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
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Wicknight said:
Perhaps the evolutionists who swallowed the Piltdown Man and other hoaxes/scandals?Funny you mentioned Lubenow, as he is (rather unfortunately for himself, a strong YEC follower) probably the clearest evidence of what a joke Creationist peer-review is.
So who exactly is peer-reviewing Creationists work if they continue to put forward april fools jokes as evidence for creationism.
See The Piltdown Man and The Nebraska Man in http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted8.php#236a
Seems creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists have the human weakness of the rest of us. Interesting article: Why Smart People Can Be So Stupidin http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/pdf/0300090331.pdf Especially pp.9-140 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
wolfsbane wrote:Wicknight said:
Perhaps the evolutionists who swallowed the Piltdown Man and other hoaxes/scandals?
See The Piltdown Man and The Nebraska Man in http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted8.php#236a
Seems creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists have the human weakness of the rest of us. Interesting article: Why Smart People Can Be So Stupidin http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/pdf/0300090331.pdf Especially pp.9-14
You kinda proved my point. No evolutionist paper in 2006 would continue to use the Piltdown man as evidence for something since that was shown to be a hoax over 50 years ago. Creationist ("serious" Creationists) are still using article in the above posts as evidence.
Creationist peer-review is a joke, and little things like the truth don't seem to get in the way of spreading religious propaganda
The Piltdown man was discovered as a hoax by the very scientific community, the very scientific method, that you claim is only interested in oppressing evidence of a young earth and biblical flood.
I don't see many Creationist scientists turning the attention they spend on evolution on their own fields of study. Quite the opposite in fact.0 -
-
-
Wicknight
Firstly JC you also believe in the ability of ERRORS produce successfull outcomes. Your theory of specialisation, where a life form's genetic information is re-arranged to provide new abilities is based on ERRORS in the copying of genetic material. Otherwise the Nylon bateria would never be able to eat nylon.
Creation Scientists believe that errors DEGRADE information and therefore accumulated errors AREN’T responsible for Speciation.
Creation Science postulates that speciation occurs RAPIDLY (in many cases instantaneously) through isolation, recombination or mutation of existing genetic information.
Speciation is a product of the enormous density of genetic information present in living organisms and has a ‘success rate’ of close to 100% when it is the result of isolation or recombination.
Evolution postulates a SLOW undirected process with a ‘success rate’ of 0.0001%.
Even though Nylon is an artificial petrochemical polymer, the systems needed to break it down would not have been new.
It is a truism ‘that it is far easier to destroy than to create’.
Breaking something down only requires general systems e.g. fire will destroy almost anything, including Nylon and it is a SIMPLE combustion system. Ditto for bacterial destruction of Nylon.
If you would like to really impress me find me a Nylon Bug that CREATES Nylon – instead of DESTROYING it.
Nylon may be an artificial polymer but the bacterial ability to break it down wasn’t dependent upon developing a NEW way to eat Nylon – the breakdown pathways and the diversity of bacterial genetic information already existed.
‘Creation Speciation’ is analogous to a very sophisticated Artificial Intelligence computer programme that creates new, sometimes very different, but still perfect ‘daughter programmes’.
‘Evolution Speciation’ postulates something akin to throwing a spanner into a machine whilst hoping to get a slightly ‘different’ machine - and using NS as sort of 'scrap heap' for the discarded 99.999% 'failure rate' that such an inherently destructive system implies!!!!
Creation Science DOESN’T believe that copying ERRORS lead to anything but problems. It agrees with Evolutionists that mutation can cause Speciation – but the results are almost invariably deleterious. However, recombination and isolation produces successful Speciation with no deleterious effects most of the time.
Wicknight
Secondly, where did you get PERFECTION from? Obviously life on Earth isn't perfect,
What I said was :-
“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.”
I accept that The Fall has introduce imperfections, but because of the density and interactive complexity of genetic information, catastrophic problems will arise unless genetic information is perfect or ALMOST perfect.
Wicknight
The human body significantly decreases fertility when a woman is lactating (breast feeding) a period of about 2 years, to ensure that a woman does not get pregnent while he body is devoted to providing food for her current child. This makes sense, since providing for a feeding child, while also growing another would stretch the female body thin.
Of course, with all biology, this system doesn't always work, but it works most of the time.
The myth that you can’t get pregnant if you breast feed is a bit of ‘an old wives tale’ (actually probably the ORIGINAL ‘old wives tale’). :eek:
Yes, post-partum Oestrogen levels are depressed – but the effect in women is ‘hit and miss’ at best.
Breast feeding delays the onset of post-partum ovulation by about six months in most women – and even then ‘breakthrough ovulation’ is relatively common amongst highly fertile women.
The healthy, long lived women of the immediate post-Flood era probably had long ‘fertility ranges’ right into their 50’s and they tended to marry at about puberty.
The feeding of cows milk would also have allowed early weaning of children in these largely rural-based communities. They didn’t need ‘infant formula’ or refrigerators when they had a cow producing plenty of FRESH milk out in the back yard!!!
Equally, infant mortality rates would bear no resemblance to the worst rates in famine-torn countries of today or the unhealthy industrial cities of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Overcrowding and poor nutrition are the major cause of infant disease and death under these conditions.
However, none of these issues were of significance in the verdant rural settings within which most of the population lived for several hundred years 'post-Flood'.
So, we have a core fertility range from 15 to 50 years with less than 10% infant mortality and an average gap between births of about 18 months.
This would produce 21 surviving children per couple – and so 10 children is a very conservative number indeed. :cool:
BTW the population models only require 6-10 children per couple during the first 300 years post-Flood – after this the fertility rates plummets back to less than 3 children per couple.
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Where do you get the 120 million figure from?
Wicknight
That is the proper scientific estimate of the population of the world in 2000 BCE
So are you saying that a full controlled census of World population was held in 2000 BC?
Sapien
What is a "Created Kind"? Please describe it empirically - without reference to theory - and provide an example.
A Created Kind is a group of organisms that approximates to the genus level of taxonomic nomenclature. Examples include the Horse Kind (Equus), the Big Cat Kind (Panthera), the Dog Kind (Canis, Fennecus & Lycacaon), the Cattle Kind (Bos, Bison, Bubalus & Syncerus) and the Rhinoceros Kind (Didermocerous, Dicerous & Rhinoceros).
All members of a Created Kind share similar general physiognomies and many species within a Kind can interbreed with each other, although usually only in captivity. Some offspring of such matings are normal and fertile while others die perinatally or are sterile. In other cases inter-breeding doesn't even occur.:cool:
The topic is discussed further here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
The following quote is from 'Darwinism Refuted' at http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted8.php
DISCUSS!!!
Evolution: An Unscientific Faith
"Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respected scientists in the United Kingdom. For years, he studied the fossil record and conducted many detailed investigations. He was elevated to the peerage for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on evolution cannot be regarded as ignorant or prejudiced. After years of research on the fossils included in the human evolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion that there is no truth to the family tree that is put forward.
Zuckerman also advanced an interesting concept of the "spectrum of the sciences," ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, dependent on concrete data-fields are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are extra-sensory perception-concepts such as telepathy and the "sixth sense"-and finally human evolution. Zuckerman explains his reasoning as follows:
We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.
Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering Archeology, an important publication on the origins of man, writes in that journal, "The search for human ancestors gives more heat than light," quoting the confession of the famous evolutionary paleoantropologist Tim White:
We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been able to answer."
Locke's article reviews the impasse of the theory of evolution on the origins of man and the groundlessness of the propaganda spread about this subject:
Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds.
The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor of the well-known journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Time, published in 1999, Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." He concludes that conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices," and adds:
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
As we have seen, there is no scientific discovery supporting or propping up the theory of evolution, just some scientists who blindly believe in it. "0 -
Ok, what does cause it?J C wrote:Creation Science postulates that speciation occurs RAPIDLY (in many cases instantaneously) through isolation, recombination or mutation of existing genetic information.
Then why is it not happening now? Why has it stopped. Why have the european settlers in the north of austriala, who have lived in relative isolation (breeding wise) for the last few hundred years, not all turn black.
Can you give any known example of an instantaneous specialisation?
And how does the specialisation know what trait would be helpful in a situation. Why did your post-Flood Austrialia or African settlers rapidly specialise traits that actually help them a lot more than before? If natural selection (a process that takes a LONG time) is not a work, who does that specialiastion know what changes to make?
How was it close to 100% back then but has no completely stopped? After all we have not suddenly specialised a cure for breast cancer? Settlers entering completely different enviornments don't geneticall adapt to them at all. English settlers who have been in America for nearly 400 years still look, outwardly and genetically, like English people.J C wrote:Speciation is a product of the enormous density of genetic information present in living organisms and has a ‘success rate’ of close to 100% when it is the result of isolation or recombination.
Because that is the only way your so called specialiation could feasable work. The idea that a black baby is just going to be suddenly born in Austrialia to European parents is complete nonsense.J C wrote:Evolution postulates a SLOW undirected process with a ‘success rate’ of 0.0001%.
You are right they wouldn't have been new, the probably occured before due to mutation, and that mutation only took hold due to natural selection when the bateria was placed in a certain environment.J C wrote:Even though Nylon is an artificial petrochemical polymer, the systems needed to break it down would not have been new.
It is a truism ‘that it is far easier to destroy than to create’.
Breaking something down only requires general systems e.g. fire will destroy almost anything, including Nylon and it is a SIMPLE combustion system. Ditto for bacterial destruction of Nylon.
That is the opposite to what you claim happens. Above you just claimed that new abilites can instantaniously appear in species (a black baby born to white parents) at the drop of a hat. Nonsense.
Groan ... you obviously don't understand much about biology.J C wrote:If you would like to really impress me find me a Nylon Bug that CREATES Nylon – instead of DESTROYING it.
The bateria both creates and destroys through the process of digestion, which is turning on chemcial structure into another, while using the engery this chemcial reaction produces.
Your CREATE DESTROY retoric betrays the fact that you don't actually know much about what you are talking about. Which isn't a new fact
You forgot the after mutation part. The other bateria could not do this, only the bateria that had mutated.J C wrote:Nylon may be an artificial polymer but the bacterial ability to break it down wasn’t dependent upon developing a NEW way to eat Nylon – the breakdown pathways and the diversity of bacterial genetic information already existed.
Ok, now you have betrayed the fact that you don't know anything about artificial intelligence.J C wrote:‘Creation Speciation’ is analogous to a very sophisticated Artificial Intelligence computer programme that creates new, sometimes very different, but still perfect ‘daughter programmes’.
I assume you mean genetic algoritims, since AI has nothing to do with "daughter programs". And the whole point of GA is that the child programs aren't prefect.
No, evolution speciation postulates that very small, very minor changes, combined on top of each other, over a very long period, can make produce new forms of life.J C wrote:‘Evolution Speciation’ postulates something akin to throwing a spanner into a machine whilst hoping to get a slightly ‘different’ machine!!!!
Creationist speciation postulates that new forms of life can spring up all over the place (a white couple just happen to have a black baby with a completely different skull structure) at the drop of a hat with no rhyme or reason, they just do. Oh yes, and that this has all, magically, stopped happening
Ummm ... which sounds more plausable to you?
I would love for you to explain to Black and Asian people that they are a product of "problems", a result of degredation from the perfect genetic material of Babylonian people.J C wrote:Creation Science DOESN’T believe that copying ERRORS lead to anything but problems.
I'm sure a black African would be very interested to hear that his ability to withstand much higher levels of sunlight that a European is actually problem.
That makes absolutely no sense. Mutation can only cause negative effects, but you can turn these effects into positive outcomes by ... what exactly?J C wrote:However, recombination and isolation produces successful Speciation with no deleterious effects most of the time.
No actually it is 90% to 95%J C wrote:Yes, post-partum Oestrogen levels are depressed – but the effect in women is ‘hit and miss’ at best.
Once again another thing you don't know .... this is getting rather tedious JC, if you don't know about something why don't you just keep quiet about it
LOL .. you are just making that up.J C wrote:The healthy, long lived women of the immediate post-Flood era probably had long ‘fertility ranges’ right into their 50’s and they tended to marry at about puberty.
They probably had feritility ranges into their 50s?? Why JC why would they have a longer average fertility than any recorded time in human history? Maybe because if they didn't it would completely damning to your theory?
Is that the way Creation Science works is it? just make something up if the evidence isn't in your favour?
Firstly bottle feeding was only introduced in the last 150 years.J C wrote:The feeding of cows milk would also have allowed early weaning of children in these largely rural-based communities.
Secondly, feeding cows milk to a new born is a very very bad idea. Which is why every doctor in the world will tell you not to feed cows milk to a child under 1. Cows milk is designed for baby cows, not humans. Babies under 1 do not get the required sustanence from it. Which is why formual exists in the first place.
Thirdly, even if the post-flood population were stupid enough to feed their new borns with cows milk they would all be dead. Before pasturisation or refriguration giving untreated cows milk to a new born baby would be the same as putting them in a sack and throwing them in the river.
What ever your nonsense claims about human birth rate, the cows would certainly not have been able to reproduce fast enough for every family to own one, or produce enough milk to be constantly feeding the children.J C wrote:They didn’t need ‘infant formula’ or refrigerators when they had a cow producing plenty of FRESH milk out in the back yard!!!
Also, what do the baby cows eat if the mother is spending her entire time producing milk for the human families?
Complete nonsense
Who said anything about "slums"? The birth rate was the national average, and applied to the upper classes. The birth rate in the slums was much much lower.J C wrote:Equally, infant mortality rates would bear no resemblance to the worst rates in famine-torn countries of today or the unhealthy industrial slums of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Overcrowding and poor nutrition were the major cause of infant disease and death in industrial slums.
That theory is completely wrong.J C wrote:The biggest reason for improved infant mortality today is improved housing and nutrition – and NOT Modern Medicine
You can have anything you want if you want to just make things up JC.J C wrote:So, we have a core fertility range from 15 to 50 years with less than 10% infant mortality and an average gap between births of about 18 months.
Why 50 years, why not claim everyone back then lived to 900 like Adam, and had a million babies. You would repopulation the world in no time :rolleyes:
No, that is the estimated population for that time, based on population studies.J C wrote:So are you saying that a full controlled census of World population was held in 2000 BC?
Where do you get the idea that women had children till they were 50, that infant morality was lower than it is now and that bottle feeding had actually been invented 4000 years ago?
I mean if we can just make things up I'm not sure why I'm bothering with the proper science. I could, as you are doing, just claim anything I like.
Since you are making things up, maybe you will explain how Noah got 2 million animals onto his Ark, or what they eat for the 190 days they were on the Ark. I'm dying to know what the carnivors like the big cats and the snakes (a lot of which physically can't eat plants) eat for this time?0 -
J C wrote:Creation Science postulates that speciation occurs RAPIDLY (in many cases instantaneously) through isolation, recombination or mutation of existing genetic information.
Speciation is a product of the enormous density of genetic information present in living organisms and has a ‘success rate’ of close to 100% when it is the result of isolation or recombination.
Evolution postulates a SLOW undirected process with a ‘success rate’ of 0.0001%.
Your definition of success rate is deeply flawed. You seem to imply that organisms are racing to some sort of destination. Evolution through cumlative adaption is the result of an organism being able to survive its enviroment long enough to reproduce and propagate its genes in a changing enviroment before it dies. Those who don't survive long enough to reproduce die and their genes perish. If no such selection pressure exists evolution grinds to a halt, if the pressure is too great extinction occurs. Your 100% success rate refers to the chances that speciation will occur at the group level in a species. The 0.0001% success rate for evolution refers to the individual level within the species. If you claim that isolation of a species in a new envoirment results in a near 100% chance of speciation by developing new traits to adapt to this new enviroment then you have just described evolution (and yet again stuck a creationist label on it). However if you believe that the 100% success rate applies to each individual in a group then you would expect a large number of successful individuals to evolve suitable adaptions at the same time. The problem is that these organisms must compete with each other for resources and also breed with each other. It is the individuals with the "fittest" traits will be most successful in the group, the rest will die out. Hardly a 100% success rate.J C wrote:‘Creation Speciation’ is analogous to a very sophisticated Artificial Intelligence computer programme that creates new, sometimes very different, but still perfect ‘daughter programmes’.
‘Evolution Speciation’ postulates something akin to throwing a spanner into a machine whilst hoping to get a slightly ‘different’ machine - and using NS as sort of 'scrap heap' for the discarded 99.999% 'failure rate' that such an inherently destructive system implies!!!!
Genetic algorithms are sophisticated computer programs based on evolution that can be used to solve complex problems by creating mutations from a sample population of possible solutions and adding mutations (or errors) to form new information that was not present at the begining. In fact they are a major part on artificial intelligence. Is there an artificially intelligent bible algorithm that can tell you the answer to a problem without doing any actual work?J C wrote:I accept that The Fall has introduce imperfections, but because of the density and interactive complexity of genetic information, catastrophic problems will arise unless genetic information is perfect or ALMOST perfect.
Define genetic perfection. The purpose of genes is self replication, the phenotypic effects of the protiens they produce is purely to facilitate this. If it reproduces then is is successful, if it doesn't then it fails.J C wrote:The healthy, long lived women of the immediate post-Flood era probably had long ‘fertility ranges’ right into their 50’s and they tended to marry at about puberty.
See my earlier post about those nasty human only diseases...J C wrote:BTW the population models only require 6-10 children per couple during the first 300 years post-Flood – after this the fertility rates plummets back to less than 3 children per couple.
