you think it took 600??
How can you call evolution nonsense when you need evolution to explain your own theory, yet to believe it works at approx 50 times the speed proper scientists believe evolution works.
Please point out where I claimed this had happened in a matter of a hundred years back in 1000 BCE.Wolfsbane you have just claimed that the skin colour and skull structure of a human can "specialise" in a matter of a hundred years back in 1000 BCE.
For the groups - e.g. Aborigines - their new gene pool would establish a standard. But if new groups from them became isolated, one would expect new variations to develop, new specializations.Yet his some how magically stopped happening a few years later?
All this means a loss of information, of course. A loss of ability to develop a white skin and vice versa for a white person, unlike the abilities of our ancestors which have led to the various colours of today. Or do you think a fixed skin colour is a result of new information rather than the loss of information?0 -
-
-
-
-
Sapien
How can two species develop from one without new genetic information being created?
Speciation is observed to occur via isolation, recombination or mutation of existing genetic information and so it is either a ‘horizontal’ or ‘downhill’ information process.
Both the Creation and Evolution hypotheses rely on Speciation (Creation to some extent and Evolution totally).
So how can we decide whether Speciation is occurring in accordance with the Creation or Evolutionary hypothesis?
Creation predicts a ‘horizontal’ or ‘downhill’ Speciation WITHIN Created Kinds while Evolution proposes an ‘uphill’ Speciation with an UNBROKEN CONTINUUM of species from single cells to Man.
…. and what do we find?
We find Speciation to be confined within Created Kinds (as predicted by Creation Science) and we DON’T find any gradual unbroken continuum of species from single cells to Man in either living or fossil organisms (as predicted by macro-Evolution). :cool:
Scofflaw
I ask because it is possible to do a very simple thought-experiment:
1. Creationists accept that genetic information can be reshuffled, but that mutations cannot add more information - that mutation is always neutral or harmful.
2. Let us represent a piece of genetic information as a word, that needs to be acceptable in Scrabble to be able to code for a protein: MANA
3. Let us suffer a mutation of one letter: MENA
4. MENA is no longer an acceptable word - clearly, our mutation is harmful.
5. But wait! What happens when genes get reshuffled? Well, one possibility is MANE. Another is AMEN.
6. Holy Genetics, Batman! We now have two possibilities where we had one before!
Your thought experiment has two major flaws:-
1. The ‘words’ being formed by DNA are hundreds of letters long – so it is more akin to forming meaningful SENTENCES by randomly changing letters. The permutations are vastly greater than your 4-letter word example would suggest and the chances of forming meaningful sentences are therefore effectively zero.
2. As well as forming meaningful ‘sentences’ DNA must produce them specifically i.e. in the right time and place, so that the resultant molecule will be biologically useful for the organism concerned. This further extends the odds and moves them from ‘effectively zero’ to ‘absolutely zero’!!
To use your analogy, the specificity aspect is like successfullly producing the word AMEN - only to find that it turns up in a Guidebook for Atheists.
On second thoughts, the word might come in useful for any atheists who finds themselves praying in a ‘foxhole’.
Scofflaw
Mm. Again, the problem is that the sequencing of Neanderthal DNA has shown a very distant kinship.
The Mitochondrial DNA sequence indicates that Neanderthals are a side-branch of an isolated group that was originally descended from Noah.
The topic is discussed further here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/206.asp.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement