The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

babyvaio

Very interesting topic u have here guys

I just wanted quickly to jump in to comment the 2+2=? statement.

Whatever the arthm base you wana apply here, in real world it's always 4.
What you didn't say is this - 11 in base-3 is again 4 in real world, 100 in base-2 is again 4, etc.

So in its basis, it's just another representation of 4. This is like saying, well it's a hundred (but you don't say € here, you assume it), so it's something else in $, GBP, etc. Again, the actual value - is the same.

So 2+2=4 dogma is not wrong, not in abstract math nor in the real world if you assume that 2 represents something and another 2 is of same type as the first 2.

If you don't like thinking of money, think of apples. 2 apples + 2 apples = 11 apples in base-3. You're bringing the fog into the valley with unnecessary assumptions like, well what is the plus (+) sign in 2+2=?, and what is the equal (=) sign in the equation? Maybe + is an elephant and maybe, just maybe = means a house. :cool:

J C

Wicknight
Creationist absolutely refuse to accept that one species can evolve into another over thousands of years, yet you claim that 16,000 species can "specialise" into 2 million species in only a few years!!!!

Yes, undirected processes such as macro-evolution, are incapable of spontaneously generating the new information necessary to ‘progress’ from one Kind of organism to another Kind (even over billions of years).

However the Intelligently Designed, information dense genomes that we observe are capable of rapidly speciating WITHIN Created Kinds. Darwin’s Finches are a notable example of this phenomenon within the Animal Kingdom (as indeed is the ‘Triangle of U’ within the Plant Kingdom)!!!


Wicknight
One of the greatest things about proper science is that it is religion neutral.

But is it ‘religion neutral’ to assume a priori that there was no supernatural involvement in the origins of life - when considerable evidence exists in support of this idea?


Wicknight
Science has a responsibility only to the truth.

IF life was actually created by God, then how can Evolutionist Science deliver on it’s responsibility to the truth, if it excludes a priori the investigation of the possibility of a supernatural involvement in the origins of life?


BTW I share your commitment to the importance of the TRUTH.
After all, Jesus Christ Himself confirmed in Jn 8:31b-32 that “if ye continue in my word, then ye are my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (KJV).


Wicknight
Science discovers what is, it is up to the different religions to fit that into their own belief system. Some obviously will have trouble with this, others find it easier.

You are correct that science discovers what is (i.e. what is repeatably observable).

Could I point out that the only people on this thread who are having trouble with the latest scientific discoveries in relation to the ‘origins of life’ are Evolutionists.

This is something that you are going to have to come to terms with in your own way, Wicknight.
However, ‘grand standing’ like King Canuté in the face of the overwhelming evidence in favour of Creation certainly adds nothing to the credibility of Evolution.


Wicknight
It is a slight variation on Ann Colters famous "Lets kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity" quote. But instead of killing their leaders Creationists want Noah's flood taught in schools as fact, and the Fall used as the reason for diease.

Calm down, Wicknight, be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord.

As a former Evolutionist myself, I know what you are going through – the denial, the self doubt, the uncertainty in the face of overwhelming evidence, etc., etc. :eek:

Could I reassure you that Jesus Christ loves you and wants to save you.
Say but the words “I believe on Jesus Christ” and you will be saved.

Could I also gently point out that discovering that Noah’s Flood actually took place ISN’T remotely comparable in any way with the worst excesses of medieval pogroms.


Robin
This one turned up on BBC news today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5245950.stm

“Evolution reversed in mice

US researchers have taken a mouse back in time some 500 million years by reversing the process of evolution.
The mouse looks the same but has an ancient gene”
Sapien
So would that be "uphill", "downhill" or "caution: loose gravel" evolution?

None of the above!!

Merely somebody ‘fiddling about’ with a mouse’s genome.

They claimed that they had turned the ‘genetic clock’ of the mouse back 500 million years!!.

Oh, but then they confirmed that the mouse LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME!!! :eek:

Not much evidence of Evolutionary change there!!:D


And here is official confirmation that the biggest Dinosaurs were warm blooded MAMMALS!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5166518.stm

“Big dinosaurs 'had warmer blood'

The bigger a dinosaur was, the warmer its blood, a study of the big beasts' fossil remains suggests. T. rex was one of the dinosaurs the team examined. Dinosaurs were long considered to be cold-blooded reptiles. More recently, some researchers have proposed that the extinct creatures actively regulated their body temperature like mammals.

............According to the scientists' equation, the enormous sauropod Apatosaurus - which at 13,000kg was among one of the biggest dinosaurs - had a body temperature of just over 40C.........

……………………."The question of whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded just doesn't have a simple answer," said Dr Angela Milner, associate keeper of palaeontology at London's Natural History Museum. "There's a huge spread of physiological states, from things that were more at the ectothermic end and had no problem keeping warm because they were so large, right through to small meat-eating dinosaurs that were not far short of the endothermic biology seen in birds."

So the largest Dinosaurs were mammals.
Other candidates for warm-blooded mammalian status include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose) (which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros). Other mammalian candidates include the Stegosaurus (which looked like a big Armadillo) and the Brachiosaurus (which had the general body physique of an Elephant - but with a very big tail and a long neck).

The reason why Evolutionists ORIGINALLY ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based solely on their correct OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold- blooded animals. They therefore logically concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent evolutionary geological time due to the extra time required for all of the physiology and temperature control systems of mammals to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the evolution of man – if large land MAMMALS existed 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ on this one!!!!!

Sapien

babyvaio wrote:

Very interesting topic u have here guys

I just wanted quickly to jump in to comment the 2+2=? statement.

Whatever the arthm base you wana apply here, in real world it's always 4.
What you didn't say is this - 11 in base-3 is again 4 in real world, 100 in base-2 is again 4, etc.

What's so special about base 10?

robindch

> Oh man Robin. What a disappointment. Bringing various bases into the mix.

Huh? I'm not being facetious here -- I'm showing that what you think (incorrectly) is dogma, is not, together with two examples. Symbolic notation requires context and without it, it can mean what you want.

> You mean just as mathematicians can't agree on what 2+2 equals?

Without giving a symbolic context, the symbolic phrase "2+2" has no meaning. Once you apply a symbolic context to a phrase (saying what the symbols mean) then you can (usually) deduce, according to the context's rules, whether or not the sentence is contextually consistent. But consistency has exactly nothing to do with "dogma", I'm afraid. To answer your question, yes, assuming the usual meaning, mathematicians can of course agree on what 2+2 equals, but that agreement does not arise because they've met down in the pub, read a few pages of an old book and agreed that it's true, but rather because it's axiomatically consistent.

BTW, in case you're interested, this particular mathematical sentence is covered by Peano Arithmetic, a mathematical topic which was cleared up only within the last hundred years or so.

Sorry to be so technical and apparently obtuse here, but you are making very fundamental errors in what you are discussing and I am trying to be as clear as possible in explaining where you are going wrong.

Babyviao - try to understand the topic before slagging it off!

> Which paragraph?

The final para of this post from earlier on:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51861065&postcount=2786

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

None of their pre-suppositions, as far as I'm aware, involve anything like the "evolutionist" world-view. Most religions do have a Creator and a Creation. Most obvious would be Judaism, but Islam also comes to mind, since it accepts much of what is in the Bible.

Their presuppositions are accepting of evolution as a means of creation. Had they real convictions of a mature creation, they would have had to wrestle with that before accepting evolution. As you, or maybe it was robin, pointed out, it is not an issue for most.

In fact, it appears that Christian Creationism is paralleled in Judaism, with Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jews usually Creationist, and almost all others theistic evolutionist. Considering your concern for what you feel is the suppression of Creationist views, you may find this article interesting. In brief, it recounts the tribulations of an Ultra-Orthodox scientist whose books reconciling the Torah and Evolution have been repeatedly denounced, and occasionally banned, by Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis.

I expect religions to defend their dogma. But it is hypocritical for science to do so, why still claiming to be open to challenge and review of their theories.

To me the field of science is part of our civil liberties, the area where debate and challenge of theories should be welcomed. If religions want no debate about any of their ideas, then that is up to them. They should know better, since we as sinners are prone to misunderstanding and error. But it is up to them. They will not effect my life one way or the other. But when the scientific establishment seeks to gag debate in order to be able to continue to indoctrinate our children with anti-Christian assertions about our origins, I take that as a direct attack on my liberties.

While this will almost immediately cause JC to claim that Creation Science is a worldwide, multi-faith movement, which in turn clearly shows that Darwinism is wrong, I'll just note that, as usual, the information allows of no such interpretation.

It is not a big movement amongst other faiths, but there certainly are Jewish and Islamic Creationist movements.

I certainly fear for civil liberties when I see civil debate being gagged. It would be an enormous error of judgement to equate this with, for example, disallowing people to speak English in a Gaeltacht. 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. What they cannot get published as science is pseudoscience or religious works. They are welcome to publish, and have done extensively, outside the peer-reviewed scientific journals. Indeed, Creationists writing contra evolution almost certainly outpublish scientists writing contr Creationism (although probably no scientists writing about science).

The question is whether or not the scientific arguments of Creation Science ought to be debated, not the motivations of the movement. No one expects science to comment on religious matters. We do expect it to discuss disputed theories about how all we see came to be as it is. That is the area where no debate is permitted - all must accept the dogma of evolution.

The debate is not being stifled. The debate is not a scientific debate, and therefore has no place in the scientific literature. Similarly, it is not cookery, and does not appear in cookery books, something I have yet to see you complain about.

That is the sleight of hand - to make it a religious matter. What if Creation Science had control of the scientific establishment and we objected to evolution being debated, claiming that it is an atheistic ideology? We will not discuss the scientific arguments evolutionists raise, for they only raise them to further their ideology? Evolution should be kept to philosophy books, not science books, nor cookery books?

First - archaeology is a forensic science, like geology, with an amazing amount of room for interpretation. Ask Erich von Daniken!

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) - but Creationism has been out for 150 years. That's five generations in which Creationism has failed to be re-accepted, although it is still taught as part of the history of science. "Creation Science" first reared its head in the 1960's, and 40 years later is still the province of a few oddballs.

I'm glad you acknowledge the less-than-open mindset in academia. Let me suggest however, that the reason Creationism has had so much trouble in breaking through the gagging barrier, as compared to plate tectonics, is that the vested interests go far beyond the egos of the individuals who held to theories opposed to plate tectonics: Creationism faces the egos of most scientists, as they are not open to the idea of anything that would indicate the world was created as the Bible said. They would be opening themselves to very uncomfortable implications - that the Bible is right about the other things it asserts, especially the God to whom we all must give account. Much better to hold to the safety blanket of evolution.

babyvaio

Sapien wrote:

What's so special about base 10?

It's the fact that you can feel it, see it and how no doubt about it.
5 fingers on a hand is again 5 fingers, nobody talks about 101 fingers in base-2, do we?

Sapien

babyvaio wrote:

It's the fact that you can feel it, see it and how no doubt about it.
5 fingers on a hand is again 5 fingers, nobody talks about 101 fingers in base-2, do we?

Ah! I see. Carry on.

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

Babyviao - try to understand the topic before slagging it off!

I did I did, but you never really explained it properly (not until your last post), so I had to jump in (to bring some apples and pears in case somebody's hungry )

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Aye - just as the first European settlers in North America did. Funnily enough, they did a lot of starving, though.

You mean, there were no Indians?

The Jews of the Diaspora have managed to retain their religion, and even the Torah, for 2000+ years, through persecution, massacre, and the settling of new continents.

Or do you, perhaps, have a more closely comparable example than that?

The Jewish religion of today is not that of the Torah. But it is true, they do have the records preserved. The circumstances of that is in itself Providential, given the many attempts of extinguish them and exterminate the holders. But the folk of Babel, as they spread across the world, had no religious motivation to preserve the truth intact. They were rebels against God - which is why they were dispersed from Babel. Naturally they corrupted the record as it was passed down. Look at what Islam teaches today about the record of Genesis - very much slanted against the Jews and in favour of the Arabs.

Gosh. If only your theory accounted for albino Africans, or tanning, then it would only have to face the hurdle of explaining what "new information" means?

Albinoism is a defect, not a return to white skin. Tanning occurs amongst various colours of people, not just whites. It is not a reverse in genetics.

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!

Now this is simplistic, yes, but as far as we know, this is how genes work. So, I have to ask again - what exactly does "genetic information" mean

I far as I can determine, the error here lies with it being simplistic. If genetics were a matter of three or four variables, then you could make something of it. But as it involves enormous complex arrangements, interacting, then the chance of getting a better or even as good 'word' by mutation seems extremely unlikely. Poking a nail into your computer might improve its performance, but I doubt it.

babyvaio

Maybe this is worhty of noticing.


The mathematician Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility of faking imaginary things as real in math as:

In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its physical correlate.

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote:

I far as I can determine, the error here lies with it being simplistic. If genetics were a matter of three or four variables, then you could make something of it. But as it involves enormous complex arrangements, interacting, then the chance of getting a better or even as good 'word' by mutation seems extremely unlikely. Poking a nail into your computer might improve its performance, but I doubt it.

(weak!)

babyvaio

First of all, the creation of this universe from nothingness is revealed in the Qur'an as follows:

He(Allah) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth…(Surat al-Anam: 101)

Another important aspect revealed in the Qur'an fourteen centuries before the modern discovery of the Big Bang and findings related to it is that when it was created, the universe occupied a very tiny volume:

Do those who are disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that We made from water every living thing? So will they not have faith? (Surat al-Anbiya': 30)

There is a very important choice of words in the original Arabic whose translation is given above. The word ratk translated as "sewn to" means "mixed in each, blended" in Arabic dictionaries. It is used to refer to two different substances that make up a whole. The phrase "we unstitched" is the verb fatk in Arabic and implies that something comes into being by tearing apart or destroying the structure of ratk. The sprouting of a seed from the soil is one of the actions to which this verb is applied.