So lets say that everyone was working hard to produce their large families. But one wicked man and woman decided that maintaining such a large family was too much work and only had one or two offspring. He would have to farm a lot less land to feed his family and could be much wealthier since there would be plenty of hungry mouths to to feed in other neighbouring families willing to buy his food rather than manage such large farms themselves. But then some of the neighbours get jealous and they have a small family too. Soon this family planning strategy spreads accross the population. People have to work less to put food on the table and there's plenty of food to be had so its not like struggles will break out between neighbours. So lets say that the small family strategy is now dominant in the population there is less to gain from trading with the now minority large families but life is still easier. What happens if a family produces offspring at maximum capacity in this envoroment? Do they have an advantage over their lazy neighbours? Initailly only one parent is capable of gathering food and resources effectively as the other is heavily pregnant and /or taking care of children. This may be alleivated by trading with the smaller neighbouring families but that comes at a price and as the family grows gathering or trading for food will prove difficult until the offspring become able to gather for themselves. But then as these now ablebodied offspring become ablebodied they hit puberty and as you said get married off themselves and should they chose the ordeal of a large family the vicsous cycle continues.
So the long and the short of it is that it is easier to "cheat" and have a small family when everyone else is killing themselves having as many babies as possible.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Wicknight
Then why is it (isolation) not happening now? Why has it stopped. Why have the european settlers in the north of austriala, who have lived in relative isolation (breeding wise) for the last few hundred years, not all turn black.
A good question for an Evolutionist (who believes in the ability of mutation and NS to achieve variety) to answer.
From a Creationist perspective, the explanation is that European Australians lack sufficient genetic diversity to produce black skinned children.
Creationists believe that NS acts to eliminate genetic diversity – and the more intense the selection, the greater the loss.
Natural Selection SELECTS – i.e. it discards certain genetic combinations and keeps others. This process is objectively SUBTRACTIVE, in that the discarded genetic combinations may contain other valuable genetic information that may also be permanently lost. That is one of the reasons why genetic diversity disappears so fast when a population is subjected to high unrelenting selection pressure. Pedigree animals provide a perfect illustration – a Poodle is an example of extreme Artificial Selection – to the point where it has practically lost ALL genetic diversity. If you breed a pedigree Poodle with another pedigree Poodle – you invariably get a Poodle.
Evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you should get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!
The Evolution Hypothesis is actually defunct, because it lacks any plausible mechanism for creating the genetic diversity that it claims to supposedly produce. The only ‘genetic modification’ mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and it expresses itself in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in useful, ordered genetic information evident at all points on the spectrum between “primordial chemicals and man”.
Wicknight
Can you give any known example of an instantaneous specialisation?
A good example of instantaneous speciation is the ‘Triangle of U’.
This describes the interbreeding of different Brassica species to produce allotetraploid NEW species that are self-fertile but which cannot interbreed with either of the ‘parent species’.
Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) can be crossed with Turnip (Brassica rapa) to produce Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea). However, B. juncea cannot interbreed with either B. nigra or B.rapa – and so it is a separate species – and it is instantaneously speciated at the time of it’s production by cross breeding the B. nigra with the B. rapa.
Similarly, Ethiopian Mustard (B. Carinata) and Swedes (B. napus) are examples of instantaneous speciation from crossing B. nigra with B. oleracea and B. rapa with B. oleracea respectively.
Originally Posted by J C
Creation Science DOESN’T believe that copying ERRORS lead to anything but problems
Wicknight
I would love for you to explain to Black and Asian people that they are a product of "problems", a result of degredation from the perfect genetic material of Babylonian people.
I'm sure a black African would be very interested to hear that his ability to withstand much higher levels of sunlight that a European is actually problem.
I NEVER said anything about different peoples, I was talking in general about all genetic information and the plain fact that copying errors would always lead to problems with information transmission!!
Now that you have confirmed that Evolutionists believe that Black and Asian peoples skin colour is the result of copying errors, let me set the record straight about what Creation Science believes about these peoples.
Creation Science holds that the genetic information for skin colour pigmentation was created. Different skin colours are therefore NOT a result of copying errors. They are the result of PERFECT individuals with darker coloured skin moving southwards from Babel towards sunnier areas in the tropics and PERFECT people with whiter coloured skin gravitating northwards.
Wicknight
Firstly bottle feeding was only introduced in the last 150 years.
Secondly, feeding cows milk to a new born is a very very bad idea. Which is why every doctor in the world will tell you not to feed cows milk to a child under 1. Cows milk is designed for baby cows, not humans. Babies under 1 do not get the required sustanence from it. Which is why formual exists in the first place.
Thirdly, even if the post-flood population were stupid enough to feed their new borns with cows milk they would all be dead. Before pasturisation or refriguration giving untreated cows milk to a new born baby would be the same as putting them in a sack and throwing them in the river.
What Planet are you living on Wicknight?:) :eek:
Firstly, bottle feeding children over 6 months is merely a convenience – such children are quite capable of directly drinking milk – and indeed eating solid food!!!
Secondly, the ONLY benefit of Human milk over cows milk is it’s ability to transmit antibodies to the newborn baby. This transmission reduces rapidly and becomes negligible over 6 months – when I suggested that weaning onto cows milk generally took place.
BTW ‘infant formula’ is ACTUALLY made from dried cows milk.
Is it the fact that it is in a nice can with a picture of a 'bouncing baby' on the side that impresses you, Wicknight?:D
Thirdly, I never suggested that NEWBORNS were fed cows milk – I suggested that they were WEANED onto it after six months.
Wicknight
What ever your nonsense claims about human birth rate, the cows would certainly not have been able to reproduce fast enough for every family to own one, or produce enough milk to be constantly feeding the children.
Also, what do the baby cows eat if the mother is spending her entire time producing milk for the human families?
Now you are really showing your lack of knowledge, Wicknight!!!
Could I remind you that a cow will produce her first calf at just TWO YEARS of age – and therefore cattle can easily outpace the Human birth rate.
This is one of the reasons why we have two cattle for every Human in Ireland despite slaughtering about 2 million cattle every year!!
A cow will produce up 30 litres of milk per day – which is more than enough to feed her own calf as well as a large family of Humans. :cool:0 -
-
5uspect
There was also something recently about 10 million year old soft tissue from a frog and a T-Rex I saw the other day on BBC News.
Here is a quote from the article
“Scientists have extracted marrow from the bones of frogs and salamanders that died 10 million years ago in the muddy swamps of north-eastern Spain.
The first fossilised bone marrow known to science provides a rare insight into the make-up of prehistoric animals.
It is preserved in remarkable detail; usually only hard tissue such as bone survives in the fossil record. “
Following ‘hot on the heels’ of similar Dinosaur fossil finds with blood dripping from them this should be conclusive proof that these creatures lived very recently indeed.
But NO, Evolutionists continue to insist that this fossil frog, that could provide tissue for a bone marrow transplant is actually 10 million years old!!!
Wicknight
It pretty simple, few plants produce seeds that survive the winter months. They produce seeds during spring that germinate during the summer and autumn.
Some plants, known as annual plants, produce seeds that are designed to survive the winter months, but this is a sub-set of known plants
ALL plants use seed to survive periods of adversity.
Some plants produce more than one generation or crop per year – but the seeds of these plants ALSO remain viable over the winter – and indeed for many years, in most cases.
Dormant seed are observed to be amazingly resilient. Some species seed germinate after many decades – and some species even REQUIRE partial digestion in the stomachs of mammals or birds BEFORE they can germinate.
Equally, whole mats of plants were ripped up intact with their roots by the Flood – and these probably survived vegetatively.
Finally, the whole Flood process lasted less than one year and the total covering of the Earth under water only lasted 5 months – considerably less than a typical wet Irish winter actually!!!!
Wicknight
maybe you will explain how Noah got 2 million animals onto his Ark, or what they eat for the 190 days they were on the Ark. I'm dying to know what the carnivors like the big cats and the snakes (a lot of which physically can't eat plants) eat for this time?
Noah DIDN’T have to take 2 million animals onto the Ark.
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.
Snakes can live for up to 12 months on a single feed.
Carnivores, such as the Big Cats are capable of living on a vegetarian diet – and during World War II, because of the scarcity of meat, the Lions in London Zoo eat a largely vegetarian diet without any ill effects.
Equally, your dog will eat BOTH vegetable scraps and meat.:)
The following quote is from 'Darwinism Refuted' at
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted3.php
It deals with the inability of Natural Selection to account for the diversity of living organisms
DISCUSS!!
NATURAL SELECTION
The concept of natural selection was the basis of Darwinism. This assertion is stressed even in the title of the book in which Darwin proposed his theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection…
Natural selection is based on the assumption that in nature there is a constant struggle for survival. It favors organisms with traits that best enable them to cope with pressures exerted by the environment. At the end of this struggle, the strongest ones, the ones most suited to natural conditions, survive. For example, in a herd of deer under threat from predators, those individuals that can run fastest will naturally survive. As a consequence, the herd of deer will eventually consist of only fast-running individuals.