Let us take a look at the verse again with this knowledge in mind. In the verse, sky and earth are at first subject to the status of ratk. They are separated (fatk) with one coming out of the other. Intriguingly, cosmologists speak of a "cosmic egg" that consisted of all the matter in the universe prior to the Big Bang. In other words, all the heavens and earth were included in this egg in a condition of ratk. This cosmic egg exploded violently causing its matter to fatk and in the process created the structure of the whole universe.

Another truth revealed in the Qur'an is the expansion of the universe that was discovered in the late 1920s. Hubble's discovery of the red shift in the spectrum of starlight is revealed in the Qur'an as :

It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)

In short, the findings of modern science support the truth that is revealed in the Qur'an and not materialist dogma. Materialists may claim this all to be "coincidence" but the plain fact is that the universe came into being as a result of an act of creation on the part of Allah.

pH

Ahhh J C, I guess this is how 'creation science' works ...

You take this:

More recently, some researchers have proposed that the extinct creatures actively regulated their body temperature like mammals.

And from it deduce:

So the largest Dinosaurs were mammals.

Is that how this science of yours works?

[For the record]
The mammals are the class of vertebrate animals characterized by the presence of mammary glands, which in females produce milk for the nourishment of young; the presence of hair or fur; and endothermic or "warm-blooded" bodies. The brain regulates endothermic and circulatory systems, including a four-chambered heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

robindch

> 5 fingers on a hand is again 5 fingers, nobody talks about 101 fingers in base-2, do we?

You mightn't, but plenty of us dealing with binary (base-2) or hex (base-16) every day, do.

babyvaio

robindch wrote:

> 5 fingers on a hand is again 5 fingers, nobody talks about 101 fingers in base-2, do we?

You mightn't, but plenty of us dealing with binary (base-2) or hex (base-16) every day, do.

I'm one of them, but let me ask you now: How many fingers there are on one of your hands?

PS I honestly don't expect any answer, but if you do answer it, then please use an ordinary human language so that even a 2 or 3 years old kid understands you clearly. We should forget about abstract math and the logical structures for a moment and talk about real world - physics or numerical math at least.

robindch

> But when the scientific establishment seeks to gag debate

...<snore>...

Anybody who's interested in what actually happened -- and learn how the political wing of the creationist movement can work up a good controversy out of thin air -- see:

http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/2005/12/sternberg-saga-continues.html

which is the best-researched article on the topic that I've seen with plenty of links to creationist websites backing up each twist with evidence from the supposedly-wronged side.

robindch

> if you do answer it, then please use an ordinary human language so that
> even a 2 or 3 years old kid understands you clearly. We should forget
> about abstract math and the logical structures for a moment and talk
> about real world - physics or numerical math at least.

I'm sorry, but there are some concepts which are too difficult for a two or three year-old to understand. Despite regularly appearing to be the opposite, this isn't a toddler-level debate!

BC made an incorrect statement about mathematical logic and I pointed out where it was wrong. If my response -- which I made as clear as I could in the time I had -- cannot be understood by one side of the discussion here, then it might be worthwhile for these good people to spend some time studying it through the links I provided, before venturing out in public with opinions.

BTW, there are ۵ fingers on each of my hands

aidan24326

babyvaio wrote:

It's the fact that you can feel it, see it and how no doubt about it.
5 fingers on a hand is again 5 fingers, nobody talks about 101 fingers in base-2, do we?

Base-10 is no more logically valid than any other. It came to be used presumably due to our 10 fingers. The fact that you can 'feel' it doesn't make it any more 'real' than any other base.

Had we evolved with 8 fingers we would be using the base-8 system and thinking in octal. Which number system one adopts is thus arbitrary, and in our case has been decided by the fact that we just happen to have 10 fingers. Presumably it's not out of the question that we could have had 8 fingers instead, I can't explain why 5 on each hand turned out to be the best arrangement.

babyvaio

aidan24326 wrote:

Base-10 is no more logically valid than any other. It came to be used presumably due to our 10 fingers. The fact that you can 'feel' it doesn't make it any more 'real' than any other base.

Had we evolved with 8 fingers we would be using the base-8 system and thinking in octal. Which number system one adopts is thus arbitrary, and in our case has been decided by the fact that we just happen to have 10 fingers. Presumably it's not out of the question that we could have had 8 fingers instead, I can't explain why 5 on each hand turned out to be the best arrangement.

Well that was my point, but since we still do "measure" the real world in base-10, then why go and mess things up with others?