However, no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another species. The weak deer are eliminated, the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes of selection, deer continue to exist as deer.
The deer example is true for all species. In any population, natural selection only eliminates those weak, or unsuited individuals who are unable to adapt to the natural conditions in their habitat. It does not produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot cause anything to evolve. Darwin, too, accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."7 That is why neo-Darwinism had to add the mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic information to the concept of natural selection.
The following quote is from 'Darwinism Refuted' at
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted3.php
It deals with the inability of Mutation to account for the diversity of living organisms
DISCUSS!!
MUTATIONS
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful.
.....The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed.0 -
Sorry are we talking about language or religion here? :rolleyes:wolfsbane wrote:It does have its pros and cons. The latter in the means of indoctrination and control. Unity of nations is not always a good thing - it is the purpose that such strength is put to that may be the problem.
And maybe the Ark and the flood were a spiritual way to escape the wicked worldwolfsbane wrote:No, just like the pyramids, their function was to contact heaven in a spiritual way. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...4/i3/babel.aspwolfsbane wrote:If the spiritual place called heaven is outside the physical universe, it makes sense for man to think in those terms.
So a literal translation of a story in the bible of men building tower that can reach into or "whose top (is) into heaven" is actually supposed to be a temple of spiritual escape that doesn't actually reach into the upper athmosphere. Yet Noah building an Ark so that god may cleanse the earth of wickedness is completely literal as stated in the bible? How can you claim one and not the other. You're just picking the bits that suit you.
And while I've this AiG tab open... (isn't firefox great )But how did their linguistic unity provide the possibility and potential for immense iniquity? Perhaps we can find the answer by looking at the vast English-speaking world today. Almost instantly, demonic perversions and poisons can penetrate and permeate the minds of millions through the Internet, as well as via avalanches of morally hideous films, videos, books and magazines.
Ironic how creationism spreads its propaganda on a system it derides as host to demonic perversions and poisons that was originally developed as a means of searching for scientific papers created 15 years ago today!0 -
Mutation and evolution hasn't stopped. Plants and animals are evolving all around you. What do you thing these new super bugs are?J C wrote:A good question for an Evolutionist (who believes in the ability of mutation and NS to achieve variety) to answer.
That would seem rather strange since you earlier claimed that such specialisation only happens in isolated propulations due to degredation of the population genome due to mutations that aren't topped up by closer to perfect genetic material.J C wrote:From a Creationist perspective, the explanation is that European Australians lack sufficient genetic diversity to produce black skinned children.
Now you are claim that a large genetic diversity is needed for such specialisation to happen. But isn't a large genetic diversity what stopped it from happening in the first place?
Why do creationists believe that?J C wrote:Creationists believe that NS acts to eliminate genetic diversity – and the more intense the selection, the greater the loss.
Kinda true. While natural selection is both subtractive and additive, it is true that combinations of genetic mutations that are not selected by NS can be lost to the mists of time, which is why can evolution takes a very long time.J C wrote:This process is objectively SUBTRACTIVE, in that the discarded genetic combinations may contain other valuable genetic information that may also be permanently lost.
Often beneifital genetic mutations are lost and have to be redeveloped. The eye system has developed at least 40 independent times in nature in 2 billion years life has been on the earth.
And if you breed a white person with another white person you get a white person, not a black person as Creationists claim can happen.J C wrote:If you breed a pedigree Poodle with another pedigree Poodle – you invariably get a Poodle.
No, the poodles would be long dead, natural selection woudl have not have selected them due to their weak genetic diversity.J C wrote:Evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you should get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!
YOu are assuming that evolution also started off with only 2 humans (adam and eve) or 2 animals after the flood. They didn't, they evolve from hundreds of thousands.
Only if you start from a Creationist starting point, where only a few animals existed. But that isn't true. Trillions upon trillions of cells and primative life emerged from the soup of early Earth. That was a pretty good starting point for complex life.J C wrote:The Evolution Hypothesis is actually defunct, because it lacks any plausible mechanism for creating the genetic diversity that it claims to supposedly produce.
That isn't true JC. It has been explained to you before that this isn't true, about 20 times in this thread alone.J C wrote:The only ‘genetic modification’ mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions
The vast vast majority of mutations do nothing. You have approx 60 completely harmless mutations in you right now. Some mutations are harmful, some are benefitial.