:rolleyes: + :mad: :mad: :mad: =? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

So let's leave the numbers and the whole alphabet and let's use only smileys....

aidan24326

I am new to this thread and it is an interesting debate.

But reading posts by JC, for someone who claims to be a scientist your understanding of biology and evolution appears pretty ropey to say the least. Either that or you are twisting and turning things in an effort to allow them fit with your already established faith that creation was all the work of 'God'.

BTW, it's intersting that you refer to this God as 'he'. Why a supernatural entity capable of creating the universe ought be burdened with such a parochial title is unclear to me. I should think this entity more suited to a description of 'it' rather than 'he', should 'it' exist.

Also would you not agree that postulating 'God' as the creator of everything fails to explain anything? No doubt you won't agree but it's a reasonable question. In an attempt to explain complexity you postulate the existence of something even more complex. I fail to see how that is at all helpful to our quest for understanding.

And I do take your earlier point that there are some very difficult and very awkward unanswered questions in science. But I prefer to think that we simply lack the understanding and knowledge to explain these problems YET.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Their presuppositions are accepting of evolution as a means of creation. Had they real convictions of a mature creation, they would have had to wrestle with that before accepting evolution. As you, or maybe it was robin, pointed out, it is not an issue for most.

I am unsure what you mean by "real convictions" here. All the Abrahamic religions share the same creation story - including all of mainstream Christianity. How does a Catholic come to favour the materialist explanation over the Biblical one? Are his/her religious convictions not "real"?

wolfsbane wrote:

I expect religions to defend their dogma. But it is hypocritical for science to do so, why still claiming to be open to challenge and review of their theories.

To me the field of science is part of our civil liberties, the area where debate and challenge of theories should be welcomed. If religions want no debate about any of their ideas, then that is up to them. They should know better, since we as sinners are prone to misunderstanding and error. But it is up to them. They will not effect my life one way or the other. But when the scientific establishment seeks to gag debate in order to be able to continue to indoctrinate our children with anti-Christian assertions about our origins, I take that as a direct attack on my liberties.

It may be, as you say, that the field of science is part of our civil liberties - but it remains a technical field. It is not open to all possible debate, any more than any specific field within it is - geology is not interested in aerodynamics, and claims that aerodynamics experts are being repressed because their articles do not appear in geology journals are clearly silly.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is not a big movement amongst other faiths, but there certainly are Jewish and Islamic Creationist movements.

There does not appear to be an equivalent of the "Creation Science" movement.

wolfsbane wrote:

The question is whether or not the scientific arguments of Creation Science ought to be debated, not the motivations of the movement. No one expects science to comment on religious matters. We do expect it to discuss disputed theories about how all we see came to be as it is. That is the area where no debate is permitted - all must accept the dogma of evolution.

Not at all. No-one has to accept the "dogma" of evolution - a very silly claim indeed. It is normal for scientists working in a field that involves evolution to accept the current paradigm. Obviously, there are people constantly challenging this or that part of evolution - some of these are very broad challenges, some are very narrow. Some challenge the mechanisms, others the concepts - but they all have one thing in common that sets them apart from Creationists - their challenges are scientific, whereas the Creationist challenge is polemic. As a result, their challenges are published in scientific publications, and the Creationist challenge is published in polemical publications.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is the sleight of hand - to make it a religious matter. What if Creation Science had control of the scientific establishment and we objected to evolution being debated, claiming that it is an atheistic ideology? We will not discuss the scientific arguments evolutionists raise, for they only raise them to further their ideology? Evolution should be kept to philosophy books, not science books, nor cookery books?

1. If Creation Science had done as much as real science
2. And Creation Science required the Biblical God as part of its method
3. And the challenges from "atheistic" science did not add anything to Creation Science or produce anything useful

Then you would be right to do as you suggest!

Interesting, by the way, that you refer to evolution as "atheistic" (not for the first time) - if Creationism is not a religious matter, why is that relevant?

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm glad you acknowledge the less-than-open mindset in academia. Let me suggest however, that the reason Creationism has had so much trouble in breaking through the gagging barrier, as compared to plate tectonics, is that the vested interests go far beyond the egos of the individuals who held to theories opposed to plate tectonics: Creationism faces the egos of most scientists, as they are not open to the idea of anything that would indicate the world was created as the Bible said. They would be opening themselves to very uncomfortable implications - that the Bible is right about the other things it asserts, especially the God to whom we all must give account. Much better to hold to the safety blanket of evolution.

Except, as has been pointed out repeatedly, science started off with Biblical assumptions, and progressively abandoned them, rather than springing into life full-blown and atheistic.

Sigh. Wolfsbane, I don't have a problem, from an atheist perspective, with the Bible being accurate! If all the apparent history in the Bible is correct, that doesn't shake my unbelief. If the Biblical account of the Flood were correct in a geological sense (ie, that there was a worldwide flood c.4000BP), that isn't a problem - it's just interesting. I can happily explain how it would be possible for a human author to write down a reasonably accurate account of a global flood without any divine intervention whatsoever.

The Genesis account of creation simply doesn't contain enough information to make it testable, and so I haven't bothered challenging the whole "six days" story as such.

The Flood account is testable, and doesn't stand up. That's not a problem for me, because I don't expect the Bible to be inerrant. But it wouldn't be a problem for me if it did, either, because I don't expect the Bible to be completely fictional, either.

I hope you can understand what I'm saying here. Your thesis that I am forced to reject the Biblical account of the Flood because its correctness would force me to accept God's existence doesn't hold up. I can satisfactorily explain Biblical accuracy in my atheistic worldview, and therefore have no a priori reason to reject it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

babyvaio wrote:

Well that was my point, but since we still do "measure" the real world in base-10, then why go and mess things up with others?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'mess things up' do you mean this thread or things in general? As robindch sapien and others were pointing out symbols are meaningless without context. We do not measure the 'real world' in base-10 due to any deep underlying significance in the base-10 number system. At least none that I've ever heard of. It just happens to be convenient for our purposes. You think in base-10 arithmetic for the same reason you think in your native language, because it's what you learned and were conditioned into using as a child.

Anyway, this is drifting a bit off-topic methinks.

Scofflaw

babyvaio wrote:

Well that was my point, but since we still do "measure" the real world in base-10, then why go and mess things up with others?

Sure - 12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 5.5 yards to a rod, 40 rods to a furlong, 8 furlongs to a mile.....or 16 ounces to the pound, 14 pounds to the stone, 112 pounds to the (long) hundredweight. 12 pence to the shilling, 20 shillings to the pound, or 21 to the guinea. 60 minutes to the hour, or the degree, 12 or 24 hours to the day, 360 degrees to the circle. 8 base-2 (digital) bits to the byte, 1024 bytes to the kilobyte.

Oh! You mean metric and decimal only...a bit limited, but there's no accounting for taste.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

pH
Ahhh J C, I guess this is how 'creation science' works ...

You take this:
Quote:
More recently, some researchers have proposed that the extinct creatures actively regulated their body temperature like mammals.
And from it deduce:
Quote:
So the largest Dinosaurs were mammals.

Is that how this science of yours works?

[For the record]
The mammals are the class of vertebrate animals characterized by the presence of mammary glands, which in females produce milk for the nourishment of young; the presence of hair or fur; and endothermic or "warm-blooded" bodies. The brain regulates endothermic and circulatory systems


NO, that is not how Creation Science ‘works’.

Creation Science Palaeontologists and Palaeo-anatomists have long maintained that many large Dinosaurs were warm-blooded and had hair follicles in their skin. In addition they also maintained that the general physiognomies of many Dinosaurs were similar to large mammals today.

The importance of the article that Robin kindly referenced at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5245950.stm is that it officially confirms what Creation Science already knew about large Dinosaurs – that they were warm-blooded mammals.

Even first principles would suggest that the relatively small surface to volume ratios of large rotund Dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus would mean that their core organs could never be heated exothermally and they would succumb to lowered metabolic rates if they weren’t warm-blooded!!!:D


aidan24326
BTW, it's intersting that you refer to this God as 'he'. Why a supernatural entity capable of creating the universe ought be burdened with such a parochial title is unclear to me. I should think this entity more suited to a description of 'it' rather than 'he', should 'it' exist.

The Creator God of the Universe consists of three male persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is therefore grammatically correct to use the masculine gender to refer to Him.


aidan24326
And I do take your earlier point that there are some very difficult and very awkward unanswered questions in science. But I prefer to think that we simply lack the understanding and knowledge to explain these problems YET.

Creation Science and ID proponents have made considerable progress in providing OBJECTIVE PROOF that living organisms could only originate through the agency of an effectively omniscient and omnipotent entity.

Your acknowledgment of the enormous gaps in the understanding of conventional science about how life could materialistically originate is correct and commendable.


Scofflaw
Obviously, there are people constantly challenging this or that part of evolution - some of these are very broad challenges, some are very narrow. Some challenge the mechanisms, others the concepts - but they all have one thing in common that sets them apart from Creationists - their challenges are scientific, whereas the Creationist challenge is polemic. As a result, their challenges are published in scientific publications, and the Creationist challenge is published in polemical publications.

Creation Science challenges all aspects of Evolution.
ID challenges only the materialistic aspect of Evolution.

BOTH do so on a SCIENTIFIC BASIS – and Creation Scientists publish their findings in their own peer-reviewed scientific journals.


The following quote is from 'Darwinism Refuted' at
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted6.php
The design of the avian lung proves that birds aren’t descended from reptiles and so another great Evolutionary Idea ‘bites the dust’.

DISCUSS !!!

"THE UNIQUE STRUCTURE OF AVIAN LUNGS

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.
Bird lungs function in a way that is completely contrary to the way the lungs of land animals function. The latter inhale and exhale through the same passages. The air in bird lungs, in contrast, passes continuously through the lung in one direction. This is made possible by special air sacs throughout the lung. ………..This design is peculiar to birds, which need high levels of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for this structure to have evolved from reptile lungs, because any creature with an "intermediate" form between the two types of lung would be unable to breathe.

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its bidirectional air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectional flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a creature to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.
………………………..In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.
Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:
The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage…………………..
The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

babyvaio

J C wrote:

The following quote is from 'Darwinism Refuted' at
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted6.php
The design of the avian lung proves that birds aren’t descended from reptiles and so another great Evolutionary Idea ‘bites the dust’.

DISCUSS !!!

"THE UNIQUE STRUCTURE OF AVIAN LUNGS

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.
Bird lungs function in a way that is completely contrary to the way the lungs of land animals function. The latter inhale and exhale through the same passages. The air in bird lungs, in contrast, passes continuously through the lung in one direction. This is made possible by special air sacs throughout the lung. ………..This design is peculiar to birds, which need high levels of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for this structure to have evolved from reptile lungs, because any creature with an "intermediate" form between the two types of lung would be unable to breathe.

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its bidirectional air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectional flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a creature to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.
………………………..In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.
Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:
The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage…………………..
The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

That's actually a very good site. I was reading last nite this article and I have to say that it is very good.

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_01.html

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Its not, but then again there is no biblical flood anywhere in Egyptian history. There is no mention of it, there is no substancial break in Egyptian history, there is no physical evidence of it.

So, nothing supports that Egypt experienced a massive extinction in 2300 BCE, and a lot of evidence it didn't experience anything like that. So most likely it didn't

I agree. Supports my view that the Egyptian empire arose post-Flood.

Apparently you don't see any reason to believe anything except that what is written down in the Old Testement Bible, so your refusal to accept 3000 years of very well documented (the Eyptians like to write down everything) Egyptian and Greek written history is hardly surprising.

Just pointing out that these secular records are conflicting, indicating that they cannot be relied on for absolute dating.

This means that a woman of that time could produce a child once every 3 years. Between 15 and 35 (average fertility range) a woman could produce no more than approx 7 children

Have you forgotten the still significant longevity?

7 is close to 10 no? Unfortunately for Creationists another factor comes into play, infant mortality rates.

With child mortality rates in non-developed cultures, it would be necessary for a mature human female to produce approx 30-60 children to ensure that at least 10 survived till breeding age.

You make a lot of assumptions about ancient societies. These were the folk who developed farming, built the pyramids, organised their societies into empires. Much of their knowledge was lost over time. They are not the equivalent of today's third-world non-developed cultures. I see no problem for these people rapidly expanding for centuries.

The reality (the non-biblical reality) is that population growth was much slower back then, and for long periods of human history population growth was pretty much static.

You know that, then? You have the statistical records?

The food need to feed 2 million animals for over 190 days, including carnivors that don't each grain?

The estimate is about 16,000 animals. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

This 10 football fields wide supply of food was then supposed to last for another few years supplying the 2 million animals (and 6 humans) with food while they established the first settlements and farms? Farms need to feed their rapidly increasing population?

The much more realistic figure of 16,000 greatly reduces the food necessary on the Ark, and allows sufficient until the first harvest. Also available were the marine life that would not have been destroyed in the Flood.

Ah yes, I was waiting for this, the old "God did it" excuse

No, I'm not suggesting 'manna from heaven', just that God could have prevented crop-disease, drought, etc., from inhibiting the rapid expansion in any way. Christians see Him doing so at times today - secularists put it down to happy co-incidence, of course.

Why did God not just make all the sinners disappear, and then stick a big sign up saying "Don't sin" ... it seems a lot easier than all this silliness.

He did it by this means, giving a picture of the spiritual salvation that comes by trusting in Christ. Those who do so are sheltered from His coming wrath and brought out to inherit the New Earth.
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. See also
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:26-30;&version=50;

No seeds would have survived outside, as I told JC the flood started in winter when no plants would have been in the process of seeding.

Where do you get this idea that it was winter?

As for the seed in Ark, perhaps you can explain how the Ark managed to hold seeds to feed 2 million animals (along with the 2 million animals for that matter).

See above on 2 million. On seeds surving outside, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0916.asp

Also, since the flood ended in autumn what did the 2 million animals eat for nearly an entire year until any seeds could have been planted in the following spring and havested in the following autumn?

Where do you get this seasonal dating?

Er, what Bible have you been reading? Everything was dead. All land creatures where killed. That is what the Bible says, even if you don't accept that all plants were killed. But logically they were, all land plants must have been killed as 190 days of pitch blackness due to 5 kilometers of water will do that to yeah

Yes, that is correct.

Noah and his family could not have hunted or killed any of the 2 million animals they took onto the Ark since they needed these animals to repopulated the world with the approx 2 million species we have today (actually its a lot larger than 2 million, but I'm assuming YEC will say some of these speceis are specialised versions of the original Ark species). Neither could any of the other animals have hunted each other. I would love to know who Noah managed to get hundreds of thousands of carnivor animals to not hunt and kill each other. It would have been at least 6 or 7 months until the mammals could have produced offspring. And then you still have to make sure hunting and killing is keep at an absolutely minimum to ensure species growth rate matches what we know from non-bilical study.

So sex was banned on the Ark? All the 8000 types of animal could not have had off-spring nor even be ready to deliver on exit from the Ark?

Yes, the killing would be restrained by God to ensure each type had at least a generation or so of existence. But the rapid population explosion would have happened among the predated species especially, keeping ahead of the predator increase. Enough for man and beast.

Did Noah shepard 2 million (increasing all the time) animals? For how long?

No, lions and monkeys and zebras, etc. could be left to look after themselves. In fact everything could. Noah was able to pick what he wanted to domesticate.

pH

J C wrote:

The importance of the article that Robin kindly referenced at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5245950.stm is that it officially confirms what Creation Science already knew about large Dinosaurs – that they were warm-blooded mammals.

No it doesn't, mammals aren't solely characterized by their warm blood.

The design of the avian lung proves that birds aren’t descended from reptiles and so another great Evolutionary Idea ‘bites the dust’.

Go read about Birds and then go read about Reptiles

OK, so you read the section 'Evolution' on the birds page right? Now come back to us with the bit that says 'Birds evolved from reptiles'.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

aidan24326
And I do take your earlier point that there are some very difficult and very awkward unanswered questions in science. But I prefer to think that we simply lack the understanding and knowledge to explain these problems YET.

Creation Science and ID proponents have made considerable progress in providing OBJECTIVE PROOF that living organisms could only originate through the agency of an effectively omniscient and omnipotent entity.

Have you? Oh good! Let's see some of this objective proof, then...and it will need to be better than what you have provided below!

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Obviously, there are people constantly challenging this or that part of evolution - some of these are very broad challenges, some are very narrow. Some challenge the mechanisms, others the concepts - but they all have one thing in common that sets them apart from Creationists - their challenges are scientific, whereas the Creationist challenge is polemic. As a result, their challenges are published in scientific publications, and the Creationist challenge is published in polemical publications.

Creation Science challenges all aspects of Evolution.
ID challenges only the materialistic aspect of Evolution.

BOTH do so on a SCIENTIFIC BASIS – and Creation Scientists publish their findings in their own peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Mmm. And UFOlogists publish in their peer-reviewed journals.

J C wrote:

The following quote is from 'Darwinism Refuted' at
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted6.php
The design of the avian lung proves that birds aren’t descended from reptiles and so another great Evolutionary Idea ‘bites the dust’.

DISCUSS !!!....
The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Dear oh dear....once again you have confused the unanswered question with the impossibility of answer. JC - to do what Darwin suggests (Darwin! he's long dead, and science has moved on, while YECs haven't), we would need to prove that there are no possible intermediary pathways.

What you (or rather someone very slightly more intelligent) have done here, instead, is suggested an intermediate pathway that doesn't work, and then claimed that this invalidates all possible pathways except your preferred answer.

How very silly!

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

Aha, the good old BBC helps out again today! This time, with this report about a team of scientists from the US, Japan and the Phillipines who have identified a gene which helps rice to survive being underwater for up to two weeks:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4777561.stm

Can't wait to see if this story is picked up by some crowd like AiG and mis-quoted, mis-applied and generally boiled down until it's found to provide "conclusive proof" that genes go "downhill" over time and that "undegraded" rice was the only available foodstuff for noah and his mates after they crawled out of the ark after surviving that extended period of dampness described towards the beginning of the bible.

aidan24326

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Creationism faces the egos of most scientists, as they are not open to the idea of anything that would indicate the world was created as the Bible said.

..umm...that's because every shred of evidence suggests that the world quite simply wasn't created as the bible says.