Please stop spouting this nonsense. If you don't even understand the basis of mutation how do you expect anyone to listen to you.
This is exactly what Creationist propaganda like that on AnswersInGenesis do, they keep spouting the same lies and mis-representations over and over again hoping that something somewhere sticks. And this is why Creationism is a laughing stock in the scientific community, because with Creationism the question of whether something is true or not comes a distant second to if it sounds good. Most mutations are harmful, therefore mutations can cause evolution. It certain sounds good if you didn't know it was completely incorrect.
You have repeated this again and again, it doesn't make it any more true now than when you first mentioned it and got about 10 responses explaining why it was was nonsense.
Next you are probably going to say that the odds of a protien forming by random are too high to be plausable, it has been a while since you mentioned that one :rolleyes:
The triangle of U refers to 3 species of plants that despite being different species, they can inter breed.J C wrote:A good example of instantaneous speciation is the ‘Triangle of U’.
This isn't possible for the vast majority of plant and animals. Unless post-Flood people turned black by having sex with horses? :rolleyes:
So I ask again, please show men an example of this instantaneous specialisation in something like a mammal species.
But it doesn't, that is the point. Africans and Asians are proof of this. They seem pretty fine to me.J C wrote:I NEVER said anything about different peoples, I was talking in general about all genetic information and the plain fact that copying errors would always lead to problems with information transmission!!
We are all a result of copying errors. If the copying hadn't caused errors we would all still be complex self-replicating molecules in the sea.J C wrote:Now that you have confirmed that Evolutionists believe that Black and Asian peoples skin colour is the result of copying errors,
The difference is that science knows that evolution, that these copying errors, can produce very benefitial changes in the species, and these are selected by NS to adapt the species to the enviornment.
Thats convient :rolleyes:J C wrote:Creation Science holds that the genetic information for skin colour pigmentation was created. Different skin colours are therefore NOT a result of copying errors.
So from the 6 survivers of the flood their children just happened to develop blacker skin and some developed whiter skin in exactly the same environment.J C wrote:They are the result of PERFECT individuals with darker coloured skin moving southwards from Babel towards sunnier areas in the tropics and PERFECT people with whiter coloured skin gravitating northwards.
Seriously, if you are going to make things up at least make up something plausable
So the babylonians were just smarter because they knew about skin mutation and Vit D production ... ummm, think that is unlikely JC.J C wrote:The Europeans who moved to Australia have defied the logic of this general tendency – and they are suffering from various sun/skin problems including elevated skin cancer levels as a result.
It also doesn't explain internal features like skull structure.
If you give a new born solid food he will die. For their sake JC I hope you don't have children.J C wrote:Firstly, bottle feeding children over 6 months is merely a convenience – such children are quite capable of directly drinking milk – and indeed eating solid food!!!
No, where did you get that from? Human milk contains a wide selection of nutritial product that cows milk doesn't contain (which makes sense since cows milk isn't designed for humans).J C wrote:Secondly, the ONLY benefit of Human milk over cows milk is it’s ability to transmit antibodies to the newborn baby.
Actually it is a 1 years JC, when the child begins on solid food and gets the nutritian that way.J C wrote:This transmission reduces rapidly and becomes negligible over 6 months – when I suggested that weaning onto cows milk generally took place.
And it has all the extra stuff added precisely because cows milk isn't enough.J C wrote:BTW ‘infant formula’ is ACTUALLY made from dried cows milk.
Why?J C wrote:Thirdly, I never suggested that NEWBORNS were fed cows milk – I suggested that they were WEANED onto it after six months.
Why would the decendents of Noah decide we should stop feeding our baby with breast milk and switch to cows milk. Why would they be bothered? Producing cows milk to feed babies would be a huge extra chore, and also lead to much higher levels of infant deaths.
You only think they did that because you need them to have done that so the woman can have another child after 6 months of having the first.
Quick! Ring Avonmore Dairy company and explain to them that they no longer need to pasturies their milk, it is in fact perfectly safe and that Louis Pasteur was just a silly worrier :rolleyes:J C wrote:Speaking as somebody who drank raw cows milk, (in common with most farm children in Ireland up to the 1970’s) I can confirm that your belief that this is equivalent to being ‘put in a sack and thrown in a river’ is plain WRONG!!!
Is that with or with out pasteurisation :rolleyes:J C wrote:A cow will produce up 30 litres of milk per day – which is more than enough to feed her own calf as well as a large family of Humans. :cool:0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement